Your definition is your own and ill defined. A car these days are computers. Esp electric.
So there's no drivetrain, suspension system, brakes, robust car body, impact zone, airbags, cooling system, etc. All items of which Apple has absolutely no experience or core competency. A car is not a video simulation. Apple recently produced a phone that bends if one keeps it in a tight pants pocket. Apple has produced phones in which the screen frequently cracks when dropped from a height of 3-4 feet (although mine dropped onto a concrete subway platform and then onto the tracks and survived without any damage, even though it wasn't in a case). That doesn't work when you build a car. It's got to always work and always be safe.
A computer might be an important component of a car, especially a self-driving car, but a car is not a computer any more than a computer operated factory is a computer.
I would say that your definition is your own.
In spite of the ever-increasing evidence, I still find it hard to believe that Apple is seriously considering producing a car. There's little profit in cars, "bugs" can cost lives, the market expects new models (even if only cosmetically different) annually, in some states (like New Jersey) car manufacturers cannot own dealerships and there's never been a car manufacturer who didn't also own their own factory, even if they didn't make all the parts themselves. Apple has evolved to become a mass-market company (although the higher-end models of the Apple Watch will obviously be for the elite) but unless we feel that Tesla is completely incompetent, an Apple electric car would have to cost at least as much - upwards of $70K. And very few of the current Apple retail stores could also be a showroom for the car.
Government requirements for cars also vary by country (and sometimes by State, where California has different emissions requirements, although an electric car would meet them anyway). And in most urban environments, electric cars don't work because there's nowhere to charge them. As I've posted earlier, I've never seen a Tesla on the street or road in NYC, even in neighborhoods where apartments cost many $millions. The only place I've ever seen a charging station is in Central Park where it's used for city-owned vehicles. And charging stations that aren't located in one's home or garage are impractical in areas of high population density unless they can charge a car in the same time it takes to pump a tankful of gas.
While Apple is apparently trying to hire battery expertise, so far, they haven't shown all that much in this regard, even though the amount of usable hours of battery life has increased in their laptops over time. There are rumors that the battery in the Apple Watch may need to be recharged more than once a day. The battery in my iPhone 5 will only last a full day if I don't make/receive any calls on it.
Your argument is cogent and convincing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. /s
To subscribe to the newsletter, write your full name, Social Security number and credit card number, security code and expiration date onto a paper airplane, point toward the west and throw with adequate force to reach California.
Wow! You're only wrong on 1.) 2.) and 3.)
But the rest of what I've quoted you on is correct.
1.) Most of our warships are non-nuclear fueled. Only US subs (some 71 odd) and aircraft carriers (10) are nuclear powered. That's 81 vessels.
2.) Although our navy started using nuclear power plants 60 years ago, nuclear plants have been used to a varying extent ever since (we are presently well below peak usage in terms of number of vessels) but at no time in the pst 60 years has it been anywhere near most of the rest of fleet (a few cruiser/destroyers were fitted out for a time.)
3.) There have been many incidents recorded (that we are aware of,) just as there have been many with commercial nuclear power plants. The US Navy has set a very high bar for what they will call a "nuclear incident." Suffice to there have been many spills and accidents, just no nuclear explosions. At least two US naval nuclear reactors lie unsalvaged on the floor of the ocean (not to mention scores of nuclear devices lost all over the place.) You or I would probably call a lot of these things "incidents:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents
[BTW, I'm not necessarily anti-nuclear power, put I am pro-factual clarity.]
Your definition is your own and ill defined. A car these days are computers. Esp electric.
So there's no drivetrain, suspension system, brakes, robust car body, impact zone, airbags, cooling system, etc. All items of which Apple has absolutely no experience or core competency. A car is not a video simulation. Apple recently produced a phone that bends if one keeps it in a tight pants pocket. Apple has produced phones in which the screen frequently cracks when dropped from a height of 3-4 feet (although mine dropped onto a concrete subway platform and then onto the tracks and survived without any damage, even though it wasn't in a case). That doesn't work when you build a car. It's got to always work and always be safe.
A computer might be an important component of a car, especially a self-driving car, but a car is not a computer any more than a computer operated factory is a computer.
I would say that your definition is your own.
In spite of the ever-increasing evidence, I still find it hard to believe that Apple is seriously considering producing a car. There's little profit in cars, "bugs" can cost lives, the market expects new models (even if only cosmetically different) annually, in some states (like New Jersey) car manufacturers cannot own dealerships and there's never been a car manufacturer who didn't also own their own factory, even if they didn't make all the parts themselves. Apple has evolved to become a mass-market company (although the higher-end models of the Apple Watch will obviously be for the elite) but unless we feel that Tesla is completely incompetent, an Apple electric car would have to cost at least as much - upwards of $70K. And very few of the current Apple retail stores could also be a showroom for the car.
Government requirements for cars also vary by country (and sometimes by State, where California has different emissions requirements, although an electric car would meet them anyway). And in most urban environments, electric cars don't work because there's nowhere to charge them. As I've posted earlier, I've never seen a Tesla on the street or road in NYC, even in neighborhoods where apartments cost many $millions. The only place I've ever seen a charging station is in Central Park where it's used for city-owned vehicles. And charging stations that aren't located in one's home or garage are impractical in areas of high population density unless they can charge a car in the same time it takes to pump a tankful of gas.
While Apple is apparently trying to hire battery expertise, so far, they haven't shown all that much in this regard, even though the amount of usable hours of battery life has increased in their laptops over time. There are rumors that the battery in the Apple Watch may need to be recharged more than once a day. The battery in my iPhone 5 will only last a full day if I don't make/receive any calls on it.
So there's no drivetrain, suspension system, brakes, robust car body, impact zone, airbags, cooling system, etc. All items of which Apple has absolutely no experience or core competency.
Which is why you hire people. Beyond that there are no real secrets when it comes to mechanical design.
A car is not a video simulation. Apple recently produced a phone that bends if one keeps it in a tight pants pocket. Apple has produced phones in which the screen frequently cracks when dropped from a height of 3-4 feet (although mine dropped onto a concrete subway platform and then onto the tracks and survived without any damage, even though it wasn't in a case).
You do realize that if you drop a car from 3-4 feet you will often break a window and probably do other damage.
That doesn't work when you build a car. It's got to always work and always be safe.
Only an ambulance chasing lawyer would believe that a device can be 100% safe. In fact if you follow some of the recalls you will find that often very unexpected things happen in the field.
A computer might be an important component of a car, especially a self-driving car, but a car is not a computer any more than a computer operated factory is a computer.
This is true to an extent! However I could see Apple making a vehicle that has far more computer functionality than we have ever seen. Imagine a car that can communicate with your Mac at work. A car that has Siri built in
I would say that your definition is your own.
It is his but so is yours. I think the thing here for people to realize is that Apple could build in far more computer functionality than we have ever seen in an automobile. Is it a computer, no but it could be a break from the past.
.
In spite of the ever-increasing evidence, I still find it hard to believe that Apple is seriously considering producing a car. There's little profit in cars, "bugs" can cost lives, the market expects new models (even if only cosmetically different) annually,
How is this any different that new iPhones every year? As for bugs that has always been a problem. Further the rush to self driving cars is full of unresolved liability issues.
in some states (like New Jersey) car manufacturers cannot own dealerships and there's never been a car manufacturer who didn't also own their own factory, even if they didn't make all the parts themselves. Apple has evolved to become a mass-market company (although the higher-end models of the Apple Watch will obviously be for the elite) but unless we feel that Tesla is completely incompetent, an Apple electric car would have to cost at least as much - upwards of $70K. And very few of the current Apple retail stores could also be a showroom for the car.
Actually there are real issues for Tesla as a start up. To grow the company they need to sell high end products, with high margins, to have the cash flow to build the company.
Government requirements for cars also vary by country (and sometimes by State, where California has different emissions requirements, although an electric car would meet them anyway). And in most urban environments, electric cars don't work because there's nowhere to charge them.
This is a massive issue which is one reason to prefer hybrids. It highlights the number one issue with electrics which is the battery. Frankly until the battery issue is resolved I don't see electrics growing market share. That being said there is a lot of interesting research going on.
As I've posted earlier, I've never seen a Tesla on the street or road in NYC, even in neighborhoods where apartments cost many $millions.
I've yet to see a privately owned Tesla myself. Personally I got up yesterday and it was 1°F, I can't imagine driving an electric in those conditions.
The only place I've ever seen a charging station is in Central Park where it's used for city-owned vehicles. And charging stations that aren't located in one's home or garage are impractical in areas of high population density unless they can charge a car in the same time it takes to pump a tankful of gas.
Actually you need high population density to minimize driving distances. Electrics are terrible on the open road due to the iffy ability to find charging stations.
While Apple is apparently trying to hire battery expertise, so far, they haven't shown all that much in this regard, even though the amount of usable hours of battery life has increased in their laptops over time.
I was actually under the impression that Apple has had battery development expertise for some time. Apples battery tech is pretty good but for the laptops of the future they need to develop new battery solutions.
There are rumors that the battery in the Apple Watch may need to be recharged more than once a day. The battery in my iPhone 5 will only last a full day if I don't make/receive any calls on it.
Yep plenty of places to apply battery experts. Even so that doesn't dismiss the possibility that Apple is developing a car.
Johnson Controls did not buy the automotive division. The A123 Systems%u2019 Government Solutions Group was purchased by a company called MicroSun and renamed Navitas Systems. It included most of the automotive and military applications IP that was paid for by government grant contracts and is based in Michigan.
Johnson Controls did not buy the automotive division. The A123 Systems%u2019 Government Solutions Group was purchased by a company called MicroSun and renamed Navitas Systems. It included most of the automotive and military applications IP that was paid for by government grant contracts and is based in Michigan.
"In August 2012, the Chinese auto industry Wanxiang Group had agreed to invest up to $465 million to acquire as much as 80% of A123 Systems;[6] but the acquisition was not completed before A123 filed for bankruptcy. On October 16, 2012, A123 filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code. On January 28, 2013, Wanxiang America purchased the preponderance of A123's assets out of bankruptcy for $256.6M and organized A123Systems, LLC.[2][7]"
Perhaps the bankruptcy and sale of the company to a new owner was enough to convince these engineers to jump ship and they were all just looking for an opportunity.
Comments
Your definition is your own and ill defined. A car these days are computers. Esp electric.
So there's no drivetrain, suspension system, brakes, robust car body, impact zone, airbags, cooling system, etc. All items of which Apple has absolutely no experience or core competency. A car is not a video simulation. Apple recently produced a phone that bends if one keeps it in a tight pants pocket. Apple has produced phones in which the screen frequently cracks when dropped from a height of 3-4 feet (although mine dropped onto a concrete subway platform and then onto the tracks and survived without any damage, even though it wasn't in a case). That doesn't work when you build a car. It's got to always work and always be safe.
A computer might be an important component of a car, especially a self-driving car, but a car is not a computer any more than a computer operated factory is a computer.
I would say that your definition is your own.
In spite of the ever-increasing evidence, I still find it hard to believe that Apple is seriously considering producing a car. There's little profit in cars, "bugs" can cost lives, the market expects new models (even if only cosmetically different) annually, in some states (like New Jersey) car manufacturers cannot own dealerships and there's never been a car manufacturer who didn't also own their own factory, even if they didn't make all the parts themselves. Apple has evolved to become a mass-market company (although the higher-end models of the Apple Watch will obviously be for the elite) but unless we feel that Tesla is completely incompetent, an Apple electric car would have to cost at least as much - upwards of $70K. And very few of the current Apple retail stores could also be a showroom for the car.
Government requirements for cars also vary by country (and sometimes by State, where California has different emissions requirements, although an electric car would meet them anyway). And in most urban environments, electric cars don't work because there's nowhere to charge them. As I've posted earlier, I've never seen a Tesla on the street or road in NYC, even in neighborhoods where apartments cost many $millions. The only place I've ever seen a charging station is in Central Park where it's used for city-owned vehicles. And charging stations that aren't located in one's home or garage are impractical in areas of high population density unless they can charge a car in the same time it takes to pump a tankful of gas.
While Apple is apparently trying to hire battery expertise, so far, they haven't shown all that much in this regard, even though the amount of usable hours of battery life has increased in their laptops over time. There are rumors that the battery in the Apple Watch may need to be recharged more than once a day. The battery in my iPhone 5 will only last a full day if I don't make/receive any calls on it.
To subscribe to the newsletter, write your full name, Social Security number and credit card number, security code and expiration date onto a paper airplane, point toward the west and throw with adequate force to reach California.
Thanks for all that fascinating information.
Spot on on all points.
Yep plenty of places to apply battery experts. Even so that doesn't dismiss the possibility that Apple is developing a car.
"In August 2012, the Chinese auto industry Wanxiang Group had agreed to invest up to $465 million to acquire as much as 80% of A123 Systems;[6] but the acquisition was not completed before A123 filed for bankruptcy. On October 16, 2012, A123 filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code. On January 28, 2013, Wanxiang America purchased the preponderance of A123's assets out of bankruptcy for $256.6M and organized A123Systems, LLC.[2][7]"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123_Systems
Perhaps the bankruptcy and sale of the company to a new owner was enough to convince these engineers to jump ship and they were all just looking for an opportunity.