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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
