Steve Jobs is dead, which means that we can say whatever we want about him in speculative articles that smash together everyone's favorite highly searched subjects like they were mixin's at Marble Slab and wrap them up in a waffle cone made of bullshit fancy.

Investor Chamath Palihapitiya apparently woke up yesterday and saw this article about Apple wanting to work with car developers and was struck with the notion of an iCar, which is the same dream that every other genius has had and allowed him the chance to use this headline "Apple Bond Issue? Steve Jobs Would've Bought Tesla." He's shocked no one else seems to care like he does about Apple being fiscally responsible instead of buying a company that's only ever lost money.

This sad display is a telling sign for what was, less than six months ago, the greatest comeback story and greatest technology company of all time: There was now more excitement from a bunch of pension funds and hedge funds about debt than the sum total of consumer interest and support for Apple’s latest products. Lines of consumers outside the Apple Store have been replaced by a line to the CFO’s office. Generally, I think it portends poorly when investors are your biggest supporters and consumers couldn’t give a damn.


Well, I don't think that investors and consumers are bored by the suggestion, I just think they're so fatigued by made up product rumor after made up product rumor that they're rightly skeptical. We also picked up the story but did so while employing a million caveats stating that it's probably not true.

And then, of course, comes the all too predictable turn:

But where to start? Apple should buy Tesla Motors (TSLA) (disclosure: I own AAPL but not TSLA). The reasons are pretty obvious: an $80 billion-plus global car market and a company with a highly technical team that can build an amazing product at the high end of the market (and that’s run by a maniacal visionary with extreme ambition). Sound familiar?


Yes, that sounds like exactly why Apple hasn't invested in making cars. Doing so is extremely difficult and even a "maniacal visionary" Elon Musk had to go through numerous failures before getting to a vehicle that'll sell more than 2,500 copies in its entire product cycle.

What Apple is doing is much better. Building a car is expensive and the process of marketing, designing, manufacturing, and selling a vehicle sucks up most of the profits. Apple appears to be letting other people take that hit and is going straight for where the money is. They're also employing a strategy that allows them to work with multiple automakers.

Arguing that Apple should make cars so they can sell their interfaces makes about as much sense as Apple buying Verizon so they can sell their phones to them. If Apple owned Tesla (or built a car at all) then other automakers, out of a sense of competition, wouldn't be so eager to make their cars iPhone compatible and certainly wouldn't allow an Apple system in their vehicles.


Could Apple buy Tesla? Sure. Did Steve Jobs want to build a car? Maybe.

As someone who owns Apple stock you should argue vehemently against it, although as someone who writes articles I applaud you for using a dead pioneer as a ventriloquist to let you spout off your bad ideas.