These are both really good questions. I'm going to compare them to Tesla, which admittedly is a little unfair. Cars are not motorcycles and Tesla is a much larger company than Mission was.
But it took Tesla about 5 years to get the Roadster into production. They had only sold a few hundred Roadsters in the year or so before full production began. It also took Tesla about 9 years to get the S into production.
Don't forget to include the hostile delay tactics of the existing 800 pound gorillas of the automotive industry...
Isn't that the general model employed by Samsung vis-à-vis making hardware for Apple?
Consumer devices that are full of bugs (that "will be fixed at the next release") are not the same as industrial strength manufacturing software, where even an ignition switch will cost you millions in damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Quote:Originally Posted by boredumb
Isn't that the general model employed by Samsung vis-à-vis making hardware for Apple?
I thought Apple did its own chip design. What hardware is Samsung designing for Apple?
The point wasn't quite linear, it was simply that, while building Apple hardware, Samsung was learning to build its own.
My understanding, perhaps faulty, of Rogifan's original point was that Apple's understanding of software it writes for various car manufacturers - integral to those final products - was to some degree Car U. for its own eventual designs...
These are both really good questions. I'm going to compare them to Tesla, which admittedly is a little unfair. Cars are not motorcycles and Tesla is a much larger company than Mission was.
But it took Tesla about 5 years to get the Roadster into production. They had only sold a few hundred Roadsters in the year or so before full production began. It also took Tesla about 9 years to get the S into production.
Don't forget to include the hostile delay tactics of the existing 800 pound gorillas of the automotive industry...
Oh you couldn't possibly be talking about something like this could you?
Depends upon how you characterize Apple's competencies.
I see Apple as being a company with expertise in engineering new and advanced manufacturing capabilities. It's Apple, not its suppliers, that develops the new manufacturing technologies used in the manufacture of its products. Long history of that at Apple.
I see Apple as perhaps the world's preeminent global supply-chain manager. The task of corralling the near two hundred suppliers that contribute to the iPhone, not to mention each of Apple's other product lines, at massive scale, is an intractable problem that few other than Apple can manage. It's the 'massive scale' aspect that most sets Apple apart here, as others certainly have even more suppliers for their many product lines. Think HP, for example. But HP is not coming to market with 13 million of any one product, all loaded with the just-in-time latest software version and delivered in a week, as Apple just did with the iPhone 6S launch.
I see Apple as a company with a unique design focus, with the capability to analyse and design against multiple competing dimensions of a product's design, from its utility to the user experience provided, to environmental and conservation aspects, to cost control and scalability.
All of these and other talents present and functioning within the halls of Cupertino can and will be brought to bear on the development of a 21st century leading-edge transportation system. I have high confidence.
I think you are overestimating the transportability of those competencies. Being the worlds best supply chain manager of chips and circuit boards does not immediately translate to being the worlds best supply chain manager of metal, wheels, plastic dashboards, seats, etc. Apple have no relationships at all with the suppliers they need for car manufacturing. When they built the iPhone, they used largely the same suppliers they used for the Macs, when they built the iPad the same suppliers as the iPhone and so on. That is why they have a limited product range: to keep the complexity low.
Again, I am not saying that they cannot pull it off, but they have very few competencies that are portable to that business. I do not see Tesla hiring away engineers from Facebook, Samsung, or indeed, Apple. They are hiring engineers from car manufacturers and battery experts.
So, yes, Apple can do this, but they can do it as well or as bad as any company that has a lot of cash sitting overseas and that decides they want to build a car company.They will buy the expertise, by buying a car company (like they bought Beats).
1) I think you're undercutting Apple's abilities in 2015. As @Rogifan mentions, Tesla had to do this grassroots, whereas Apple gets the benefits of a decade of public awareness, advances in electronics, trial-and-error from other companies, and Tesla's patent portfolio. It seems clear to me that Apple is building a car, and I see most of the engineering already being in Apple's wheelhouse.
2) Why 500k as a minimum their first year? How many Bentleys, for example, are sold per year?
I also believe Apple is building a car. I just think it is a magnitude more complex than building an iPhone, iPad, or MacBook for them: it is a completely different industry that has close to zero shared competencies. So if they are building it, they are just funding a new company, like a giant PE fund; they are not adding another product to their existing portfolio. They may as well have decided to start an airline, or a construction company (they know how to build eye catching buildings...).
There are various reasons why I believe the number is 500,000:
1. ethos: they are a company that builds aspirational but affordable products for the affluent mass market. iPhone, iPad, Watch are all affordable to anyone with a more or less decent job.
2. practical requirements: in order to make self-driving cars work, the road conditions will have to be updated frequently. That can be accomplished by having each car sensing the surroundings (and possibly filming it, subject to privacy concerns) and uploading the data to the cloud. So they need a lot of cars on the road. This is also the reason I believe the German car companies bought the mapping software company: they sell millions of cars so updates from these will be almost real time (there is always a VW Group, BMW, or Mercedes car just ahead of you wherever you go).
3. Efficiency: Bentleys are mostly hand-made, which is about right for the 10,000 cars they build per year. A modern fully automated factory is just not very efficient unless you build a large number of cars (around 300,000). I doubt Apple will run a sub-efficient production schedule.
So, to get this launched, they need car engineering expertise, the supply chain management expertise, an efficient modern factory, and distribution (you don't ship cars in little brown boxes through your letter box). To get there quickly, they will buy a car company (they bought Beats to get music expertise and industry relationships).
Bets are taken which car company. The obvious candidate is BMW, but the Quandts won't sell. So I venture Fiat Chrysler, currently worth $22 Bn, they will pay $ 30 Bn, if they can buy the shares in Italy (they don't want to bring the cash into the US).
I wonder how long Mission Motors, founded 2007, intended to go and not ship a product... it isn't like they have unlimited money... or did they think they had?
Their number one problem, you can't have profits without income and income requires products.
I wonder how long it can possibly take to develop an electric motorcycle.....
Probably 6-12 months depending upon the teams experience. Mind you this would be a conventional build, basically put together from existing components and a smattering of new technologies. Lets face it the industry has had over a century worth of experience building motorcycles now, adding batteries and an electric motor isn't a bid deal.
Of course the more unique engineering you put into a machine the longer to get to market but there is no excuse for Mission.
Admittedly I don't know a whole lot about this stuff either.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Not saying that an electric vehicle is not very complex, but there are bound to be a ton of components, systems, sensors and other things that you simply don't need compared to a gas vehicle.</span>
There isn't a huge difference in the number of components. The electronics of the motor controller and battery charger largely makes up for all the special sensors in a gasoline powered car.
Where gas and electric vehicles are similar are largely things that are basically off the shelf components and systems these days. Things like steering and anti-lock brakes systems, traction control systems,
Traction control is a joke, exactly the opposite of what you want in winter driving.
tire pressure systems, air bags, accelerometers, seat belt tensioners, in-seat sensors, lane change and back-up sensors and front facing LIDAR or other similar systems can likely all be purchased or licensed from anyone who makes them. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">The same goes for most of the suspension components.</span>
Yep! Frankly Apple can leverage the same parts chains the big auto manufactures leverage.
I don't see the need for Apple to reinvent the wheel here.
If they don't reinvent the wheel to a certain extent there is no need for Apple to get involved in automobiles.
Rather do it how they do it now.
Lately they have reinvented several markets so reinventing the wheel is in order.
Design the body and essence of the vehicle aka the look and feel. And then once they have figured out all of the techniques of how to build it, then use everyone else to supply the parts and labor to put it all together on a massive scale. I could be totally wrong about this but I just don't see Apple owning a car factory per se, but more like how their relationship is with Foxconn.
Well first if they don't have a manufacturing plant in the USA I will be a bit hostile to any Apple car!!!! <<<<<really needed to air that.
In any event I really don't think you can manage quality properly without your own assembly plant.
Anyway I sort of veered off of your original point but that is my two cents.
I also believe Apple is building a car. I just think it is a magnitude more complex than building an iPhone, iPad, or MacBook for them: it is a completely different industry that has close to zero shared competencies. So if they are building it, they are just funding a new company,
I suspect Apple will market it as another Apple device. Mainly to leverage the brand name.
like a giant PE fund; they are not adding another product to their existing portfolio. They may as well have decided to start an airline, or a construction company (they know how to build eye catching buildings...).
There are various reasons why I believe the number is 500,000:
It is a number that is excessive for first year manufacture. Lets face it, getting any new production line up and running is a unique an grueling task all on its own. To shake out that line and maintain quality initial production rate will be low. Frankly this isn't much different than what Ford has gone through with their new F150. The only difference is that Ford has more plants to allow them a faster ramp up after initial debug is done. Even so it is publicly acknowledged that it has take awhile to meet demand.
Apple will likely only have one plant running at introduction so I have a hard time seeing 500,000 cars coming off the line in the first year.
1. ethos: they are a company that builds aspirational but affordable products for the affluent mass market. iPhone, iPad, Watch are all affordable to anyone with a more or less decent job.
While true even the first iPhone didn't have massive projections for sales. Besides by definition a car is far more expensive than any single device Apple currently sells.
2. practical requirements: in order to make self-driving cars work, the road conditions will have to be updated frequently.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. I don't have much confidence really in the idea of self driving cars, living in snow country does that for you. In any event to be viable a self driving car needs to adapt to actually conditions automatically and without delay.
That can be accomplished by having each car sensing the surroundings (and possibly filming it, subject to privacy concerns) and uploading the data to the cloud. So they need a lot of cars on the road. This is also the reason I believe the German car companies bought the mapping software company: they sell millions of cars so updates from these will be almost real time (there is always a VW Group, BMW, or Mercedes car just ahead of you wherever you go).
3. Efficiency: Bentleys are mostly hand-made, which is about right for the 10,000 cars they build per year. A modern fully automated factory is just not very efficient unless you build a large number of cars (around 300,000). I doubt Apple will run a sub-efficient production schedule.
There is no denying this but the point is if you start up one factory you can't expect to be cranking along at full speed in the first year.
So, to get this launched, they need car engineering expertise, the supply chain management expertise, an efficient modern factory, and distribution (you don't ship cars in little brown boxes through your letter box). To get there quickly, they will buy a car company (they bought Beats to get music expertise and industry relationships).
Buying a car company brings too much legacy with it. Would Apple want to be saddled with seven years of support on old internal combustion machines? The reality is they can buy abandoned car plants all over the world, the plant isn't the problem.
Frankly I don't think Apple will do anything at all here like they did with beats. The liabilities are one big issue but if they really want to transition the industry to new technologies and construction methods they will likely need a entirely new plant anyways.
Bets are taken which car company. The obvious candidate is BMW, but the Quandts won't sell. So I venture Fiat Chrysler, currently worth $22 Bn, they will pay $ 30 Bn, if they can buy the shares in Italy (they don't want to bring the cash into the US).
I just don't see them buying a car company outright. An old plant maybe but not a company with a massive range of products they have no need for.
I have to admit, I do not quite understand your post. It seems you are agreeing with me that producing a car will be extremely difficult for Apple (as it is for any new company that wants to enter the car business).
Originally Posted by wizard69
Lets face it, getting any new production line up and running is a unique an grueling task all on its own. ... Apple will likely only have one plant running at introduction so I have a hard time seeing 500,000 cars coming off the line in the first year.
You agree that having large production line will be difficult.
New plants of existing car manufacturers routinely have production capacity of 300,000 on day one. I understand that that is around the number that a plant needs to be efficient. Of course they rev up over time.
Quote:
While true even the first iPhone didn't have massive projections for sales. Besides by definition a car is far more expensive than any single device Apple currently sells.
300,000 to 500,000 car per years is not a massive projection for sales (but it is ambitious). Annual US car sales is 8 Mn per year, so we are talking less than 6% market share of new car sales. So yes, that is large number, but how else will they be able to produce a car that people can actually afford?
China has annual sales of almost 20 Mn, maybe the Apple Car will debut there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm not sure where you get that idea. I don't have much confidence really in the idea of self driving cars, living in snow country does that for you.
Why else would they develop a car? Where is the "dent in the universe" of producing just another car, even if it is electric? They would have to make an electric car *better*, how do you make it better (in Apple, change-the-world sense) if not by self-driving? Comfier seats...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
If they really want to transition the industry to new technologies and construction methods they will likely need a entirely new plant anyways. I just don't see them buying a car company outright. An old plant maybe but not a company with a massive range of products they have no need for.
What new technology do you mean (you just wrote that you don't think it will be self-driving); what new construction methods (you write below that they will at least buy a car plant), you mean one built of rose gold aluminium?
Maybe they wont do anything in the US and they build the car for China.
You agree that having large production line will be difficult.
New plants of existing car manufacturers routinely have production capacity of 300,000 on day one. I understand that that is around the number that a plant needs to be efficient. Of course they rev up over time.
300,000 to 500,000 car per years is not a massive projection for sales (but it is ambitious). Annual US car sales is 8 Mn per year, so we are talking less than 6% market share of new car sales. So yes, that is large number, but how else will they be able to produce a car that people can actually afford?
An established manufacture can get that rate at startup, I have a hard time believing Apple can do that on day one. They would need to gain experience here that only the large manufactures have.
As far as being profitable, they may need to eat profits for a few months to get the line running smoothly. The other thing here is that they might not build this care in the traditional Detroit production line setup. That is why they have looked at various production lines including new approaches from BMW I believe. There is a huge amount of innovation potential in just how the car is built. Look at Fords Aluminum pickup body as one example. I can however see deeper changes in the way automobiles are assembled.
China has annual sales of almost 20 Mn, maybe the Apple Car will debut there?
Why else would they develop a car? Where is the "dent in the universe" of producing just another car, even if it is electric? They would have to make an electric car *better*, how do you make it better (in Apple, change-the-world sense) if not by self-driving? Comfier seats...?
There are lots of sound reasons to develop an electric car that don't involve self driving. Considering the poor showing of electric's in sales figures there is plenty of room to innovate to get drivers on board. Affordability is one big deal that Apple may be able to effectively address.
What new technology do you mean (you just wrote that you don't think it will be self-driving); what new construction methods (you write below that they will at least buy a car plant), you mean one built of rose gold aluminum?
Manufacturing technologies. Apple could do much to improve the sale price of an Apple car by employing the newest technologies to produce the car.as for the car itself there are all sort of things to offer including heads up displays, a built in Mac or IOS machine, Airless tires, new body materials.new battery technologies and frankly a bunch more.
I'm not one to dismiss self driving cars completely just don't se them being able to cope with hard core winter weather driving. I've seen storms where the snow was so deep and complete that you could actually see the road or even the ditches. All your points of reference where gone and the wind blows the snow around effectively whiting out everything. This is an extreme but there are many ways in which I could imagine having to manually drive the car.
Maybe they wont do anything in the US and they build the car for China.
While noting is impossible I don't see that happening. Mainly I think Apple sees itself as an American company and as such new stuff is delivered here first.
An established manufacture can get that rate at startup, I have a hard time believing Apple can do that on day one. They would need to gain experience here that only the large manufactures have.
As far as being profitable, they may need to eat profits for a few months to get the line running smoothly. The other thing here is that they might not build this care in the traditional Detroit production line setup. That is why they have looked at various production lines including new approaches from BMW I believe. There is a huge amount of innovation potential in just how the car is built. Look at Fords Aluminum pickup body as one example. I can however see deeper changes in the way automobiles are assembled.
There are lots of sound reasons to develop an electric car that don't involve self driving. Considering the poor showing of electric's in sales figures there is plenty of room to innovate to get drivers on board. Affordability is one big deal that Apple may be able to effectively address.
Manufacturing technologies. Apple could do much to improve the sale price of an Apple car by employing the newest technologies to produce the car.as for the car itself there are all sort of things to offer including heads up displays, a built in Mac or IOS machine, Airless tires, new body materials.new battery technologies and frankly a bunch more.
I'm not one to dismiss self driving cars completely just don't se them being able to cope with hard core winter weather driving. I've seen storms where the snow was so deep and complete that you could actually see the road or even the ditches. All your points of reference where gone and the wind blows the snow around effectively whiting out everything. This is an extreme but there are many ways in which I could imagine having to manually drive the car.
While noting is impossible I don't see that happening. Mainly I think Apple sees itself as an American company and as such new stuff is delivered here first.
So you agree. To be profitable they need a large scale production line but it would be difficult for Apple to achieve that. That is what I wrote.
I don't think Apple, who have no expertise in manufacturing anything, will innovate production techniques. The car companies innovate just fine (that's why they employ barely any workers).
The reason for the high cost of e-cars is a) low economies of scale (see point above) and b) cost of batteries. Neither of which Apple can do anything about. They also know nothing about large-scale battery management (the iPhone can barely manage the little battery it has).
For Apple to be successful, they need to launch self-driving or something similarly innovative.
You state that self driving does not work in many conditions and I agree: another reason that it will be difficult for Apple to successfully enter the car business. Without that type of innovation, why would anyone buy an Apple car?
Apple are not going to want to be a niche luxury car manufacturer for the super rich and they need something truly innovative. Ergo: self driving (or flying) electric cars after they buy Chrysler Fiat.
The company in question was trying to secure financing and never sold a bike! The title to this story makes it sound like they were a full fledge manufacturing firm!
If Apple pulls this off, it will truly be an astonishing accomplishment. The iPhone was a part-time hobby compared to the efforts this will take, especially at the type of scale that Apple operates in. They will not be able to leverage any of their expertise:
- the design language is totally different
- the software resilience is a multiple (no temporary resets while going 80 mph on the motorway)
- the parts value chain is different (sheet metal producers,. suspension manufacturers...)
- the logistics of getting cars to their buyers is not comparable to shipping small card board boxes around - they need RORO ships, quay space, massive parking lots, etc
For the iPhone, they could at least leverage some of their expertise and heritage; this is totally different.... I wish it for them, but it's like Hasbro wanting to make real airplanes. Personally, I think they will have to buy a car company but I doubt Susanne Klatten is selling...
So you agree. To be profitable they need a large scale production line but it would be difficult for Apple to achieve that. That is what I wrote.
It didn't sound that way! In any event my point is that first year production could be well under the industry norm for a profitable plant. Mostly that is due to the difficulty in bring up such a production line for a company new to the business.
The problem I have is that people will judge Apple on the number of cars sold in the first year. That would be a mistake in my mind.
I don't think Apple, who have no expertise in manufacturing anything, will innovate production techniques. The car companies innovate just fine (that's why they employ barely any workers).
There is always ways to innovate. Take Fords new aluminum truck as an example, that is certainly an example of innovation in materials and maybe more importantly methods.
The reason for the high cost of e-cars is a) low economies of scale (see point above) and b) cost of batteries.
The battery cost is a huge factor.
Neither of which Apple can do anything about.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apple is funding a whole bunch of research into battery technology. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that there is a near term solution.
They also know nothing about large-scale battery management (the iPhone can barely manage the little battery it has).
That is nonsense, Apple battery tech is some of the best in the industry.
For Apple to be successful, they need to launch self-driving or something similarly innovative.
An electric that doesn't suck would be a good start.
You state that self driving does not work in many conditions and I agree: another reason that it will be difficult for Apple to successfully enter the car business. Without that type of innovation, why would anyone buy an Apple car?
For the same reason they buy other Apple products, that is they offer real advantages over the rest of the industry.
Apple are not going to want to be a niche luxury car manufacturer for the super rich and they need something truly innovative. Ergo: self driving (or flying) electric cars after they buy Chrysler Fiat.
Nope they simply need a modern electric car with respectable range.
Comments
Then I read the comments section which seemed to be a lot more informative. Thank you.
Don't forget to include the hostile delay tactics of the existing 800 pound gorillas of the automotive industry...
Isn't that the general model employed by Samsung vis-à-vis making hardware for Apple?
Consumer devices that are full of bugs (that "will be fixed at the next release") are not the same as industrial strength manufacturing software, where even an ignition switch will cost you millions in damages.
I thought Apple did its own chip design. What hardware is Samsung designing for Apple?
The point wasn't quite linear, it was simply that, while building Apple hardware, Samsung was learning to build its own.
My understanding, perhaps faulty, of Rogifan's original point was that Apple's understanding of software it writes for various car manufacturers - integral to those final products - was to some degree Car U. for its own eventual designs...
Again, not a strictly symmetrical point.
These are both really good questions. I'm going to compare them to Tesla, which admittedly is a little unfair. Cars are not motorcycles and Tesla is a much larger company than Mission was.
But it took Tesla about 5 years to get the Roadster into production. They had only sold a few hundred Roadsters in the year or so before full production began. It also took Tesla about 9 years to get the S into production.
Don't forget to include the hostile delay tactics of the existing 800 pound gorillas of the automotive industry...
Oh you couldn't possibly be talking about something like this could you?
http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/31/8694673/tesla-loses-fight-to-sell-cars-in-texas
Depends upon how you characterize Apple's competencies.
I see Apple as being a company with expertise in engineering new and advanced manufacturing capabilities. It's Apple, not its suppliers, that develops the new manufacturing technologies used in the manufacture of its products. Long history of that at Apple.
I see Apple as perhaps the world's preeminent global supply-chain manager. The task of corralling the near two hundred suppliers that contribute to the iPhone, not to mention each of Apple's other product lines, at massive scale, is an intractable problem that few other than Apple can manage. It's the 'massive scale' aspect that most sets Apple apart here, as others certainly have even more suppliers for their many product lines. Think HP, for example. But HP is not coming to market with 13 million of any one product, all loaded with the just-in-time latest software version and delivered in a week, as Apple just did with the iPhone 6S launch.
I see Apple as a company with a unique design focus, with the capability to analyse and design against multiple competing dimensions of a product's design, from its utility to the user experience provided, to environmental and conservation aspects, to cost control and scalability.
All of these and other talents present and functioning within the halls of Cupertino can and will be brought to bear on the development of a 21st century leading-edge transportation system. I have high confidence.
I think you are overestimating the transportability of those competencies. Being the worlds best supply chain manager of chips and circuit boards does not immediately translate to being the worlds best supply chain manager of metal, wheels, plastic dashboards, seats, etc. Apple have no relationships at all with the suppliers they need for car manufacturing. When they built the iPhone, they used largely the same suppliers they used for the Macs, when they built the iPad the same suppliers as the iPhone and so on. That is why they have a limited product range: to keep the complexity low.
Again, I am not saying that they cannot pull it off, but they have very few competencies that are portable to that business. I do not see Tesla hiring away engineers from Facebook, Samsung, or indeed, Apple. They are hiring engineers from car manufacturers and battery experts.
So, yes, Apple can do this, but they can do it as well or as bad as any company that has a lot of cash sitting overseas and that decides they want to build a car company.They will buy the expertise, by buying a car company (like they bought Beats).
1) I think you're undercutting Apple's abilities in 2015. As @Rogifan mentions, Tesla had to do this grassroots, whereas Apple gets the benefits of a decade of public awareness, advances in electronics, trial-and-error from other companies, and Tesla's patent portfolio. It seems clear to me that Apple is building a car, and I see most of the engineering already being in Apple's wheelhouse.
2) Why 500k as a minimum their first year? How many Bentleys, for example, are sold per year?
I also believe Apple is building a car. I just think it is a magnitude more complex than building an iPhone, iPad, or MacBook for them: it is a completely different industry that has close to zero shared competencies. So if they are building it, they are just funding a new company, like a giant PE fund; they are not adding another product to their existing portfolio. They may as well have decided to start an airline, or a construction company (they know how to build eye catching buildings...).
There are various reasons why I believe the number is 500,000:
1. ethos: they are a company that builds aspirational but affordable products for the affluent mass market. iPhone, iPad, Watch are all affordable to anyone with a more or less decent job.
2. practical requirements: in order to make self-driving cars work, the road conditions will have to be updated frequently. That can be accomplished by having each car sensing the surroundings (and possibly filming it, subject to privacy concerns) and uploading the data to the cloud. So they need a lot of cars on the road. This is also the reason I believe the German car companies bought the mapping software company: they sell millions of cars so updates from these will be almost real time (there is always a VW Group, BMW, or Mercedes car just ahead of you wherever you go).
3. Efficiency: Bentleys are mostly hand-made, which is about right for the 10,000 cars they build per year. A modern fully automated factory is just not very efficient unless you build a large number of cars (around 300,000). I doubt Apple will run a sub-efficient production schedule.
So, to get this launched, they need car engineering expertise, the supply chain management expertise, an efficient modern factory, and distribution (you don't ship cars in little brown boxes through your letter box). To get there quickly, they will buy a car company (they bought Beats to get music expertise and industry relationships).
Bets are taken which car company. The obvious candidate is BMW, but the Quandts won't sell. So I venture Fiat Chrysler, currently worth $22 Bn, they will pay $ 30 Bn, if they can buy the shares in Italy (they don't want to bring the cash into the US).
I wanted one of those bikes.
Their number one problem, you can't have profits without income and income requires products.
Probably 6-12 months depending upon the teams experience. Mind you this would be a conventional build, basically put together from existing components and a smattering of new technologies. Lets face it the industry has had over a century worth of experience building motorcycles now, adding batteries and an electric motor isn't a bid deal.
Of course the more unique engineering you put into a machine the longer to get to market but there is no excuse for Mission.
In any event I really don't think you can manage quality properly without your own assembly plant.
An interesting 2¢
Apple will likely only have one plant running at introduction so I have a hard time seeing 500,000 cars coming off the line in the first year. While true even the first iPhone didn't have massive projections for sales. Besides by definition a car is far more expensive than any single device Apple currently sells. I'm not sure where you get that idea. I don't have much confidence really in the idea of self driving cars, living in snow country does that for you. In any event to be viable a self driving car needs to adapt to actually conditions automatically and without delay. There is no denying this but the point is if you start up one factory you can't expect to be cranking along at full speed in the first year. Buying a car company brings too much legacy with it. Would Apple want to be saddled with seven years of support on old internal combustion machines? The reality is they can buy abandoned car plants all over the world, the plant isn't the problem.
Frankly I don't think Apple will do anything at all here like they did with beats. The liabilities are one big issue but if they really want to transition the industry to new technologies and construction methods they will likely need a entirely new plant anyways.
I just don't see them buying a car company outright. An old plant maybe but not a company with a massive range of products they have no need for.
I have to admit, I do not quite understand your post. It seems you are agreeing with me that producing a car will be extremely difficult for Apple (as it is for any new company that wants to enter the car business).
Lets face it, getting any new production line up and running is a unique an grueling task all on its own. ... Apple will likely only have one plant running at introduction so I have a hard time seeing 500,000 cars coming off the line in the first year.
You agree that having large production line will be difficult.
New plants of existing car manufacturers routinely have production capacity of 300,000 on day one. I understand that that is around the number that a plant needs to be efficient. Of course they rev up over time.
Quote:
300,000 to 500,000 car per years is not a massive projection for sales (but it is ambitious). Annual US car sales is 8 Mn per year, so we are talking less than 6% market share of new car sales. So yes, that is large number, but how else will they be able to produce a car that people can actually afford?
China has annual sales of almost 20 Mn, maybe the Apple Car will debut there?
Quote:
I'm not sure where you get that idea. I don't have much confidence really in the idea of self driving cars, living in snow country does that for you.
Why else would they develop a car? Where is the "dent in the universe" of producing just another car, even if it is electric? They would have to make an electric car *better*, how do you make it better (in Apple, change-the-world sense) if not by self-driving? Comfier seats...?
Quote:
If they really want to transition the industry to new technologies and construction methods they will likely need a entirely new plant anyways. I just don't see them buying a car company outright. An old plant maybe but not a company with a massive range of products they have no need for.
What new technology do you mean (you just wrote that you don't think it will be self-driving); what new construction methods (you write below that they will at least buy a car plant), you mean one built of rose gold aluminium?
Maybe they wont do anything in the US and they build the car for China.
As far as being profitable, they may need to eat profits for a few months to get the line running smoothly. The other thing here is that they might not build this care in the traditional Detroit production line setup. That is why they have looked at various production lines including new approaches from BMW I believe. There is a huge amount of innovation potential in just how the car is built. Look at Fords Aluminum pickup body as one example. I can however see deeper changes in the way automobiles are assembled. There are lots of sound reasons to develop an electric car that don't involve self driving. Considering the poor showing of electric's in sales figures there is plenty of room to innovate to get drivers on board. Affordability is one big deal that Apple may be able to effectively address. Manufacturing technologies. Apple could do much to improve the sale price of an Apple car by employing the newest technologies to produce the car.as for the car itself there are all sort of things to offer including heads up displays, a built in Mac or IOS machine, Airless tires, new body materials.new battery technologies and frankly a bunch more.
I'm not one to dismiss self driving cars completely just don't se them being able to cope with hard core winter weather driving. I've seen storms where the snow was so deep and complete that you could actually see the road or even the ditches. All your points of reference where gone and the wind blows the snow around effectively whiting out everything. This is an extreme but there are many ways in which I could imagine having to manually drive the car.
While noting is impossible I don't see that happening. Mainly I think Apple sees itself as an American company and as such new stuff is delivered here first.
So you agree. To be profitable they need a large scale production line but it would be difficult for Apple to achieve that. That is what I wrote.
I don't think Apple, who have no expertise in manufacturing anything, will innovate production techniques. The car companies innovate just fine (that's why they employ barely any workers).
The reason for the high cost of e-cars is a) low economies of scale (see point above) and b) cost of batteries. Neither of which Apple can do anything about. They also know nothing about large-scale battery management (the iPhone can barely manage the little battery it has).
For Apple to be successful, they need to launch self-driving or something similarly innovative.
You state that self driving does not work in many conditions and I agree: another reason that it will be difficult for Apple to successfully enter the car business. Without that type of innovation, why would anyone buy an Apple car?
Apple are not going to want to be a niche luxury car manufacturer for the super rich and they need something truly innovative. Ergo: self driving (or flying) electric cars after they buy Chrysler Fiat.
Samsung S-Car should be showing up any day now...
"Look at that S-Car go!"
The problem I have is that people will judge Apple on the number of cars sold in the first year. That would be a mistake in my mind. There is always ways to innovate. Take Fords new aluminum truck as an example, that is certainly an example of innovation in materials and maybe more importantly methods. The battery cost is a huge factor. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apple is funding a whole bunch of research into battery technology. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that there is a near term solution. That is nonsense, Apple battery tech is some of the best in the industry. An electric that doesn't suck would be a good start. For the same reason they buy other Apple products, that is they offer real advantages over the rest of the industry.
Nope they simply need a modern electric car with respectable range.