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.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
