That's sales. What's net minus COG, FOB, etc.? What's their margin? Things don't get built/shipped/imported/sold for free, right?
I don't understand your point. Every product costs money to R&D, build, ship, warrantee, etc. Yes, we're told that profits in the automotive industry are lower than Apple's, and therefore, Apple won't want to get into this. That's total BS!
Every product Apple builds has lower profits everywhere else. Look at computers, iPods, iPhones, iPads, etc. every one of these gives Apple a very good net margin, whereas, every other manufacturer has a much poorer one, or even a negative one.
I'm certain that if Apple decides that they can't make the margins they want to make, they won't get into the area. That includes automotive products. There is absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't make margins that exceeds the major automotive companies. Smaller companies making more expensive products make very high margins, but Apple won't make very expensive cars, if they do make them.
And it needs to be understood that an all electric car is far less complex, mechanically, than even the simplest internal combustion models. That gives Apple lots of ways to improve margins.
People have made the same pricing mistake for several decades regarding Apple. They mistake the difference between not competing in a low price market with competing in a higher priced market. Apple simply doesn't compete in low price markets, so some people say that Apple's products are a lot more expensive, when they are either just a little bit more expensive, in the market they are competing in, or even, when everything is taken into account, no more expensive, or even slightly less.
But people think that because Apple doesn't produce a $300 laptop, their laptops are more expensive. They're not. They just compete with more expensive laptops. The same thing is true everywhere else, including their phones.
I don't understand your point. Every product costs money to R&D, build, ship, warrantee, etc. Yes, we're told that profits in the automotive industry are lower than Apple's, and therefore, Apple won't want to get into this. That's total BS!
Every product Apple builds has lower profits everywhere else. Look at computers, iPods, iPhones, iPads, etc. every one of these gives Apple a very good net margin, whereas, every other manufacturer has a much poorer one, or even a negative one.
I'm certain that if Apple decides that they can't make the margins they want to make, they won't get into the area. That includes automotive products. There is absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't make margins that exceeds the major automotive companies. Smaller companies making more expensive products make very high margins, but Apple won't make very expensive cars, if they do make them.
And it needs to be understood that an all electric car is far less complex, mechanically, than even the simplest internal combustion models. That gives Apple lots of ways to improve margins.
Isn't this what Musk is trying to do? How profitably?
There is absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't make margins that exceeds the major automotive companies. Smaller companies making more expensive make very high margins, but Apple won't make very expensive cars, if they do make them.
And it needs to be understood that an all electric car is far less complex, mechanically, than even the simplest internal combustion models. That gives Apple lots of ways to improve margins.
Nailed it. Smaller companies might make higher margins, but sell far fewer cars. (E.g. Pagani Automobili S.p.A., Caterham Cars, Ruf Automobile GmbH.) And yes, electrically-driven cars are much simpler than internal combustion cars. And vastly simpler than any hybrid gas/electric. That simplicity might eventually bring costs down over time, and maybe keep margins up if selling price can be maintained.
But maybe it's also time to examine the entire automobile usage and ownership model. Most of the time, even on commute days, your car is parked and not being used. Drive to work, leave it there for hours, drive home, leave it there overnight. If you have a neighborhood BBQ over the weekend, or if your friends drive you, maybe you won't drive your own car(s) at all over the weekend. And if you go on a non-driving vacation, your car will sit there unused for the duration.
In some dense urban environments (say NYC) many people don't even own cars. Their houses and apartments don't have garages. There's no car purchase ordeal, no insurance shopping, no trips to the body shop or car dealer for fender bender repairs or regular tune-ups (which themselves may be a thing of the past with all-electric vehicles), and no yearly car registration fees. Oh, and also no need to take that driving test for that drivers' license.
So maybe some kind of on-demand system is the wave of the future. You summon a self-driving car, it shows up, and takes you were you want to go. Like Lyft etc. but without drivers. And if the "car company" (e.g. Apple) has smart enough scheduling, their system could predict heavy usage areas and time periods. So there would be many self-driving ?Cars driving around Apple employees' neighborhoods during the morning rush hour and many ?Cars swarming around Apple HQ during evening rush hour. No waiting, no driving, no garage, no parking hassles, no ownership hassles.
The thing that gives me pause on the autonomous bit is that, unlike the people at Google, the Apple heads appreciate cars and the experience of driving. They own nice, fast cars. Ive goes to the Goodwood Festival of Speed a lot. I don't think they're the type to want to bring about the death of driving pleasure.
Well said. I'd add, the old memes 'Apple doesn't know this or that market' or 'the market cannot be improved upon' are a proven false time and time again with Apple. Only when Apple bring out a new concept of a car (and assuming it does) that is a paradigm changer will people say,' Oh that was obvious' and only then will Google and Samsung copy it (as in change their directions to Apple's). Actually, correction, Google and Samsung will have started work as soon as the rumors start and fine tune whatever they have as more leaks occur. Gatorguy will then start trotting out historical data showing Google was ahead all the time.
Exactly! I'm often amazed at the ignorance, often deliberate, of writers, and posters alike.
When Apple was small, the cry was that the produced overpriced toys that no serious person would want, and so it was just fanboys that bought their products, when it was pointed out that the music, film, publishing and scientific markets depended on app,es products, the response was;Oh well, yes, they do, but no one else does.
Now that Apple is the largest company if it's type, and not on,y the most profitable company of its type, but the world's most profitable, they find it difficult to take.
So now, they're still on the fanboy kick. We read that only Apple famboys buy their products, so Apple's 194 million phones were bought by Apple famboys last year, notwithstanding the fact that most of these phones were bought by Windows users, not exactly Apple fanboys.
The same thing can be said about all their other products. Most iPods—bought by Windows users. Most iPads—bought by Windows users, etc. But this nonsense persists.
As for Google, they are, and will continue to be and advertising g placement agency, nothing more. They just produce places where their Ads can be placed in their own property, so they get double payments. Clever! But their other side trips are just there for two reasons. The first is to find more places in which to place their Ads. The other is to engender as much publicity as possible. Why make such waves about products are aren't anywhere near usability? The big parachute drop introducing Galss at their I/O conference several years ago had Glass do nothing more than many other products did. It was nothing more than a video camera broadcasting in realtime. I was making devices like that for sports for a decade before they did that. It was most unimpressive.
And where is Glass today? Foundering, that's where. Will it ever become a real product? Not likely. So what about their car? We haven't heard much about it for almost a year now. Google Wear? Now they take some of the features from Apple Watch and incorporated them. wow! Very original.
Samsung? The Copymeister. So there are rumors of Apple having "cracked" TV, according to a quote from Jobs in the Issacson bio. It's thought that it involves Siri. A few scant months later, Samsung comes out with a TV with voice control. It's terrible. The voice only works about half the time, at best, in quite environments. Nevertheless, if Apple does come out with one, Samsung likely believes, it will be Apple copying them, right? Well, two years later, Apple still hasn't co e out with voice control for a TV. Samsung's latest versions still dot. Work well with voice. But they got there first, and that's all that matters.
Same thing with the watch. All Cook had to say at All Things D, was that Apple wasn't interested in glasses, but had an intense interest in the wrist, and Samsung sprung up with their first smartwatch a few months later. Not a good one, but heck, at least they were "first".
I imagine that if Apple does come out with a car, others will follow, but producing a car is so expensive to do, even if it's actually made by an automotive company, which Apple's, if they do come out with one , will be, that most companies that aren't already car companies won't be able to follow. So we get that Samsung could, as they are already involved in automotive parts, and are big enough. Google might, if they wanted to spend that much with a manufacturer. But no other electronic competitor really could. So that would leave the other auto manufacturers, which are already working on all electric cars, even if they don't have any out yet. Five years is a ,one time, and it takes between five and seven years to come out with an all new car.
Isn't this what Musk is trying to do? How profitably?
I already stated their sales last year, along with the losses. People give Musk a lot of credit. But that doesn't mean that his companies are profitable. Most aren't. That has nothing to do with Apple, or anyone else. Musk is building most of his own cars, and is still undergoing a very steep learning curve. He's also held himself back by refusing to use dealers.
Apple is known for being more competent than that. We're getting serpveral auto manufacturers that are stating publicly that if Apple produces a car, they want to build it. I have no doubt that Apple is researching this very heavily. While Apple gives software products away, they won't be doing this with a car. If they don't believe they can make a competitive product at good margins, they won't do it.
I just ran into a bug in mobile Safari when trying to do something here in landscape mode. Had to turn to portrait mode to accomplish it. Never had that problem before iOS 8. This is a problem is seen reported elsewhere. Fix your app, Apple.
hmm. can you please tell me which leading operating systems don't have any bugs? most curious. thanks.
My Macbook still can't change its wifi password at the coffee shop. That would be acceptable if it were 1997. But wifi is a mature standard. Apple still hasn't caught up to the basics of wifi.
Most of the MacOS upgrades in the past 10 years were bloated graphics shells, nothing more.
Following a recent trip to California, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles CEO Sergio Marchionne said he met with Apple's Tim Cook to discuss the tech giant's "intervention in the car," suggesting Cupertino is continuing work on new automotive technologies.
Apple later announced any new technologies would be made completely incompatible with all Fiat and Fiat associated businesses...
and Fiat has yet to use it in any vehicles (Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler) as they announced last year.
Quote:
Publicly, Apple fields one major automobile-related initiative in CarPlay, an iOS-based in-car infotainment system designed to connect with and harness iPhone's communications, entertainment and navigation capabilities. In March, Cook said all major automakers are on board and will collectively roll out integration across 40 car models this year.
Musk is building most of his own cars, and is still undergoing a very steep learning curve. He's also held himself back by refusing to use dealers.
not using dealers isn't holding Tesla back. we live in a time when we no longer need dealerships. whether the product is cars or home audio equipment -- the public has access to information and support services without a singular dealer per region.
My Macbook still can't change its wifi password at the coffee shop. That would be acceptable if it were 1997. But wifi is a mature standard. Apple still hasn't caught up to the basics of wifi.
Most of the MacOS upgrades in the past 10 years were bloated graphics shells, nothing more.
uh, guy? computers don't have wifi passwords. wifi access points have passwords. you can surely change which password you provide to your local coffee shop access point.
if you think OS X is bloat, I'd hate to hear what you think of Windows.
meanwhile, my copies of OS X have been streamlined and void of frivolous nonsense like the copy of Vista I have at work, and a joy to use.
I already stated their sales last year, along with the losses. People give Musk a lot of credit. But that doesn't mean that his companies are profitable. Most aren't. That has nothing to do with Apple, or anyone else. Musk is building most of his own cars, and is still undergoing a very steep learning curve. He's also held himself back by refusing to use dealers.
Apple is known for being more competent than that. We're getting serpveral auto manufacturers that are stating publicly that if Apple produces a car, they want to build it. I have no doubt that Apple is researching this very heavily. While Apple gives software products away, they won't be doing this with a car. If they don't believe they can make a competitive product at good margins, they won't do it.
I give Musk credit for taking a clean sheet of paper approach to the industry, and also for producing a very good product. That fact that neither have led to running the business profitably is a testament to the huge capital costs and entrenched competition any new entry faces in this industry. I don't see where Apple can readily improve on Tesla's approach. For one thing, Apple makes money on new products right out of the gate. They can't do that with cars. And they certainly are not going to bust their own model of selling Apple products mainly in Apple retail stores by deciding that dealerships are now the way to go. Dealerships are an albatross around the necks of the automotive industry. They are archaic, at the very least. More to the point, I think Musk was right to bypass that model, and I feel certain that Apple would too.
The thing that gives me pause on the autonomous bit is that, unlike the people at Google, the Apple heads appreciate cars and the experience of driving. They own nice, fast cars. Ive goes to the Goodwood Festival of Speed a lot. I don't think they're the type to want to bring about the death of driving pleasure.
I think you are correct, Apple would be far more likely to go with the Tesla approach but not to say there couldn't be a hands off mode one day much like the new trucks that just came out.
I give Musk credit for taking a clean sheet of paper approach to the industry, and also for producing a very good product. That fact that neither have led to running the business profitably is a testament to the huge capital costs and entrenched competition any new entry faces in this industry. I don't see where Apple can readily improve on Tesla's approach. For one thing, Apple makes money on new products right out of the gate. They can't do that with cars. And they certainly are not going to bust their own model of selling Apple products mainly in Apple retail stores by deciding that dealerships are now the way to go. Dealerships are an albatross around the necks of the automotive industry. They are archaic, at the very least. More to the point, I think Musk was right to bypass that model, and I feel certain that Apple would too.
I agree on the dealers. As to service, I don't know for sure but I bet the vast majority of service requirements vanish along with an internal combustion engine. What's left other brakes, steering and electronics? Perhaps Apple and Tesla could be talking about a joint selling model?
uh, guy? computers don't have wifi passwords. wifi access points have passwords. you can surely change which password you provide to your local coffee shop access point.
if you think OS X is bloat, I'd hate to hear what you think of Windows.
meanwhile, my copies of OS X have been streamlined and void of frivolous nonsense like the copy of Vista I have at work, and a joy to use.
Sounds good. So I select the coffee shop wifi hot spot, which changes password every few days. Access fails. What then?
Please don't say open System Preferences > Network > Wifi > Advanced > Select wifi (remove) > Apply > Reselect > Enter password. Clearly I am doing something wrong... because the wrongness of it is almost too much to believe.
Kinda like when I use Microsoft Word and Autosave still tells me I ran out of disk space. Just like it did 15 years ago. Some things never get fixed.
Sure because we see all this evidence that the auto industry is rushing to partner with Apple on car technologies. That's why every car on the market is implementing and touting CarPlay as a feature. /s
I see little evidence that the auto industry really wants to partner with Silicon Valley. They want to do their own thing. They don't want to be like computer hardware OEMs that find it hard to differentiate because they're all shipping the same software. Apple is all about a consistent experience and in most cases building the entire widget. Ford isn't going to want their dashboard to look just like Toyota's or Honda's. Plus how many car companies tout other people's stuff in their cars? Apple's not going to want to be some nameless piece of technology in somebody else's car.
I understand the skepticism around Apple building is owned car. But I'm also skeptical that Apple will be able to successfully sell technology components to the auto industry at large. According to that Wall Street Journal rumor earlier this year The product VP running Apple's car project (who, according to the Official Board, works for Jony Ive) was authorized by Tim Cook to hire 1,000 people for this project. I don't think you need 1,000 people for CarPlay on steroids. Also, 9to5Mac's reporting on some of the people hired suggest that this work is more than just CarPlay on steroids. Also, when's the last time we've heard Apple even talk about CarPlay? They re-branded it as CarPlay in March 2014 and yet we haven't heard a lot about it since. Hardly talked about at any of Apple's keynote events and I don't believe Apple had a presence at any of the auto shows so far this year. That leads me to believe Apple is working on something much bigger and CarPlay is a band aid solution right now.
Car makers are partnering with Apple and ultimately, they will do what consumers want.
I think CarPlay is just the beginning of the relationship with car makers.
The systems will allow for differentiation between various makes and models.
Even after market companies can join in to retrofit older cars with the new Apple systems.
Note that Fiat already uses a Beats by Dre audio system. So technically the are already partnered with Apple.
Apple should "intervene" in the slow performance and bugs of iOS software. Just stop making stuff and fix your software!
All my iPhone's with iOS before 7 and 8 were fast and fine. iOS 7 and 8 actually made me think of getting an Android based phone in the future
Was thinking of getting a Galaxy S6 but a review on Forbes says this: "As for the performance of the phone, it slows down. Samsung has finally admitted the bug exists and is working on a fix, but in short: if you don’t restart the phone every few days it begins to crawl. Typing input is sluggish and browser scrolling stutters badly. I lay this as much at the feet of Google due to the ongoing memory leak in Android Lollipop, but both companies need to solve this" It was originally on Forbes. Right now, this is the on link I can find.
Comments
A Fiat 600 customized by Apple designers Jony Ive and Marc Newson for a charity auction in 2013.
...
Looks almost like the people-movers in "The Prisoner" (1967), but no.
Those were Mini Mokes.
I don't understand your point. Every product costs money to R&D, build, ship, warrantee, etc. Yes, we're told that profits in the automotive industry are lower than Apple's, and therefore, Apple won't want to get into this. That's total BS!
Every product Apple builds has lower profits everywhere else. Look at computers, iPods, iPhones, iPads, etc. every one of these gives Apple a very good net margin, whereas, every other manufacturer has a much poorer one, or even a negative one.
I'm certain that if Apple decides that they can't make the margins they want to make, they won't get into the area. That includes automotive products. There is absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't make margins that exceeds the major automotive companies. Smaller companies making more expensive products make very high margins, but Apple won't make very expensive cars, if they do make them.
And it needs to be understood that an all electric car is far less complex, mechanically, than even the simplest internal combustion models. That gives Apple lots of ways to improve margins.
People have made the same pricing mistake for several decades regarding Apple. They mistake the difference between not competing in a low price market with competing in a higher priced market. Apple simply doesn't compete in low price markets, so some people say that Apple's products are a lot more expensive, when they are either just a little bit more expensive, in the market they are competing in, or even, when everything is taken into account, no more expensive, or even slightly less.
But people think that because Apple doesn't produce a $300 laptop, their laptops are more expensive. They're not. They just compete with more expensive laptops. The same thing is true everywhere else, including their phones.
I don't understand your point. Every product costs money to R&D, build, ship, warrantee, etc. Yes, we're told that profits in the automotive industry are lower than Apple's, and therefore, Apple won't want to get into this. That's total BS!
Every product Apple builds has lower profits everywhere else. Look at computers, iPods, iPhones, iPads, etc. every one of these gives Apple a very good net margin, whereas, every other manufacturer has a much poorer one, or even a negative one.
I'm certain that if Apple decides that they can't make the margins they want to make, they won't get into the area. That includes automotive products. There is absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't make margins that exceeds the major automotive companies. Smaller companies making more expensive products make very high margins, but Apple won't make very expensive cars, if they do make them.
And it needs to be understood that an all electric car is far less complex, mechanically, than even the simplest internal combustion models. That gives Apple lots of ways to improve margins.
Isn't this what Musk is trying to do? How profitably?
[...]
There is absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't make margins that exceeds the major automotive companies. Smaller companies making more expensive make very high margins, but Apple won't make very expensive cars, if they do make them.
And it needs to be understood that an all electric car is far less complex, mechanically, than even the simplest internal combustion models. That gives Apple lots of ways to improve margins.
Nailed it. Smaller companies might make higher margins, but sell far fewer cars. (E.g. Pagani Automobili S.p.A., Caterham Cars, Ruf Automobile GmbH.) And yes, electrically-driven cars are much simpler than internal combustion cars. And vastly simpler than any hybrid gas/electric. That simplicity might eventually bring costs down over time, and maybe keep margins up if selling price can be maintained.
But maybe it's also time to examine the entire automobile usage and ownership model. Most of the time, even on commute days, your car is parked and not being used. Drive to work, leave it there for hours, drive home, leave it there overnight. If you have a neighborhood BBQ over the weekend, or if your friends drive you, maybe you won't drive your own car(s) at all over the weekend. And if you go on a non-driving vacation, your car will sit there unused for the duration.
In some dense urban environments (say NYC) many people don't even own cars. Their houses and apartments don't have garages. There's no car purchase ordeal, no insurance shopping, no trips to the body shop or car dealer for fender bender repairs or regular tune-ups (which themselves may be a thing of the past with all-electric vehicles), and no yearly car registration fees. Oh, and also no need to take that driving test for that drivers' license.
So maybe some kind of on-demand system is the wave of the future. You summon a self-driving car, it shows up, and takes you were you want to go. Like Lyft etc. but without drivers. And if the "car company" (e.g. Apple) has smart enough scheduling, their system could predict heavy usage areas and time periods. So there would be many self-driving ?Cars driving around Apple employees' neighborhoods during the morning rush hour and many ?Cars swarming around Apple HQ during evening rush hour. No waiting, no driving, no garage, no parking hassles, no ownership hassles.
Exactly! I'm often amazed at the ignorance, often deliberate, of writers, and posters alike.
When Apple was small, the cry was that the produced overpriced toys that no serious person would want, and so it was just fanboys that bought their products, when it was pointed out that the music, film, publishing and scientific markets depended on app,es products, the response was;Oh well, yes, they do, but no one else does.
Now that Apple is the largest company if it's type, and not on,y the most profitable company of its type, but the world's most profitable, they find it difficult to take.
So now, they're still on the fanboy kick. We read that only Apple famboys buy their products, so Apple's 194 million phones were bought by Apple famboys last year, notwithstanding the fact that most of these phones were bought by Windows users, not exactly Apple fanboys.
The same thing can be said about all their other products. Most iPods—bought by Windows users. Most iPads—bought by Windows users, etc. But this nonsense persists.
As for Google, they are, and will continue to be and advertising g placement agency, nothing more. They just produce places where their Ads can be placed in their own property, so they get double payments. Clever! But their other side trips are just there for two reasons. The first is to find more places in which to place their Ads. The other is to engender as much publicity as possible. Why make such waves about products are aren't anywhere near usability? The big parachute drop introducing Galss at their I/O conference several years ago had Glass do nothing more than many other products did. It was nothing more than a video camera broadcasting in realtime. I was making devices like that for sports for a decade before they did that. It was most unimpressive.
And where is Glass today? Foundering, that's where. Will it ever become a real product? Not likely. So what about their car? We haven't heard much about it for almost a year now. Google Wear? Now they take some of the features from Apple Watch and incorporated them. wow! Very original.
Samsung? The Copymeister. So there are rumors of Apple having "cracked" TV, according to a quote from Jobs in the Issacson bio. It's thought that it involves Siri. A few scant months later, Samsung comes out with a TV with voice control. It's terrible. The voice only works about half the time, at best, in quite environments. Nevertheless, if Apple does come out with one, Samsung likely believes, it will be Apple copying them, right? Well, two years later, Apple still hasn't co e out with voice control for a TV. Samsung's latest versions still dot. Work well with voice. But they got there first, and that's all that matters.
Same thing with the watch. All Cook had to say at All Things D, was that Apple wasn't interested in glasses, but had an intense interest in the wrist, and Samsung sprung up with their first smartwatch a few months later. Not a good one, but heck, at least they were "first".
I imagine that if Apple does come out with a car, others will follow, but producing a car is so expensive to do, even if it's actually made by an automotive company, which Apple's, if they do come out with one , will be, that most companies that aren't already car companies won't be able to follow. So we get that Samsung could, as they are already involved in automotive parts, and are big enough. Google might, if they wanted to spend that much with a manufacturer. But no other electronic competitor really could. So that would leave the other auto manufacturers, which are already working on all electric cars, even if they don't have any out yet. Five years is a ,one time, and it takes between five and seven years to come out with an all new car.
I already stated their sales last year, along with the losses. People give Musk a lot of credit. But that doesn't mean that his companies are profitable. Most aren't. That has nothing to do with Apple, or anyone else. Musk is building most of his own cars, and is still undergoing a very steep learning curve. He's also held himself back by refusing to use dealers.
Apple is known for being more competent than that. We're getting serpveral auto manufacturers that are stating publicly that if Apple produces a car, they want to build it. I have no doubt that Apple is researching this very heavily. While Apple gives software products away, they won't be doing this with a car. If they don't believe they can make a competitive product at good margins, they won't do it.
hmm. can you please tell me which leading operating systems don't have any bugs? most curious. thanks.
Most of the MacOS upgrades in the past 10 years were bloated graphics shells, nothing more.
Following a recent trip to California, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles CEO Sergio Marchionne said he met with Apple's Tim Cook to discuss the tech giant's "intervention in the car," suggesting Cupertino is continuing work on new automotive technologies.
Apple later announced any new technologies would be made completely incompatible with all Fiat and Fiat associated businesses...
and Fiat has yet to use it in any vehicles (Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler) as they announced last year.
Apple said the same thing last year...
Apple Rolls Out CarPlay Giving Drivers a Smarter, Safer & More Fun Way to Use iPhone in the Car
But really, it’s gonna go over big this year… No, really!
Just gotta get the Apple Watch incorporated into the software...
and how many vehicles was it actually put into?
not using dealers isn't holding Tesla back. we live in a time when we no longer need dealerships. whether the product is cars or home audio equipment -- the public has access to information and support services without a singular dealer per region.
Apple should "intervene" in the slow performance and bugs of iOS software. Just stop making stuff and fix your software!
All my iPhone's with iOS before 7 and 8 were fast and fine. iOS 7 and 8 actually made me think of getting an Android based phone in the future
Rumoured of course...
http://************/2015/02/09/apples-ios-9-to-have-huge-stability-and-optimization-focus-after-years-of-feature-additions/
uh, guy? computers don't have wifi passwords. wifi access points have passwords. you can surely change which password you provide to your local coffee shop access point.
if you think OS X is bloat, I'd hate to hear what you think of Windows.
meanwhile, my copies of OS X have been streamlined and void of frivolous nonsense like the copy of Vista I have at work, and a joy to use.
I already stated their sales last year, along with the losses. People give Musk a lot of credit. But that doesn't mean that his companies are profitable. Most aren't. That has nothing to do with Apple, or anyone else. Musk is building most of his own cars, and is still undergoing a very steep learning curve. He's also held himself back by refusing to use dealers.
Apple is known for being more competent than that. We're getting serpveral auto manufacturers that are stating publicly that if Apple produces a car, they want to build it. I have no doubt that Apple is researching this very heavily. While Apple gives software products away, they won't be doing this with a car. If they don't believe they can make a competitive product at good margins, they won't do it.
I give Musk credit for taking a clean sheet of paper approach to the industry, and also for producing a very good product. That fact that neither have led to running the business profitably is a testament to the huge capital costs and entrenched competition any new entry faces in this industry. I don't see where Apple can readily improve on Tesla's approach. For one thing, Apple makes money on new products right out of the gate. They can't do that with cars. And they certainly are not going to bust their own model of selling Apple products mainly in Apple retail stores by deciding that dealerships are now the way to go. Dealerships are an albatross around the necks of the automotive industry. They are archaic, at the very least. More to the point, I think Musk was right to bypass that model, and I feel certain that Apple would too.
I think you are correct, Apple would be far more likely to go with the Tesla approach but not to say there couldn't be a hands off mode one day much like the new trucks that just came out.
I agree on the dealers. As to service, I don't know for sure but I bet the vast majority of service requirements vanish along with an internal combustion engine. What's left other brakes, steering and electronics? Perhaps Apple and Tesla could be talking about a joint selling model?
uh, guy? computers don't have wifi passwords. wifi access points have passwords. you can surely change which password you provide to your local coffee shop access point.
if you think OS X is bloat, I'd hate to hear what you think of Windows.
meanwhile, my copies of OS X have been streamlined and void of frivolous nonsense like the copy of Vista I have at work, and a joy to use.
Sounds good. So I select the coffee shop wifi hot spot, which changes password every few days. Access fails. What then?
Please don't say open System Preferences > Network > Wifi > Advanced > Select wifi (remove) > Apply > Reselect > Enter password. Clearly I am doing something wrong... because the wrongness of it is almost too much to believe.
Kinda like when I use Microsoft Word and Autosave still tells me I ran out of disk space. Just like it did 15 years ago. Some things never get fixed.
Sure because we see all this evidence that the auto industry is rushing to partner with Apple on car technologies. That's why every car on the market is implementing and touting CarPlay as a feature. /s
I see little evidence that the auto industry really wants to partner with Silicon Valley. They want to do their own thing. They don't want to be like computer hardware OEMs that find it hard to differentiate because they're all shipping the same software. Apple is all about a consistent experience and in most cases building the entire widget. Ford isn't going to want their dashboard to look just like Toyota's or Honda's. Plus how many car companies tout other people's stuff in their cars? Apple's not going to want to be some nameless piece of technology in somebody else's car.
I understand the skepticism around Apple building is owned car. But I'm also skeptical that Apple will be able to successfully sell technology components to the auto industry at large. According to that Wall Street Journal rumor earlier this year The product VP running Apple's car project (who, according to the Official Board, works for Jony Ive) was authorized by Tim Cook to hire 1,000 people for this project. I don't think you need 1,000 people for CarPlay on steroids. Also, 9to5Mac's reporting on some of the people hired suggest that this work is more than just CarPlay on steroids. Also, when's the last time we've heard Apple even talk about CarPlay? They re-branded it as CarPlay in March 2014 and yet we haven't heard a lot about it since. Hardly talked about at any of Apple's keynote events and I don't believe Apple had a presence at any of the auto shows so far this year. That leads me to believe Apple is working on something much bigger and CarPlay is a band aid solution right now.
Car makers are partnering with Apple and ultimately, they will do what consumers want.
I think CarPlay is just the beginning of the relationship with car makers.
The systems will allow for differentiation between various makes and models.
Even after market companies can join in to retrofit older cars with the new Apple systems.
Note that Fiat already uses a Beats by Dre audio system. So technically the are already partnered with Apple.
All my iPhone's with iOS before 7 and 8 were fast and fine. iOS 7 and 8 actually made me think of getting an Android based phone in the future
Was thinking of getting a Galaxy S6 but a review on Forbes says this: "As for the performance of the phone, it slows down. Samsung has finally admitted the bug exists and is working on a fix, but in short: if you don’t restart the phone every few days it begins to crawl. Typing input is sluggish and browser scrolling stutters badly. I lay this as much at the feet of Google due to the ongoing memory leak in Android Lollipop, but both companies need to solve this" It was originally on Forbes. Right now, this is the on link I can find.