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
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.
Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.
Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.
.@POTUS: We told Zelensky, ‘You can do whatever you want to Russia, but don’t hit the refineries because that’s a world problem.’ And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel. He better damn well stop. https://t.co/CdRlMcPlKr
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 10, 2026
SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.
Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.
Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?
As your European customers, we are watching you.— Radosław Sikorski 🇵🇱🇪🇺 (@sikorskiradek) October 14, 2026
The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.
SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.
Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
The Pentagon taps Elon Musk to design the battlefield of the future
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
