Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Elon Musk: If You Don't Make It at Tesla, You Go Work at Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good. Then he should welcome Apple getting into this industry (assuming hey are), even if it means losing some employees to them. The more the merrier right?
Set the record straight for who? It's not the general public's business who Tesla or Apple hire or if they poach from each other. But keep in mind previously Musk said Tesla was poaching way more Apple employees than Apple was poaching Tesla employees. Now he says Apple's just taking people he fired. Apple of course is doing what any company should be doing....not talking about hiring practices.
Last edited:
Truth. The battery issue is very real. There needs to be better ways to dispose of the things for sure. As far as where the energy comes from? Optimally, the sun. This is why the home battery pack is exciting. Realistically , currently most get their energy from coal.
Musk is a Bond villian. He just hasn't shown his cards yet.
If your car breaks down while driving, you risk crashing. Electric cars don't rely on as many moving parts, most notably the driveshaft and transmission. That makes them definitely safer. As it is, electric cars are getting cheaper, and big corporations are looking into producing them, which will really drop the prices. And I'm confident they'll eventually replace ICE unless something else new comes along. Within my lifetime (I have a while to live), I'll bet the U.S. will pass 90% electric car usage.
Chip on my shoulder about mobile devices? Yeah, I just said I do. A bunch of addicts everywhere. Same with gaming PCs and Hearthstone and WoW, only more widespread, and people can do it while they drive. Yes, I've got an iPhone, and I don't use it while I'm talking to people IRL or spend huge amounts of time on it. For that reason, I might as well have a cheap Android phone.
Last edited:
Oh I don't think he's not welcoming Apple, I have no doubt Apple is happily using all the technology Musk made open source. I don't see Apple making stuff open source and giving it to Microsoft, no instead I see them making inflammatory remarks about refrigerators and toasters. At this point I'd say Musk is helping Apple out much more than Apple is helping Musk.
Most likely the same ones that Apple fired. They both picked up each other's rejects.
It's one thing to talk smack when Apple is actually competing against them. It's another thing entirely to talk smack about a company rumored to be competing against him. The message that Musk is trying to give is that the rumors about Apple planning to compete with him don't scare him in the slightest. He also want to say that the supposed defections to Apple don't make him lose any sleep. IMO, a more neutral message along the lines of "employees will ultimately do what makes them happy so if they're happier than Apple, then more power to them" would have been more effective at showing that he's not concerned.
As an example, look at the response that came out of Cupertino in 2013 when Apple's stock fell precipitously. We heard nothing. To the consternation of some, Apple appeared unperturbed about its stock erasing so much shareholder value. There have been cracks in Apple's armor, though. In the days leading up to the preview of the Galaxy S5, there was a lot of hype surrounding the event. Phil Schiller made a big issue about the number of account log-ins required to the use the phone's various services. Against a backdrop of a lot of chatter about the beginning of the end of the iPhone, that comment smacked of desperation on Apple's part.
So in summary, it's not that talking smack about Apple is a sign of fear. I don't think that's true. It's just a part of being a CEO. Steve Jobs did that all the time. It's that Musk was talking smack about something that was nothing more than rumors, which has the potential to send a message different from what he intends.
Except the massive amount of CO2 needed to produce that additional electricity to power that car. Coal plants, Natural gas fired plants and nuclear power plants aren't disappearing anytime soon. It takes more energy to charge these so called green vehicles. Not 100% efficient. On top of that, if electric cars become more popular, more power plants will need to be built to handle the massive electricity demand. You can't even build a solar plant anymore with all the environmental whackos out there trying to stop every new power plant. Thus the increased demand will cause electricity cost to sky rocket.
isnt he doing that when he says this
He went on to say that it was good Apple was moving toward and investing in a car, saying that it's the "next logical thing" for the company to offer "significant innovation."
Too much time to spend at a station for some. Gasoline is like 100% charge in 5 minutes, and that's with longer range.
Relax, sonny. You’re forgetting that the comments forum is for opinions and observations—even ones that step on your sensitive toes. I’m not criticizing how you amuse yourself, rather I’m comparing Musk’s ambitions to those of Apple’s. You should be thankful that others are addressing real world problems while you’re j**king off to anime. While you’re at it, elaborate on how Apple’s innovations have benefitted us and future generations (I can think of a few). Keep in mind that mass adoption of something doesn’t equate with progress.
This is nonsense, it was nonsense even before the "clean diesel engine" myth was busted. ICEs are only about 20% effective at converting the energy stored in fossil fuels to motion that moves the car forward. That means 80% of the energy is wasted as heat. Electrical motors have about 90% efficiency.
More and more electricity is produced from renewable sources and even the production of electricity by fossil fuels is much more efficient than in a small ICE.
Then you also have to factor in the logistical benefits and low cost of distributing electricity compared to refining and transporting fossil fuels.
Electricity is the most efficient and versatile energy source available, we should use it for as many applications as possible and focus our efforts at figuring out better and better ways to produce it.
I really hope that Musk underestimates Apple because Musk feels that Tesla is invincible (in its respective auto industry) and has zero competition in their league. That's what Microsoft CEO Stave Ballmer thought in 2007 also when he laughed at the newly announced iPhone. He was arrogant and thought no one could knock Microsoft off its perch.
Like Ballmer, Musk is channeling either stupidity, arrogance, or smugness. It only takes one of those to lose the Tesla business empire to someone else. Exactly like Ballmer squandered and destroyed Microsoft's dominant position.
Like Ballmer, Musk is channeling either stupidity, arrogance, or smugness. It only takes one of those to lose the Tesla business empire to someone else. Exactly like Ballmer squandered and destroyed Microsoft's dominant position.
Most people stop to eat, drink, and relieve themselves every 250 miles I would think. Don't forget, that supercharger is free for life. Compared to a $40-60 fill up. I think I'll take the 30 minutes to buy a decent meal with the savings instead of buying fast food.
Besides, that's only for long trips. 95% of the time I'm charging to 100% while I sleep at home. Just like an iPhone.
The Apple Car: Sleek. Magical design. Light weight. Highly reliable.
The Google Car: Sleek. Highly customizable. Makes you watch 30 seconds of ads before starting.
The Old (Balmer days) MS Car: Very plain and comes in brown. Introduced 3 years behind Apple and Google. Known to spontaneously reboot for no apparent reason.
The New Microsoft Car: Very different than what's out there. Comes with MS Office in the dash. You can magnetically stick passengers to the outside of the car.
The Samsung Car: Looks just like the Apple car, but when you tap bumpers with another Samsung car you can share copies of your insurance policy automatically. Comes with a bunch of accessories that are basically worthless and tend to drain the batteries.
The Google Car: Sleek. Highly customizable. Makes you watch 30 seconds of ads before starting.
The Old (Balmer days) MS Car: Very plain and comes in brown. Introduced 3 years behind Apple and Google. Known to spontaneously reboot for no apparent reason.
The New Microsoft Car: Very different than what's out there. Comes with MS Office in the dash. You can magnetically stick passengers to the outside of the car.
The Samsung Car: Looks just like the Apple car, but when you tap bumpers with another Samsung car you can share copies of your insurance policy automatically. Comes with a bunch of accessories that are basically worthless and tend to drain the batteries.
When they make public statements like that, it DOES become the general public's business. The claim was made that Apple "hired away" engineers from Tesla. Is that true? Musk said that Apple hired engineers that were already fired from Tesla. Is that true?
As much as I love Apple products (I currently have an Apple TV, iMac, Macbook Air, iPads, iPhone 6S & 6S+, and apple watches and plan on being first in line for the new Apple TV, I think cars is something Apple isn't prepared for, especially if they're looking at electric and self driving. Tesla has been doing this for ten years now and just now almost ready to really hit it big (if they get that gigafactory up and running soon). It took a lot of mistakes, delays, etc to get to where Tesla is now, and no one else is close to catching up with them in the EV market, even seasoned car makers. Not only that, but I think Apple's products look pretty good, but I have a feeling their car design will look terrible. Not as bad as Google's little car, but not nearly as nice as a Tesla, and they surely wouldn't give it 0-60 in 2.8 second speeds like the Model S.
I honestly wished that 3 years ago Apple would have partnered, invested or outright bought Tesla and kept their team on board. Apple's software in a Tesla would be pretty nice.
Musk comes across as a jerk with these statements, but like someone else said, he can say all he wants, because he knows Apple won't respond. It would give away some of their intentions.
I honestly wished that 3 years ago Apple would have partnered, invested or outright bought Tesla and kept their team on board. Apple's software in a Tesla would be pretty nice.
Musk comes across as a jerk with these statements, but like someone else said, he can say all he wants, because he knows Apple won't respond. It would give away some of their intentions.
And if your car doesn't break down, there is a 100% chance that you will have to refill energy regularly. As of now there is exactly one Supercharger in Berlin, Germany. But do not ever dare to drive eastwards, in the whole of Poland, Czechia and Slovakia there are no Superchargers, no Service Center and no Tesla Stores. Forgive me but I rather take the risk of "more moving parts" in a diesel-engined Volkswagen.
I certainly don't have hard facts to share but crashes as a direct result of a transmission or drive shaft failure are few and far between. Many more, if we are limiting this to a purely mechanical discussion, are as a result of tire/wheel failure which is exactly what EVs ride on. So until vehicles start flying there is absolutely no safety benefit to an EV in regards to vehicle reliability. In fact, you could make a case for the significantly reduced range of an EV vs gasoline powered vehicle as being a safety hazard. I wouldn't exactly love for my mom to be stranded somewhere because she neglected to properly plan out her days errands.
It does NOT take more energy to move an EV than it does an ICEV, not even close. When you factor everything in, getting an EV from point A to point B has used a far less total amount of energy than moving an ICEV the same distance.