
Elon Musk: With Jobs Gone, Google Will Win Mobile (And Look Out For Hyperloop) - chauzer
http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/19/elon-musk-with-jobs-gone-google-will-win-mobile-and-look-out-for-the-hyperloop/
======
stcredzero
_> Lastly he revealed he was working on something he calls the “Hyperloop”
which will be a “cross between a rail-gun and a Concorde.”_

Sounds a lot like the Lofstrom Loop, repurposed for Earthside transport.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop>

~~~
fudged71
If this really is the concept that Musk is working on, it would likely launch
a vehicle into space to reach their earthly destination. This matches his idea
that it would be "immune to weather" and also not a tube.

So if it works, it would be great both for space tourism AND high-speed travel
around the world. Really ties together his transportation and space ventures
:)

~~~
adventured
The hyperloop is not a space based system. The little that Musk has said about
it, indicates that. For example, he said it would be a vast improvement over
the current rail system planned for California, and could plausibly be powered
by solar. Nobody is going to use space travel to go between LA and San
Francisco.

~~~
stcredzero
_Nobody is going to use space travel to go between LA and San Francisco._

I'm sure people once thought that no one was going to climb to 30,000 feet to
go between LA and SF either.

------
phaus
Wasn't Google on its way to winning mobile even when Jobs was around? I know
that Apple makes far more money on hardware, but Google is an advertising
company. As a company that makes most of its profits from advertising, isn't
the largest share of the market enough for them to "win"?

Also, isn't it possible that Apple could continue making boatloads of money
off hardware even if Android builds off of its smartphone success and becomes
the most popular tablet OS? (Which I think is inevitable unless Windows 8
devices get better) Wouldn't this scenario mean that both companies are
winners?

------
maak
So from the recap of quite an interesting interview, TC went with the apple vs
google headline? That was hardly the most interesting aspect of the article.

------
regehr
"But the airport officials were scared. They didn't know whether the
destruction of the launch loop was an isolated incident of terrorist sabotage,
or maybe the beginnings of a revolution-no one seemed to think, ever, that it
might have been just a simple accident. It was scary, all right. There's a
hell of a lot of kinetic energy stored in a Lofstrom loop, over twenty
kilometers of iron ribbon, weighing about five thousand tons, moving at twelve
kilometers a second. Out of curiosity I asked Albert later and he reported
that it took 3.6 x lO^8 Joules to pump it up. And when one collapses, all
those Joules come out at once, one way or another."

From Heechee Rendezvous:

[http://www.amazon.com/Heechee-Rendezvous-Frederik-
Pohl/dp/03...](http://www.amazon.com/Heechee-Rendezvous-Frederik-
Pohl/dp/0345300556/)

------
donflamenco
Here's an idea on how Apple can "win."

The phone market is quickly turning into a mature business like the PC is
today. Essentially all of the major innovation on the hardware side is done
and the software side will be where people choose their phone/tablet.

IOS has the best apps, period. Apple needs this to always be the case. Just
like people buy Windows because of its apps (games, etc.)

Developers make more money on the IOS platform (by far) than any other. Apple
needs this to always be the case.

I submit that Apple needs to drop the commission rate for apps sales from 30%
to some value approaching zero. This will starve Android/Win8/BB of developer
mind share.

Developers will write great apps, make more money and users will pick the IOS
platform because it has the apps (games) they want.

~~~
sek
You simply can't ignore Android, the biggest mobile OS and its doesn't get
starved if iOS developers earn 30% more.

I think about a bold move like buying Verizon or so.

But in my opinion Apple is losing by simple being Apple. They can't keep up
with the speed of Google. They spent their money left and right and Apple is
sitting on it's cash. Why? They even paid out a dividend, that was the sign
that they have no big plan. What was one of the first actions of Tim Cook.

~~~
freehunter
Buying Verizon would be hard to get past the government. See how difficult it
was for AT&T to buy Alltel (they had to give a not-insignificant part of it to
Verizon to play fair).

Buying T-Mobile, on the other hand...

~~~
sek
Buy T-Mobile pump 50+ Billion into infrastructure and make the iPhone the only
unlimited LTE receiver by simply buying one.

You have the best network so a lot will join with their contracts. Make tons
of profit there.

I think Apple has a real problem now, the iPhone is their primary source of
revenue. There is not much diversification going on there.

Edit: And btw, this would create an Arms Race for greater good, why not "Who
has the best Network" than "Who has the most patents?"

~~~
justincormack
Its a global game not a US one. The amount of money to buy global operators is
large. Vodafone is 125bn dollars and as a global operator is just the first on
the list. Apple and Google can't just buy global mobile.

~~~
sek
True, but you can expand that. It is a long term strategy.

They are sitting on 120B that is just in some hedge funds anyway, why not do
something with it that has a competitive advantage. They just have no plan....

Give this money Amazon or Google they would know what to do with it. That's
the reason i dislike Apple. They don't have a mayor purpose any more. If there
is no company vision, then at least do something that improves everyone's live
and gives this company another shot. In the worst case Apple loses the phone
wars and is the biggest mobile operator in the world. Not even that of a risky
move, mobile operators have a pretty solid business model.

------
simonh
What does winning in mobile look like? Apple isn't interested in low price low
margin devices. They sell premium high margin products. If apples market share
were to freeze exactly as it is now with the same margins forever raking in
tens of billions of dollars a year in pure profit, they'd be happy. Of course
they'd be even happier with even more, but android outselling them 2:1 isnt a
problem as long as Apples margins are greate by 20:1.

~~~
nas
I believe the common theory is that there are strong network effects in the
mobile OS market. iOS is still an attractive platform for app developers but
if the Apple share of the smartphone market keeps shrinking, developers will
focus on Android instead.

~~~
Tloewald
"Keeps shrinking"?

Apple's share of the global smartphone market is increasing (module minor
seasonal variations and product launch effects) and smartphones are becoming
the phone market. Android is replacing RIM and Nokia faster than Apple is.

I'm not saying Elon Musk isn't right (I think a free phone OS is likely to win
in the long term, since most people will buy on price over quality and
eventually quality will improve or network effects will overwhelm quality
considerations, just as Windows eventually destroyed Mac OS and became better
in all ways thanks to ... Oh wait.)

<http://www.asymco.com/2012/11/14/google-vs-samsung/>

------
hkmurakami
_> Musk said it was important that societies create an environment where it’s
“important it’s seen as a socially desirable thing to be an entrepreneur.”_

I think this is something whose importance is hard to fathom when living in
hot startup ecosystems. When I was living in Japan, I was _shocked_ at how
people saw entrepreneurship in an undesirable light. In fact, new graduate
polls showed that the most desirable type of profession was a public sector
worker, followed by megacorp employee, then SME employee. Entrepreneur was
literally at the bottom of the ladder [1].

This is in sharp contrast to the States, where polls show that people look up
to and want to become entrepreneurs (the "start ups are cool" mentality) and
see public sector workers as the most undesirable type of employment [2].

It's hard to live a life that isn't widely socially accepted, and having a
society that looks favorably upon entrepreneurship or sole proprietorships is
hugely important for giving people the peace of mind and confidence to embark
on their individual paths [3]. Say what you will about the current
proliferation of startups, but anything that promotes the long term social
acceptability of starting a company is a net positive in the long run for
making it easier for people to take the plunge themselves in the future.

Our environment skews our perspective, and our perspective determines what we
think is possible. We tend to believe in the triumph of the individual spirit
and determination over mental hurdles, but it's a rare specimen that has the
both the hard skills to create something great and the mental power to
actually convince themselves to do so against conventional wisdom. Don't you
that that it'd be desirable to reduce the mental hurdles so that those with
different mental predispositions can roam freely?

[1] I think doctor/lawyer/accountant were omitted because there are very few
who enter these professions each year and is statistically somewhat
irrelevant.

[2] This isn't to say that working in the public sector is actually a bad gig
or not useful, but public perception does matter in many ways in attracting
talent.

[3] In fact, patio11's lifestyle is generally derided in Japan, even though us
HN'ers look up to the example he sets both in terms of skills and lifestyle. I
have friends who work in the same city that patio11 used to (and perhaps even
in the same industry...) who cannot get themselves to leave their megacorp
jobs even though they have mid-5-figure income streams from their side gigs
that they could obviously grow if they resigned from their day jobs and
committed themselves to it. Their reasoning? They fear that they would no
longer be accepted by society without said megacorp job. You need supreme
confidence in your self worth to live without the "social proof" of an
establishment on your shoulder in this culture, and it's a disservice to the
world that great talent remains locked up because of this.

~~~
rthomas6
Could the mindset of Japan be related in part to the idea of a strong long-
term social contract between employee and corporation that exists in Japan? I
read somewhere that in Japan, corporations are expected to take care of the
employees in an almost familial sense, and in return, employees are expected
to give their life energy to the corporation. I would be willing to wager that
employee turnover in Japanese companies is lower than in the United States,
and that quitting and working for a competitor for a higher salary would be
seen as betrayal.

If this is the case, perhaps having a Megacorp job in Japan makes an employee
feel protected and safe in a way that doesn't exist (any more) in US Megacorp
jobs. I recall in 2008, Toyota bragged about not closing factories or laying
people off, and saying how they care about their employees. This is in spite
of Toyota factories being without unions, and it probably being more
profitable to have layoffs during the economic downturn.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
I think you're right, and I think it's all about culture.

In the west, there's the aspiration of the self-made man. Western culture
values individual freedom, personal satisfaction and people who get rich in no
time.

In Japan, they value hard work and communal values come before the
individual's. So it's more desirable to join a large organization or work on
the public sector, and work until you retire.

~~~
stcredzero
There are supposed to be two threads in Japanese society. One that comes from
the values of peasant farmers, which emphasizes communal values, and one which
comes out of the old feudal power structure, which emphasizes personal loyalty
over all else. I suspect that both of those would tend to work against the
aspiration of the self made man.

------
davecyen
Elon Musk is an inspiration - he looks at big, real world problems and solves
for them instead of spinning his wheels on the next shiny app. Especially
appreciate his views on too many people going into finance or law rather than
science and engineering.

Poor editing in this article, if anyone finds a video of the original
interview please post - tried to search for it but no luck.

------
WiseWeasel
Not to refute his point on Apple post-Jobs, but Samsung is the only company in
the Android ecosystem making any money, so it's not clear that Google is
winning anything.

~~~
w1ntermute
Let me help you understand. Google is in the _advertising_ business. They make
money every time someone uses their services. When someone like Apple is in
charge of mobile hardware and software, they can easily push Google out of the
picture by setting the default search engine to Bing (which they thankfully
haven't done) or changing the default mapping solution to their own (which
they unfortunately have). Android is a way for Google to ensure that, as long
as they provide the best search and mapping solutions, their services will
dominate on mobile devices.

~~~
WiseWeasel
Amazon is shipping Android devices without Google services, and little stops
Samsung from doing the same, should they ever decide that they can make more
money that way.

~~~
w1ntermute
Once again, you're missing the point. Android isn't about making sure Google
has a stranglehold on mobile devices, it's about _leveling the playing field_.
Sure, Amazon can release a device with Bing as the default search engine, but
Samsung can release a device with Google as the default search engine. And as
long as Google is better than Bing (which it is right now), people will prefer
the Samsung device over the Amazon one, at least in terms of searching the
web. And if Microsoft pays off Samsung to set the default search engine to
Bing on their devices too, someone else can come in and make yet another
tablet that uses Google, since their mobile OS development costs will have
been nullified by Android being free software.

~~~
WiseWeasel
So your point is that OEMs will ship Android phones with Google services
because they're better than alternatives? What if Microsoft pays Samsung to
ship their phones with Bing, and they're still wildly successful? How does
being the developer of Android OS help Google reach search customers? If the
most successful Android OEMs _were_ to ditch Google services for whatever
reason, then Android OS development costs would be better spent directly
paying OEMs to ship with Google services, and Google would have little reason
to keep sponsoring Android's development.

~~~
freehunter
You're forgetting a lesson we learned from Microsoft. When people in
developing countries were pirating Microsoft software (Windows, Office, etc),
Microsoft released lower-cost versions of their software to save some face,
but in reality _Microsoft just didn't care_. Let developing countries pirate
our software, the important thing is _they're using our software_. Which means
they're not using competitors software. Which means Microsoft stays on top, in
the mindset of the people, and when those countries become developed the
people will buy legitimate copies of Windows/Office.

Google has this even better on Android. People aren't pirating Android,
they're using open source software. And even if that software runs Bing or
Yahoo search and the users like Word to Go rather than Google Docs and
Outlook.com rather than Gmail, they're still using Android. Which means
they're not using iOS. And chances are, they'll want to stick with the OS they
know, so in the future they might end up with a more Google-ified device.
Keeping them off iOS is the first step to having them as lifelong customers.
Microsoft knew this, and Google knows this.

~~~
whatusername
You missed the other critical example: Adobe.

~~~
freehunter
Actually, Adobe might be a better example than Microsoft. I picked Microsoft
because it's the OS space similar to Android. Adobe is a great example.

------
lazyjones
> Silva opened by asking how rare it was these days to see companies created
> which were worth more than $50bn, and yet Musk himself had helped to create
> at least four so far.

Really? Can anyone provide me with a list of these companies?

~~~
k-mcgrady
I presume they're talking about: PayPal, Tesla Motors, SolarCity, and Space X.

~~~
snuze
To be fair, none of those are worth close to $50B.

~~~
enraged_camel
Yet. ;-)

------
alinspired
Hyperloop - dream on: land-accelerated vehicle (a rocket-like) that is
"slingshot" to the destination over the air. Acceleration even above Mach can
be achieved on a maglev circular track gradually with ability to "switch"
track and shoot the vehicle in the air. Land it to a maglev(!) landing pad in
the form of a funnel or simpler - with a parachute-like system.

------
wavesounds
One word: Plastics.

He's said this Hyperloop is something that can't crash. If you have something
that can't crash you can build it out of plastic which would be much lighter
(more efficient/faster/easier to levitate) and cheaper then current high speed
rail.

I think is a mag-lev plastic highly aerodynamic train with lots of rail lines
so that the cars cant collide.

------
TamDenholm
To me the hyperloop in my head would be a maglev train within a vacuum
chamber, unless Musk has some kind of new tech in development in his research
lab somewhere (not implausible if you ask me), but if i was going to build
such a thing i'd probably have to do a working prototype first and it seems
the easiest way to do that would be to use an existing underground train
system, perhaps a derelict one. Then it would be much easier to create new
infrastructure after its been proven to work.

------
ALee
I wonder if YC would ever be able to fund a Hyperloop? What would that look
like?

------
tolos
hrrm, I'm skeptical of claims made by executives that don't work in that
industry, although here he's probably right.

 _reads article_

Wait, this is about some UK tech meetup where a reporter asks Musk some
questions. And the quote is:

> Finally, I asked Musk who he thought would come out on top, out of Apple,
> Microsoft, Google, and Facebook?

> "It’s the grudge match," he said. "It’s good for consumers that there is
> this battle. I think probably Google will win on the phone because Jobs is
> out of the picture..."

"Win on the phone?" What does that even mean?

~~~
chubot
Computer industries and platforms naturally tend toward monopolies. You need
the virtuous the developer <-> user loop for a platform to survive.

Apple said that without its App Store and developers people may stop buying
iPhones.

So "winning on the phone" means "getting the monopoly". The situation where
both platforms have 50% of the market isn't really stable in the computer
industry.

~~~
Steko
"Computer industries and platforms naturally tend toward monopolies."

The last 20 years of console platform wars have proven this to be very false
in a market not driven by corporate purchasing.

~~~
chubot
I wouldn't say the difference is corporate purchasing. One important reason
why consoles are special cases is that there's no data that needs to be
migrated from one machine to another. You just buy new games for the new
console and you don't care about the data on the old console.

There's also no data that you share between 2 machines or 2 users.

Migrating from Windows to Mac used to be a huge pain because you had to move
your data. And also it was beneficial to buy Windows if people were e-mailing
you Word docs and spreadsheets so forth.

And then you need the entire support ecosystem and the employee base who
understands Windows, which wasn't relevant to consoles.

Small businesses and individuals are just as swayed by this as corporations.

Phones have some of these issues but not all. If you could buy an Android
phone, and then instantly sync all your Apple account data to it, like the
music you bought, your contacts, and the photos you took, etc. then it would
be a different story. But that's never going to happen.

Even FaceTime is an example of introducing a network effect. It's more
valuable to buy an iPhone if your son or daughter has an iPhone so you can
FaceTime with them.

~~~
Steko
So wait the first argument was that user-developer loop always leads to
monopoly in computing. That's blown up and now OS lock in is what leads to
monopoly? But iOS has far more lock in than Android right? So how does that
lead to Android monopoly?

"I wouldn't say the difference is corporate purchasing...

And also it was beneficial to buy Windows if people were e-mailing you Word
docs and spreadsheets so forth."

I'm not sure how you're trying to leverage the compatibility argument against
the idea of the market being driven by corporate purchases when it's actually
a consequence of it.

~~~
chubot
The original claim was that computer platforms tends toward monopolies. The
existence of consoles is an interesting data point but it isn't a
counterargument to this.

The user-developer loop (1) is part of the reason, and API / data lock-in (2)
is another part of it.

Just like in the first case, causation in the second case goes both ways.
Corporations (and not just corporations) buy Word because there is Word data
and there are Word users out there.

"Corporate purchasing" doesn't explain very much to me and isn't the salient
difference between consoles and phone OSes or desktop OSes. Corporations
bought Windows because of the more fundamental factors that I'm pointing out.

------
fab13n
Musk has replaced Jobs in the public mind as the Ultimate Genius Entrepreneur.
And he's going to ruthlessly use it to inspire people up to Mars.

Actually, the Musk/Jobs comparison makes me think of the Famous Jobs/Sculley
quote ("Do you want to sell sugared water for the rest of your life? Or do you
want to come with me and change the world?"), with Jobs in the lesser role
this time.

------
GengYang
Was doing some research on Elon. Apparently he's quite the playboy too. Dumped
his older wife for a pretty young actress whom he recently dumped again. Guess
money really can buy a sequence of love affairs

~~~
jpxxx
Oh, now. Doing that doesn't take money at all.

------
Tloewald
All he says is "probably". Misleading title.

------
bravoyankee
People can't sell Apple stocks fast enough IMO. Tim Cook seems to have no
vision for the future, and "where there is no vision, the people perish."

~~~
chucknelson
We have no idea what is in the pipeline at Apple, nor what their "vision" is.
Steve Jobs and Apple never came out and announced that the iPhone was in
development and that it would revolutionize the tech industry - it just _did_
in 2007.

Let's wait a few years before we decide if Tim Cook is just riding the wave of
prior success.

~~~
bravoyankee
In a few years the market will have already decided.

The signs are out there. The cop-out design of the iPhone 5, the "blue sky"
initiative started with the employees -they are scrambling for new ideas.

Steve Jobs was the soul of Apple. His fire is gone. He took it with him.

~~~
Steko
I look forward to hearing about the fortune you made shorting AAPL in 3 years.

