Would Apple Be Better Off Buying Tesla And Placing Elon Musk In Charge Of Everything?

No. Musk got this far because he had no one to answer to but himself. Put him in a corporate setting where he has to answer to someone would be a disaster. Conflicts on strategy, cash flow, capital expenditures, distribution, etc etc would surely arise and kill the marriage. I speak from experience.

Musk, funny math boy! both Tesla and Apple produce POS junk. Its a matter of time before they disappear. Fashion come and go!

Summary: A writer -- who is not a millionaire, let alone a wildly successful businessman -- believes the world's biggest (by market cap) and most profitable company, Apple, should buy Tesla, a (completely different type of) company that never turned a profit and has no viable plan on how to do it.

Apple earns their "bread and butter" selling iPhones, a super-high margin, mass-market product. They rake in close to 9/10 of smartphone profits, even though they own about 16% of unit market share (2015). Cars have very thin margins. Tesla has worse than thin margins: they're LOSSES. And at this time, and at least for the next two years, Tesla sells only high-end (luxury) vehicles, which have even worse margins.

Steve Jobs was a visionary more than a good businessman. Tim Cook is NOT a visionary, he's a good businessman. Elon Musk is a visionary. Perhaps that's what Apple needs again.

That said, planning colonies on Mars is much more exciting than designing a new cell phone, wouldn't you say?

runninglogan1: I view the whole “colonizing Mars” thing as an excursion into stupidity, or a distraction for those with a short attention span.

For those citing lunar exploration by humans: We used people only because we didn’t have sufficiently advanced robots to explore the moon. Today, we are exploring Mars and other worlds with robotic probes, for a tiny fraction of the cost of sending humans, and with no risk to human life. Sending humans has a tremendous cost burden, time burden, and without meaningful advantage.

For those who cite human endurance off-world: We already have a mountain of data from various space labs. We have hermitically sealed facilities on Earth than can do the same thing, for a tiny fraction of the cost, and with much less risk to human life.

For those who see Mars as a backup for an uninhabitable Earth: This is the worst possible reason for colonizing Mars: “F*ck Earth! Let it become uninhabitable. We have Mars to colonize!” It’s much more cost effective, and much easier to choose to stop raping this planet, than to try to convert a desert space-rock without an atmosphere into a human-habitable planet.

There is no practical reason for allocating enormous resources to Mars colonization at this time, or in the conceivable future. So much for “Mars Colony Visionaries” everywhere.

Steve, you're clearly no visionary.

This is one of the most stupid questions ever posed by this site. Why would the most profitable company in the universe want to acquire one of the least profitable companies (in a terrible business, cars, to boot) and let the leader of the unprofitable firm run the profitable one into the ground?

Idiocy.

Why would Apple hire a charlatan to run their operation?

Visionaries need guys like Cook and great operational guys need guys like Musk. Their skills combined make 1+1=3. BUT these two would never make it together. Musk is doing his own thing with 3 separate companies, financially intermingled, going at the same time and doesn't hesitate to put his own money on the line. His stockholders are along for the ride. Apple has to answer to stockholders right now and that would drive Musk crazy. Apple does need a visionary like Jobs, and should get someone like that, and set them up independently of big Apple to go get the next big thing. That strategy has worked well for other companies.

Musk = moron

MD: that's a low blow

The multi-billionaire industrialist is a moron said the Hyundai salesman. Lol.

Walt Disney may have been an Ultimate visionary - yet without his Brother Roy - the Disney Company would NOT exist today.

Visionaries often outspend their sources and end up broke. Without a money man - to reign in the spending - the losses just mount up until they fulfill their promises.

THe problem with Musk is that I doubt he would consider working UNDER a money man. So - the question is moot - buying his company does not automatically bring him along

Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoff, of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, was viewed by many as a "visionary"... until the Feds discovered his massive Ponzi scheme in which he took in many billions of dollars from investors/victims.

Malcolm Bricklin, an American millionaire who founded Subaru of America, was seen as a "visionary" when he created the General Vehicle DBA Bricklin company and his then-famous Bricklin car. They went into receivership after 2 years of production

John DeLorean was seen as a "visionary" when he established the Delorean Motor Company. They went bankrupt, and into obscurity until the Back To The Future franchise made the DMC a much-desired hit. John DeLorean is trying to cash in on this mind-share by producing a limited production run of new DeLoreans. He's still looking for investors.

Fisker Automotive operated from 2008-2013 when bankruptcy shut them down. They were perceived as "innovators" during their time.


Let's give the Tesla Motor Company and Elon Musk some time to determine if we add them to the Bernie Madoff pile, the Bricklin/DeLorean/Fisker pile, or to the Amazing American Success Stories pile.

John DeLorean is dead. Somebody else is doing the "resurrection".

I think the point of the post was "Put Elon Musk" in charge of everything - BY buying Tesla. Tesla - based on a P/E is still worthless. However -
1 - Just because they could buy Tesla still does not mean that Musk would come with it.
2 - WE have no reason to believe that Musk would succeed in Apples CORE business - which is NOT automotive - it is consumer electronics.