Fascinating. Battery tech, mapping tech, liquidmetal, sapphire windshields.... But I don't believe BMW has the technology to produce car-sized solid blocks of aluminum for Apple to machine into a unibody auto. Who does? Alcoa?
right. One word for BMW i3: pathetic! Only an idiot would pay $45k for a 80mile range car. I love BMW cars and I've owned several so far, but i3 is just so non-BMW. BMW should never enter EV field until they figure out the battery issue. Talk to Tesla how to build an EV because their battery technology is at least 5 years ahead anyone.
If Apple have to build gas/LPG/Hydrogen based car than it can possibly fail because that requires many decades of trial and error to refine many aspects of building a vehicle. But, for electric car, if Tesla can do it, others can as well and Apple can do even better. Remember, Tesla have to sell car to survive but Apple can pu money from other products revenue and raise the bar that Tesla or others may not be easily able to match.
what the F are you talking about? Tesla have what others don't: battery technology which is at least 5 years ahead anyone. Don't even think that Apple can build a car even close to Model S 60 with BMW partnership. Maybe Apple can build a car to compete with i3, Leaf or Volt. Competing with Tesla, it's the suicide. In EV, Tesla is the king with no competitor, not even close, not even at all.
In principle, yes. But they've also been one of the holdouts among major luxury manufacturers when it comes to something as simple and obvious as CarPlay (considering how their multimedia system is quite poor).
I vaguely recall seeing news reports saying that BMW engineers are/were not particularly interested in working with Apple.
what the F are you talking about? Tesla have what others don't: battery technology which is at least 5 years ahead anyone. Don't even think that Apple can build a car even close to Model S 60 with BMW partnership. Maybe Apple can build a car to compete with i3, Leaf or Volt. Competing with Tesla, it's the suicide. In EV, Tesla is the king with no competitor, not even close, not even at all.
Everyone knows Tesla is few years ahead but won't take much longer for others to catch up and Apple can do even better in shorter time if thinks that is where want to lead.
(speculation of an Apple-BMW vehicle sold through BMW dealer network)
So now I have a reason to set foot in a BMW dealership? I don't know. Speculation anyways. Apple partnered with Motorola to sell a phone + iPod hybrid, the Moto ROKR, but it was a pretty 'meh'. There was also "Apple + HP" branded iPods. What's the point? I don't think Apple has an appetite for co-branding. They'd rather make sure CarPlay is a thing against the Android horde. Why risk CarPlay adoption across all auto manufacturers by marrying and having a baby with BMW?
I'm expecting the Apple Watch segment will exceed all of Tesla's revenue and profits for 2015. That's not even adjusting the timeframes to compare first year on market. Tesla did $3.198 billion for 2014, and showed a 55% increase in unit sales YoY for the first quarter of 2015. Apple Watch will probably do at least 4x that and will actually have a healthy profit margin to boot.
$12.8 billion in Tesla sales ($3.198b x 4) at $500 per Apple watch is 25.6 million watches. Do you really think Apple is going to accomplish that in 2015 or even in 2016? But I do agree that Apple will see far more profits from the Watch than Tesla will see from the car.
This is why I've argued when this has come up before that Apple would not get into the auto business directly. Capital investment is too large, margins are too small and even with robots in the factories, it's too labor intensive. And Apple probably couldn't farm it out - they'd probably have to build their own factories. But if Apple were to get in, one way to do it would be by using someone else's body. The problem is that Apple's designers probably wouldn't "accept" anyone else's body.
The Market Cap of BMW is $60 billion and Tesla's is $35 billion. Apple's is $710 billion. If Apple really wanted in, they could buy either or both. They could probably pay half in cash and half in stock. On the other hand, you have to crawl before you can walk. Maybe Apple should try building a bicycle or a personal transportation vehicle before they try building a car, if indeed that's what they really want to do.
Personally, I've always felt that Apple in 2035-2040 will be an A.I. and robotics company.
right. One word for BMW i3: pathetic! Only an idiot would pay $45k for a 80mile range car. I love BMW cars and I've owned several so far, but i3 is just so non-BMW. BMW should never enter EV field until they figure out the battery issue. Talk to Tesla how to build an EV because their battery technology is at least 5 years ahead anyone.
Haha. Replace "BMW" with "Apple" and "i3" with "?Watch" and you'll have the same hollow argument. Not everyone needs more than 80 miles on a single charge to make that car successful. While the battery life on the Tesla may be a selling point, for the people I know who bought one that was by no means the primary reason they bought the car. None of them drive close to 80 miles a day and they charge it at work and at home every day. They bought it because it was a luxury electric. BMW offers the car for customer retention. Im not a fan of the styling, but I don't think those willing to buy an electric car are necessarily concerned with how the car looks from the outside. As long as it has the interior appointments BMW customers have become accustomed to, then it serves it's purpose for the urban commuter, not to mention giving them a free ticket into the HOV lane. Tesla appeals to a much more upscale clientele. And you pay for that extra range with starting prices of $100,000, and much more classic styling. Frankly I can't see buying a Tesla at all. Seems to me it's a case of getting what you pay for as far as battery range is concerned.
$12.8 billion in Tesla sales ($3.198b x 4) at $500 per Apple watch is 25.6 million watches. Do you really think Apple is going to accomplish that in 2015 or even in 2016? But I do agree that Apple will see far more profits from the Watch than Tesla will see from the car.
I was basing on estimate on Telsa doing 55% more YoY. How did you get 400% YoY?
And Apple probably couldn't farm it out - they'd probably have to build their own factories. But if Apple were to get in, one way to do it would be by using someone else's body. The problem is that Apple's designers probably wouldn't "accept" anyone else's body.
While I agree with much of what you suggest, I'm not sure I agree about the manufacture. For the body, I'm not sure Apple couldn't approach this in much the same way as their custom A# chips. They could design the body and have it custom manufactured in partnership with another auto manufacturer perhaps. And I don't see why they'd have to build factories to assemble it. Why not just lease factories form any number of auto manufacturers worldwide who may have an idle factory they otherwise have to pay the overhead on, and lay the workers off. In fact Apple could offer to modernize the factory for the automaker's ultimate use. I see any number of ways Apple can do this without a heavy capital investment. There will still be a sizable investment in retail service centers, R&D, startup costs, and manufacturing equipment updates, but this is no different than any product Apple manufactures.
$12.8 billion in Tesla sales ($3.198b x 4) at $500 per Apple watch is 25.6 million watches. Do you really think Apple is going to accomplish that in 2015 or even in 2016? But I do agree that Apple will see far more profits from the Watch than Tesla will see from the car.
This is why I've argued when this has come up before that Apple would not get into the auto business directly. Capital investment is too large, margins are too small and even with robots in the factories, it's too labor intensive. And Apple probably couldn't farm it out - they'd probably have to build their own factories. But if Apple were to get in, one way to do it would be by using someone else's body. The problem is that Apple's designers probably wouldn't "accept" anyone else's body.
The Market Cap of BMW is $60 billion and Tesla's is $35 billion. Apple's is $710 billion. If Apple really wanted in, they could buy either or both. They could probably pay half in cash and half in stock. On the other hand, you have to crawl before you can walk. Maybe Apple should try building a bicycle or a personal transportation vehicle before they try building a car, if indeed that's what they really want to do.
Personally, I've always felt that Apple in 2035-2040 will be an A.I. and robotics company.
Mark Zuckerberg has already stated that artificial intelligence is one of Facebook's primary goals for now. I hope Apple gets there before Facebook does, but they'd have to much better than they've done with Apple Music.
35 comments in and nobody has brought up Steve Jobs' tour of Xerox? This board is slipping. Okay, here's the connection... If Apple eventually does build an electric car, and if it utilizes any of the concepts of the BMW i3, you can be sure the Apple haters will be out in full force with a comparison of Tim Cook touring the i3 facility with Jobs' tour of the Xerox Parc facilities. Apple will be blamed once again for stealing rather than inventing on their own. Here we go again... ugh.
35 comments in and nobody has brought up Steve Jobs' tour of Xerox? This board is slipping. Okay, here's the connection... If Apple eventually does build an electric car, and if it utilizes any of the concepts of the BMW i3, you can be sure the Apple haters will be out in full force with a comparison of Tim Cook touring the i3 facility with Jobs' tour of the Xerox Parc facilities. Apple will be blamed once again for stealing rather than inventing on their own. Here we go again... ugh.
Just for clarification, you seem to be inferring Steve did steal something on his tour of Xerox, or are you simply meaning others believe this myth in this scenario you paint?
It would be far easier for Apple to simply BUY BMW. BMW costs only $60 BILLION. And it makes a huge profit which can then pay for the sale of itself to Apple.
That would mean buying out the Quandt family. Good luck with that.
Fascinating. Battery tech, mapping tech, liquidmetal, sapphire windshields.... But I don't believe BMW has the technology to produce car-sized solid blocks of aluminum for Apple to machine into a unibody auto. Who does? Alcoa?
$12.8 billion in Tesla sales ($3.198b x 4) at $500 per Apple watch is 25.6 million watches. Do you really think Apple is going to accomplish that in 2015 or even in 2016? But I do agree that Apple will see far more profits from the Watch than Tesla will see from the car.
This is why I've argued when this has come up before that Apple would not get into the auto business directly. Capital investment is too large, margins are too small and even with robots in the factories, it's too labor intensive. And Apple probably couldn't farm it out - they'd probably have to build their own factories. But if Apple were to get in, one way to do it would be by using someone else's body. The problem is that Apple's designers probably wouldn't "accept" anyone else's body.
The Market Cap of BMW is $60 billion and Tesla's is $35 billion. Apple's is $710 billion. If Apple really wanted in, they could buy either or both. They could probably pay half in cash and half in stock. On the other hand, you have to crawl before you can walk. Maybe Apple should try building a bicycle or a personal transportation vehicle before they try building a car, if indeed that's what they really want to do.
Personally, I've always felt that Apple in 2035-2040 will be an A.I. and robotics company.
Tesla's sales for all of 2014 was $3.198B. Consensus analyst estimates for all of 2015 sales is $5.76B. Not sure why you're multiplying by 4.
BMW's financials, including market cap, are in euros, not dollars. Granted, that number has fallen because of the 25% depreciation of the euro in the past year, but it's higher than $60B.
right. One word for BMW i3: pathetic! Only an idiot would pay $45k for a 80mile range car. I love BMW cars and I've owned several so far, but i3 is just so non-BMW. BMW should never enter EV field until they figure out the battery issue. Talk to Tesla how to build an EV because their battery technology is at least 5 years ahead anyone.
Telsa battery technology is the same as everyone else. BMW decided to go with a modular packaging technology whereby they could replace individual parts of a battery pack instead of the entire pack when issues arise. This has made their pack larger in volume and heavier.
All the Tesla fanboys always look at the weight/size and assume that Tesla makes more efficient batteries, but that's not true. BMW made a choice to make their packs the way they do - it has nothing to do with them not having access to the latest battery technology or that Tesla is somehow better and making battery packs.
ALL electric car companies have the same basic set of rules to play with. Nobody really has an advantage over the other, whether it be in batteries, electric motors or the controllers that drive them. Nobody can magically charge their batteries using less electricity from the grid, nor can anyone build electric motors that are somehow much more efficient than anyone else. However, BMW does have an advantage over Tesla because they've been mass producing cars for a lot longer and have built up a considerable amount of knowledge.
For example, Tesla having had to replace the entire drive unit on quite a few Model S's (at some $15K each) because they never properly fastened a cable with a $2 clip.
Telsa battery technology is the same as everyone else. BMW decided to go with a modular packaging technology whereby they could replace individual parts of a battery pack instead of the entire pack when issues arise. This has made their pack larger in volume and heavier.
All the Tesla fanboys always look at the weight/size and assume that Tesla makes more efficient batteries, but that's not true. BMW made a choice to make their packs the way they do - it has nothing to do with them not having access to the latest battery technology or that Tesla is somehow better and making battery packs.
ALL electric car companies have the same basic set of rules to play with. Nobody really has an advantage over the other, whether it be in batteries, electric motors or the controllers that drive them. Nobody can magically charge their batteries using less electricity from the grid, nor can anyone build electric motors that are somehow much more efficient than anyone else. However, BMW does have an advantage over Tesla because they've been mass producing cars for a lot longer and have built up a considerable amount of knowledge.
For example, Tesla having had to replace the entire drive unit on quite a few Model S's (at some $15K each) because they never properly fastened a cable with a $2 clip.
battery technology is the same for everyone? Stfu. If so, Apple wouldn't poach A123 's employees. Such as denial but the truth that no one can make a battery like Tesla. End of story.
Comments
Fascinating. Battery tech, mapping tech, liquidmetal, sapphire windshields.... But I don't believe BMW has the technology to produce car-sized solid blocks of aluminum for Apple to machine into a unibody auto.
Who does? Alcoa?
Ikea
In principle, yes. But they've also been one of the holdouts among major luxury manufacturers when it comes to something as simple and obvious as CarPlay (considering how their multimedia system is quite poor).
I vaguely recall seeing news reports saying that BMW engineers are/were not particularly interested in working with Apple.
what the F are you talking about? Tesla have what others don't: battery technology which is at least 5 years ahead anyone. Don't even think that Apple can build a car even close to Model S 60 with BMW partnership. Maybe Apple can build a car to compete with i3, Leaf or Volt. Competing with Tesla, it's the suicide. In EV, Tesla is the king with no competitor, not even close, not even at all.
Everyone knows Tesla is few years ahead but won't take much longer for others to catch up and Apple can do even better in shorter time if thinks that is where want to lead.
I only lease cars now. I've little interest in owning a car... ever again. And I'd be interested in leasing an Apple Car.
So now I have a reason to set foot in a BMW dealership? I don't know. Speculation anyways. Apple partnered with Motorola to sell a phone + iPod hybrid, the Moto ROKR, but it was a pretty 'meh'. There was also "Apple + HP" branded iPods. What's the point? I don't think Apple has an appetite for co-branding. They'd rather make sure CarPlay is a thing against the Android horde. Why risk CarPlay adoption across all auto manufacturers by marrying and having a baby with BMW?
I'm expecting the Apple Watch segment will exceed all of Tesla's revenue and profits for 2015. That's not even adjusting the timeframes to compare first year on market. Tesla did $3.198 billion for 2014, and showed a 55% increase in unit sales YoY for the first quarter of 2015. Apple Watch will probably do at least 4x that and will actually have a healthy profit margin to boot.
$12.8 billion in Tesla sales ($3.198b x 4) at $500 per Apple watch is 25.6 million watches. Do you really think Apple is going to accomplish that in 2015 or even in 2016? But I do agree that Apple will see far more profits from the Watch than Tesla will see from the car.
This is why I've argued when this has come up before that Apple would not get into the auto business directly. Capital investment is too large, margins are too small and even with robots in the factories, it's too labor intensive. And Apple probably couldn't farm it out - they'd probably have to build their own factories. But if Apple were to get in, one way to do it would be by using someone else's body. The problem is that Apple's designers probably wouldn't "accept" anyone else's body.
The Market Cap of BMW is $60 billion and Tesla's is $35 billion. Apple's is $710 billion. If Apple really wanted in, they could buy either or both. They could probably pay half in cash and half in stock. On the other hand, you have to crawl before you can walk. Maybe Apple should try building a bicycle or a personal transportation vehicle before they try building a car, if indeed that's what they really want to do.
Personally, I've always felt that Apple in 2035-2040 will be an A.I. and robotics company.
right. One word for BMW i3: pathetic! Only an idiot would pay $45k for a 80mile range car. I love BMW cars and I've owned several so far, but i3 is just so non-BMW. BMW should never enter EV field until they figure out the battery issue. Talk to Tesla how to build an EV because their battery technology is at least 5 years ahead anyone.
Haha. Replace "BMW" with "Apple" and "i3" with "?Watch" and you'll have the same hollow argument. Not everyone needs more than 80 miles on a single charge to make that car successful. While the battery life on the Tesla may be a selling point, for the people I know who bought one that was by no means the primary reason they bought the car. None of them drive close to 80 miles a day and they charge it at work and at home every day. They bought it because it was a luxury electric. BMW offers the car for customer retention. Im not a fan of the styling, but I don't think those willing to buy an electric car are necessarily concerned with how the car looks from the outside. As long as it has the interior appointments BMW customers have become accustomed to, then it serves it's purpose for the urban commuter, not to mention giving them a free ticket into the HOV lane. Tesla appeals to a much more upscale clientele. And you pay for that extra range with starting prices of $100,000, and much more classic styling. Frankly I can't see buying a Tesla at all. Seems to me it's a case of getting what you pay for as far as battery range is concerned.
I was basing on estimate on Telsa doing 55% more YoY. How did you get 400% YoY?
And Apple probably couldn't farm it out - they'd probably have to build their own factories. But if Apple were to get in, one way to do it would be by using someone else's body. The problem is that Apple's designers probably wouldn't "accept" anyone else's body.
While I agree with much of what you suggest, I'm not sure I agree about the manufacture. For the body, I'm not sure Apple couldn't approach this in much the same way as their custom A# chips. They could design the body and have it custom manufactured in partnership with another auto manufacturer perhaps. And I don't see why they'd have to build factories to assemble it. Why not just lease factories form any number of auto manufacturers worldwide who may have an idle factory they otherwise have to pay the overhead on, and lay the workers off. In fact Apple could offer to modernize the factory for the automaker's ultimate use. I see any number of ways Apple can do this without a heavy capital investment. There will still be a sizable investment in retail service centers, R&D, startup costs, and manufacturing equipment updates, but this is no different than any product Apple manufactures.
Mark Zuckerberg has already stated that artificial intelligence is one of Facebook's primary goals for now. I hope Apple gets there before Facebook does, but they'd have to much better than they've done with Apple Music.
35 comments in and nobody has brought up Steve Jobs' tour of Xerox? This board is slipping. Okay, here's the connection... If Apple eventually does build an electric car, and if it utilizes any of the concepts of the BMW i3, you can be sure the Apple haters will be out in full force with a comparison of Tim Cook touring the i3 facility with Jobs' tour of the Xerox Parc facilities. Apple will be blamed once again for stealing rather than inventing on their own. Here we go again... ugh.
Just for clarification, you seem to be inferring Steve did steal something on his tour of Xerox, or are you simply meaning others believe this myth in this scenario you paint?
That would mean buying out the Quandt family. Good luck with that.
Fascinating. Battery tech, mapping tech, liquidmetal, sapphire windshields.... But I don't believe BMW has the technology to produce car-sized solid blocks of aluminum for Apple to machine into a unibody auto.
Who does? Alcoa?
The BMW i3 isn't unibody
Tesla's sales for all of 2014 was $3.198B. Consensus analyst estimates for all of 2015 sales is $5.76B. Not sure why you're multiplying by 4.
BMW's financials, including market cap, are in euros, not dollars. Granted, that number has fallen because of the 25% depreciation of the euro in the past year, but it's higher than $60B.
I have no idea why you are so obsessed with my comment that you have to respond to it twice. Was your first reply not stupid enough for your liking?
right. One word for BMW i3: pathetic! Only an idiot would pay $45k for a 80mile range car. I love BMW cars and I've owned several so far, but i3 is just so non-BMW. BMW should never enter EV field until they figure out the battery issue. Talk to Tesla how to build an EV because their battery technology is at least 5 years ahead anyone.
Telsa battery technology is the same as everyone else. BMW decided to go with a modular packaging technology whereby they could replace individual parts of a battery pack instead of the entire pack when issues arise. This has made their pack larger in volume and heavier.
All the Tesla fanboys always look at the weight/size and assume that Tesla makes more efficient batteries, but that's not true. BMW made a choice to make their packs the way they do - it has nothing to do with them not having access to the latest battery technology or that Tesla is somehow better and making battery packs.
ALL electric car companies have the same basic set of rules to play with. Nobody really has an advantage over the other, whether it be in batteries, electric motors or the controllers that drive them. Nobody can magically charge their batteries using less electricity from the grid, nor can anyone build electric motors that are somehow much more efficient than anyone else. However, BMW does have an advantage over Tesla because they've been mass producing cars for a lot longer and have built up a considerable amount of knowledge.
For example, Tesla having had to replace the entire drive unit on quite a few Model S's (at some $15K each) because they never properly fastened a cable with a $2 clip.