News
Buy Tesla or Build One: Why Apple Should Make a Car
Once Upon a Tesla
First there were the rumors that Apple might buy Tesla. Then came the loose talk about Apple employing an army of engineers to build their own car, many apparently leaving Tesla to join the effort and cashing in nicely. Now the rumors about Apple buying Tesla are back. Really, it’s hard to keep up.
It’s difficult to believe that the closed shop and tight-lipped Apple culture would purposely leak this kind of intel. Was it a disgruntled employee? Perhaps it’s just more difficult to keep a secret these days with Social Media eavesdropping as if it were a fly on the wall. Or, maybe it’s nothing at all.
Disclaimer
I drive a Model S and own TSLA stock. I’m an Apple fan, but don’t own APPL. My first computer was a Macintosh Powerbook 165 Series made in 1993. I still have it and it boots up even today. I’ve purchased a vast number of Apple products over the decades and I can’t think of a brand I’m more invested in than Apple. As an admirer of great design they won me over early on and continue to do so. And, I’ll be one of the first to get my wrist on the Apple Watch in April.
Barriers Were Made to be Broken
The idea of Apple designing and building a car is not new. For years many of us have been playing the game, “What would (fill in the blank) look like if Apple made it?” It’s right up there with the design school project to sketch out the “internet enabled refrigerator.” Apple broke the music barrier, the phone barrier and the design barrier for computers. Tesla broke the electric car barrier and they did it in ten years. They are the Jackie Robinson of the auto industry having flung open the door to electric vehicles while traditional auto makers refused to even seriously try.
Certainly there is some effort out of Detroit and others as of late and they should be applauded for realizing their miss. Mr. Musk’s gift of releasing Tesla’s patents was completely in line with the Tesla Way. I wonder how much of that intellectual property is being incorporated by others? My guess is not much. Companies prefer to take credit for their own innovation and invention; always thinking they can do it better.
Panic in Detroit
The media likes stirring the pot about how BMW is going to eat Tesla’s lunch and GM could put Tesla out of business tomorrow. And how Porsche is developing a “Tesla Fighter.” Today’s electric car activity outside of Tesla would not even be in the blue sky discussions if it weren’t for the success of the Model S. Tesla should not be dismissed as an “ankle biter,” which I would define as a non-threatening annoyance. Tesla is in fact a real threat to the car “smoke stack” industry. Respect Tesla or not, but know they are not going away. They may evolve or merge and it may not always be about cars, but it will likely be about some combination of energy and transportation, built on software and brilliant design.
Tesla’s 85kWh Model S encountering new competition in the EV space from BMW.
I make no bold predictions about Tesla’s potential market cap or when Apple will buy Tesla or for how much. That’s not my arena so I will stay in my lane. I agree it’s fun, but the stakes are on an entirely new level here. This activity is about something more important than corporate profits. (I know profits are important. I work in financial services). Tesla is fundamentally about designing and enabling an entirely new future that is more environmentally responsible than the past and better for consumers.
Tesla should inspire our imagination, not make us think about their stock price or how many cars they sold yesterday. Google didn’t think about their stock price when they launched their Autonomous Car project. Newer companies have a distinct advantage in that they don’t need to repack their baggage. When you lack a history it’s easier to make a better future.
It’s fascinating to me that Tesla and potentially Apple have more insight into what the “car of the future” could be than GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Is Silicon Valley the new Detroit?
Why Apple Must try for a Car
The world has become more connected over the last few years. The Internet of Things, powerful wireless connectivity and the transition to internet IPv6 will greatly expand the number of IP addresses that can be supported and makes a fully connected world possible. Apple’s seamless integration of device, content and software has made that world vision believable.
A large 17″ touchscreen center stack on the Model S provides an iPad-like experience.
A large touchscreen in a car like the Tesla could emulate your Mac, or iPad, or iPhone screen with shared apps and programs. My iCalendar already synchs with that touchscreen from my iPhone as soon as I open the door. Apple’s software capabilities could take this to fascinating extremes. Music, programs, even Siri are all possible in an Apple Car operating system. Not to mention self-driving cars and the ultimate vision to eliminate collisions.
I believe the challenge for Apple lies in the hardware. A car is not a music player or a phone. No one drives an Apple product. It doesn’t have wheels or doors; nor does it carry precious human cargo. There are very few laws that govern phone safety. No crash tests to pass, or airbags to install. A car is not just a software engineering exercise that needs a shell. It’s a big, complex, and messy manufacturing problem that cannot be outsourced to Foxconn.
Tesla does have amazing software, but it did not, and could not abandon the deeply ingrained culture of what it means to own and drive a car. Tesla’s big robotic engineering science coupled with Apple’s software capabilities would make an unstoppable combination.
Tim Cook tackling transportation is akin to Steve Jobs entering the retail space. It makes perfect sense for Apple and Apple’s vision. Their culture is to be a catalyst for innovation, vision and ultimately forward change. These are arguably the most important attributes for any business or culture.
If Apple is serious about making a car, they can choose their adventure. Buy Tesla, or build it on their own. Either way, I’m excited that we have another bright set of minds at work on disrupting a carbon monopoly. If Apple is now seriously in the game, it’s GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Subaru… who should keep an eye on their lunch.
My One Prediction
Fast forward to 2021. Apple unveils their version of a car. Turns out I do have a prediction after all, and it’s rock solid. Apple will not sell their cars through a dealership network.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
