Could Google buy Tesla? Should it?

Telsa ultimately may be acquired by a large global automaker, but a new column suggests a different suitor – Google. Would it be a good idea for Tesla and Google to join forces?

Kai Pfaffenbach/Reuters/File
A Tesla Model S with an electric vehicle charging station is displayed during a media preview day at the Frankfurt Motor Show (IAA) last week.

Speculating on what will happen to Tesla Motors [NSDQ:TSLA] can be endlessly entertaining, and the discussions have taken up terabytes of server space already.

But last week, a Forbes contributor suggested an intriguing notion: Should search giant Google buy Tesla?

The conventional wisdom has been that ultimately, Tesla's backers and board will sell the company to a large global automaker.

Such an acquirer could provide the parts-volume efficiencies and enormous capital resources required to grow production into the hundreds of thousands a year--ultimately perhaps millions.

Of course, Tesla has several times proven the conventional wisdom wrong--which is to say, the company built an astoundingly good car that has been snapped up by many thousand buyers already.

In fact, at its current production rate, the company will have more than 26,000 cars on global roads by December 31.

And Tesla has already surpassed four other fabled automotive startups: Delorean (9,000 cars), Bricklin (2,850 cars), Fisker (2,000 or more cars), and Tucker (a mere 51 cars).

So perhaps the company can remain independent, though the odds are still against it.

But where does Google come in?

It all started with an article last month on TechCrunch that reported carsharing service Uber would buy 2,500 driverless cars from Google.

Rather too many people failed to notice the date--July 25, 2023--and re-reported it as fact. TechCrunch subsequently added "Dispatch From The Future" to the title.

But Forbes writer Chunka Mui suggests that Uber would be dumb to invest huge amounts of capital in its own fleet.

Instead, it should become the centralized dispatch point for driverless taxis of the future.

And who might provide those taxis? Why not Google, with its ground-breaking research into self-driving cars based on its extensive maps of most of the world's roads?

Connecting the dots, a May article by Bloomberg noted that Tesla CEO Elon Musk has spoken with Google about driverless technology for Tesla vehicles in the future.

Cofounder Sergey Brin has already said Google will make self-driving cars available, perhaps within four years, and only in states like Nevada and California that have laws in place that permit them.

Assuming that there's consumer demand for the cars--and more limited semi-autonomy features like Cadillac's SuperCruise and Nissan's various autonomous systems find a market as well--Mui suggests that Google would launch a pilot for a driverless taxi service sometime early in the 2020s.

And assuming that's a success--based on our experience riding in thousands of cabs, we're all for it--the company will eventually roll it out on a larger scale.

That would require tens of thousands of cars. And battery-electric vehicles of the next decade will make excellent taxis.

They have very few moving parts, their per-mile energy cost is far lower than the most efficient hybrids, and they're smooth, quiet, and emit nothing--meaning that they can operate even in central cities that ban emitting vehicles.

Mui suggests that Google will issue a tender for not just tens of thousands, but perhaps 250,000 driverless cars. Tesla, Nissan, and General Motors might all compete.

But rather than buy cars from one vendor, he posits, Google simply decides to use some of its cash hoard to buy Tesla outright (making Elon Musk its third largest shareholder in the process).

As Mui writes, "If you’re writing a dispatch from 2023, why think small?"

Such a scenario might fit neatly into Musk's goal of transforming the very nature of transportation.

Tesla has already started the process by making and selling remarkably good electric cars. Is taking the driver out of the equation the next big leap?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.