Calacanis: Apple will buy Tesla for $75 billion

“Angel investor and entrepreneur Jason Calacanis believes Apple will purchase Tesla for the eye-popping sum of $75 billion within the next 18 months,” Nicole Arce reports for Tech Times.

“Calacanis admits he does not have access to valuable inside information from Tesla or Apple, nor does he own shares from any of the companies,” Arce reports. “In fact, the closest thing he gets to both is the two Teslas he purchased from the electric car company and the $3,000 worth of Apple products he buys every year. Still, Calacanis believes Apple is going after Elon Musk’s brainchild, and he cites several reasons why.”

“Given Tim Cook’s ‘obsession’ with renewable energy, Calacanis says it only makes sense that Apple is interested in buying Tesla,” Arce reports. “He also believes Tesla’s plan to take its five-inch thick batteries out of the Model S and into people’s garages to provide cheap electricity could further convince Apple to lay the $75 billion for Tesla. And given Apple’s reputation for introducing revolutionary new products in every market it enters, notwithstanding its lack of experience – think music, smartphones, and retail, Calacanis says Apple is the only company Musk will not be able to turn down.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Rethinking the Apple Car. Rethinking Apple. – February 18, 2015
Forget the rumor: Apple will never build cars – February 17, 2015
The real battle Apple is waging in autos – February 17, 2015
O’Leary: Yes, give me the Apple car – February 17, 2015
Will Apple become a car maker or a platform/content aggregator? – February 17, 2015
An Apple Car is exactly what investors want – February 17, 2015
Apple’s electric car dreams may bring auto industry nightmares – February 17, 2015
Jean-Louis Gassée: The fantastic Apple Car is a fantasy – February 16, 2015
Apple is already positioned to be a car company in many ways – February 16, 2015
Why Tim Cook would want to build an Apple Car – February 14, 2015
Apple working on self-driving electric car, source says – February 14, 2015
Apple’s project ‘Titan’ gears up to challenge Tesla in electric cars – February 13, 2015
Apple’s next big thing: The Apple Car? – February 13, 2015
Apple hiring auto engineers and designers – February 13, 2015

33 Comments

  1. Crazy, but here’s what would make sense.

    Apple “merges” with Tesla, keeping it a separate company. Elon Musk concentrates on Space X, using funds from Apple. At some point in the future, this too could merge with Apple, as the first corporation to lead our way to and from a Type 1 civilization on towards a Type 2… Saving all of humanity.

    Just dreaming, a little bit.

    1. Ridiculous. Apple wants nothing to do with SpaceX, and it’s a completely separate company, so why would Apple money be used for it?

      Apple isn’t interested in buying Tesla. Apple was/is interested in Tesla’s battery technology, which Tesla just released all of its patents royalty-free for anyone to use. Now explain again why Apple needs to spend $75B on Tesla? So it can build a car?

      Um, no.

      1. My comment was a sarcastic response to the article, by proposing my own ridiculous version. At least in my version we get to live in space. 😛 That’s the point in dreaming, anything can happen, and I get to be Superman.

        You were supposed to share your dreams and play along, not try to make sense. You still have a chance. But I get to be captain.

  2. Jason Calacanis lost all credibility when he admitted his claim that he had access to the new iPad was a hoax in 2010.

    At least here he’s admitting upfront that he’s just talking out of his ass.

  3. If Apple ever gets serious about revolutionizing the car business, fingers crossed they abandon batteries with electricity coming from coal fired plants …

    … Into the FUEL OF THE FUTURE: HYDROGEN. 🙂

    1. Be careful. Hydrogen is NOT a source fuel. It is a STORAGE fuel. You make hydrogen FROM water using something else. These days that something else is typically a carbon fuel, which of course defeats the entire purpose and is NOT ‘going green’ at all.

      The same exact problem exists for ‘electric’ cars. You plug them into some electricity source, but what MADE that electricity? Was it COAL? Then again you’ve defeated the entire purpose.

      IN FACT: If you FAKE ‘go green’ and use some secondary fuel source you’ve BURNED MORE CARBON FUEL than if you’d simply used the source carbon fuel in the first place. This is precisely why the carbon fuel industry isn’t going insane lobbying their puppet government to stop electric and fuel cell cars. The same goes for corn derived ethanol. ALL of the above burn more carbon fuels than if you’d just used the source carbon fuel in the first place. This makes the carbon fuel industry MORE money while they laugh and laugh at we ignorant consumer. hahahahaha…

      1. There are advantages to electric cars even if charged by coal or other carbon-based generators.

        The internal combustion engine that we know today converts about 10% of the energy stored in its fuel into energy that actually moves the car. The rest is dissipated as heat (80%) and friction (10%). Granted, voltage drop on power lines causes about 50% loss of electricity during transmission, but by my math, that still leaves electricity as a net win in terms of efficiency.

        1. Did you take into account the energy conversion rate going from coal/gas/oil to electricity? The power line voltage drop comes afterward.

          And what is the energy conversion rate going from the electric line through the electric motor to move the car? You’ve still got heat and friction, although considerably less. Then of course, there’s the cost of energy when creating the batteries, which are also expensive to make and replace.

          In each case we’re talking about full systems with many points of energy loss that are not necessarily linear along the path of the energy.

          I wish I was an expert on this stuff. I look at it from the point of view of someone who studies systems in general. I have learned a few things from a local professor I know who can quote you all of the above figures from heart. But he’s not handily available to me at the moment.

          1. Honestly, how much energy is needed to harvest fossil fuels, ship them to refineries, the refining process itself, transport the refined fuel to the pump, etc.? You really think gasoline engines use LESS energy?

            1. Less energy than what? You’ve lost me. Less energy than electric cars that actually depend upon a source energy of gasoline? If so, yes that is my point! The total system EFFICIENCY is what we want to know. Burning the gasoline directly inside the car is MORE EFFICIENT than burning it at some plant to generate electricity to send over a power line to a car that then charges its battery which then spins a motor which spins the car’s wheels.

              This conversation is coming off as a desperate justification of electric cars running off source fossil fuels, which of course suggests that you’re invested in the carbon fuel industry. If that is your point, you’re going to lose. The only good point of using electric cars would be to run them on electricity generated from renewable, NON-CARBON source fuels. The end.

            2. You were making a point that a lot of energy is lost just getting the electricity from the plant to the car.

              And I pointed out that getting crude oil from the ground to your gas tank also uses up a lot of energy.

              And yes, I agree, the point is lost when you have an electric car that gets electricity from a fossil fuel burning plant. So how about, included in the price of the car, Apple adds a solar panel to one of their farms to feed back into the grid?

      2. EVEN if you make the electricity with coal, you are STILL better than a gasoline powered car.

        (1) The pollution can be cleaned up/disposed of IN ONE PLACE (No, I don’t mean “NIMBY”)
        (2) If better sources of electricity are made, then obviously your car doesn’t have to change. You can’t easily change a gasoline car to use some other sort of fuel.

        (BTW, I am probably far more right wing than you are on many issues.)

        1. I agree about the pollution factor.

          I agree about not having to change your car. An excellent point.

          As for wings, I don’t play that 1 dimensional game. Some of my thinking is very ‘conservative’ while some of my other thinking gets tossed in the ‘liberal’ box. Typically this ‘green’ thinking stuff is tossed into the ‘liberal’ box where as I consider it extremely conservative from the point of view of human survival. IOW: I like to think, versus play contemporary cultural games, one of which is called ‘politics’. I’m annoying that way.

      3. Excellent points, Derek.

        Fully aware all GREEN fuels have a carbon mother.

        But from my limited understanding seem to recall Hydrogen uses less carbon in the total process and the fuel cells that power cars only emits water.

        Had the good fortune to test drive a $1.5 million experimental 100% Hydrogen SUV in the 1990s. The ride was soft, engine responsive (70 mph) and quiet as a church mouse. Simply, unbelievable.

        Batteries are bigger than fuel cells, think landfills, and both use carbon on the front end. Hope someone figures out the BEST GREEN car solution.

        My money is on Apple if they take the plunge …

        1. I’m afraid I have no idea about the energy conversion of carbon fuels to H2 and am too burned from the day to look it up. But H2 fuel cells are going to be critical and incredibly useful as we progress into the future. Obviously, they won’t be practical replacements for batteries in all cases. I still find the idea of fuel cells in laptop computers to be ridiculous do to the recharging issues.

  4. “Calacanis admits he does not have access to valuable inside information from Tesla or Apple….” Yeah right. Calacanis used to literally live next door to Elon in back when he lived on Bel Air Rd

  5. I don’t think that makes any sense.

    First, Apple doesn’t make huge acquisitions like this. That’s never been a part of Apple’s business – which has been very successful without playing the major acquisitions game. Apple would need an exceptionally good reason to break that rule.

    Also, saying Cook has an ‘obsession’ with renewable energy is a stretch. I’d say that Apple uses a lot of electricity and feels obligated to source it ethically. Does buying Tesla actually help Apple fulfill its energy needs, material or ethical, any better than it is doing already? How?

    Cook is a thoughtful executive. I don’t see him just throwing billions around, trying to buy up every company associated with the buzz word “renewable energy”, with no good business reason for it. That just seems like a really expensive and impulsive thing for Cook to do.

    1. I don’t think Apple will buy Tesla, however…

      “First, Apple doesn’t make huge acquisitions like this. That’s never been a part of Apple’s business “

      Precedent was set after they bought Beats for almost $3 billion.

      “Does buying Tesla actually help Apple fulfill its energy needs, material or ethical, any better than it is doing already? How?”

      It would be a huge bullet point to counter the more extreme Greenpeace nuts who say Apple isn’t doing enough. They still won’t be satisfied and won’t shut up, but they’d have even less credibility when they open their mouths.

  6. Electric cars = batteries ≠ renewable energy.
    Batteries = coal + nuclear or whatever is your source of electric grid power. Sheesh, why do people constantly conflate these things.

  7. Tesla buy; not likely anytime soon.

    Now, could Apple be developing new technology battery &/or electric powered entire propulsion systems which could be sold to all auto companies? My guess is yes, but it is a guess.

  8. If it’s Apple’s intent to move into vehicle production, buying (devouring, enveloping, etc) Tesla would be a great idea.

    That way, they’re not starting from the ground up, and instead building on what Tesla has already done.

    Though there’s still the huge caveat if Apple is even interested in entering a very difficult market.

  9. Apple will buy a controlling stake in Ford, with the blessing of the Ford family (which is necessary) in order to develop Ford electric and gasoline self driving and autonomous vehicles. Ford will welcome the partnership and Apple’s absorption of the development costs. Kind of like the thing that Apple is doing with IBM and the iPad, but with an investment stake of the stock purchases to have the operational and executive autonomy over the developmental issues. It can work because Ford is a single marque entity, unlike Fiat-Chrysler and GM. The Lincoln – Ford relationship is different compared to the other two biggies’ marques. Also Apple likes to associate itself with ‘innovator’ iconic identities; AT&T (Alexander Graham Bell) for the iPhone, Ford (Henry Ford) for this new vehicle system integration whatsis doohickey. Now….you dorks can squawk all you want about Henry Ford’s antisemitism, but don’t overlook what a lying rat son of a bitch Steve Jobs was.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.