They could partner up with Starbuck to have charging stations at all their stand alone locations. While waiting for the car to charge, they can be inside sipping on a cappuccino and would help drive traffic and sales to Starbucks.
Or, they could just keep going in their petrol powered car to wherever they were going . Some people have jobs that require them to get somewhere, not spend all day sipping Lattes. There really are things to like about electric cars, but practicality and utility are limited. Unless new technology can either come up paradigm changes to how cars are used, or eliminate the charging problem, this lack of utility will remain.
Failing the widespread availability of a portable Mr Fusion capable of delivering 1.21 jigowatts of power instantly, what we need is a system that has a fuel station with a shed load of ready charged batteries that can be hot swapped, like charging the space liner in 'the fifth element', or failing that, a system that lets you just swap the car for a charged one, like pony express.
It's doubtful that Apple wants to make a production electric car. It's more likely they want to control the Operating Systems of electric cars, but let GM/Ford/et al make the actual car. The OS will be the centerpiece for autodrive, power management, entertainment and climate control, etc. Apple wants their version of that OS running on electric cars.
It's doubtful that Apple wants to make a production electric car. It's more likely they want to control the Operating Systems of electric cars, but let GM/Ford/et al make the actual car. The OS will be the centerpiece for autodrive, power management, entertainment and climate control, etc. Apple wants their version of that OS running on electric cars.
You don't hire 1,000 engineers just to create a dashboard.
Although there would have to be other models "down the road"... I would just hate for them to end up in a position where they have the Apple Car, Apple Car SUV, Apple Car Sport & worst of all... Apple Car Truck.
Apple Car Air: the flying model. Apple Car Plus: the limousine. Apple Car Nano: the single seat, get-to-places-within-the-city-for-errands-or-whatever model. Apple Car C: the one with worse performance that comes in plastic rather than anodized aluminum. Apple Car Socks: what you use when you don’t have a garage. Apple Car Truck Nutz: because.
I am still not convinced that Apple will introduce their own branded auto. Similar to consumer electronics, autos are a cut-throat business with low margins and intrenched competitors. Apple would have to introduce something truly disruptive given the enormity of the challenge. Hope I am wrong, but my sense is that they are working on something 'auto-related' as opposed to a full-blown production auto...
"autos are a cut-throat business with low margins and intrenched competitors"
IOW, it's basically like every other business that Apple entered & everybody said Apple wouldn't enter.
Why is that they say it is difficult to disrupt the automotive industry? I mean, no one imagined that Apple would become the biggest phone maker, right?
Would you say that what Apple achieved with the iPhone was easy?
What does ease or difficulty have to do with it, for a company with the resources, the talent, and the incredible record of past success like Apple?
I am still not convinced that Apple will introduce their own branded auto. Similar to consumer electronics, autos are a cut-throat business with low margins and intrenched competitors. Apple would have to introduce something truly disruptive given the enormity of the challenge. Hope I am wrong, but my sense is that they are working on something 'auto-related' as opposed to a full-blown production auto...
I share a similar sentiment on this. If it's not a revolutionary breakthrough, what could they be working on that everyone else isn't. It's not in their "DNA" to just make another product, especially in a new category (automotive???). EV's are pretty much electronic devices (of which Apple is a designer), but how do they go from Apple Watch to Apple Car? The leap and the investment doesn't make sense. What's next, a space program (ARC is close to the campus)? If a collaborative arrangement, then who with? Apple isn't known to collaborate and relinquish creative control; they build from the ground up (mostly). They can definitely capitalize on their battery tech, maximizing battery storage in small spaces.
Maybe this vehicle is some sort of hybrid hovercraft that hovers a few inches off the ground at highway speeds and then touches down at slower speeds. This design would eliminate road friction and improve range significantly but would be too difficult for drivers to handle so the car would need some automation to keep it steady (like a fly-by-wire system on jets).
I would have guessed their next product category would be a ring or a glove to go with the watch or a VR/Google Glass/full-face helmet type device. Not doubting this venture's existence at all, but it must be disruptive (or something Steve mentioned in his will that Apple MUST do and Tim just has to follow through with despite it being a bad idea).
... I would have guessed their next product category would be a ring or a glove to go with the watch or a VR/Google Glass/full-face helmet type device. Not doubting this venture's existence at all, but it must be disruptive (or something Steve mentioned in his will that Apple MUST do and Tim just has to follow through with despite it being a bad idea).
Steve's will would have no relevance as to what Apple, a publicly traded company, should do. Besides Steve didn't own a controlling interest in Apple's stock
Then use applied super capacitors for charging ( build a store within a store model for charge stations, throw a few dozen in every Walmart parking lot )
Why is that they say it is difficult to disrupt the automotive industry? I mean, no one imagined that Apple would become the biggest phone maker, right? Never underestimate what Apple can do. And now with Apple Watch taking a huge chunk of watch market, don't be surprised if we see Apple cars like we are now seeing with Apple watches.
Huge capital costs, labor intensive, very low margins, both Federal and State regulations and established dealer networks.
The big issue is what market is Apple going after, the Tesla market or the Volt market? At Tesla's current prices, that's a very small niche market. Not that many people will spend $70,000 to $100,000 on a car and that's aside from the infrastructure issues.
I'm guessing that Apple and Tesla have joint strategic planning underway. Apple's got system software and UX expertise, as well as a substantial ecosystem to offer. Tesla's got a lot of manufacturing expertise and infrastructure, as well as a battery manufacturing plant, as well as solar power, part of which is aimed at their vast network of charging stations. It would make sense to throw in together and to be complementary to each other. Apple could get an Apple-branded line of cars with (free?) access to Tesla's charging network, and Tesla could get a lot of funding and system software expertise.
I was recently at the Tesla store in Sarasota, FL, and asked about the company's profit-making status. The young man told me that they paid back the government loan early, and that a big chunk of what would otherwise be considered profit was being invested in their supercharger network. Makes sense to me. I think being able to drive long distances for zero fuel cost will be quite a compelling selling point for a lot of people.
The main limitation of all electric cars is range and recharge time. Basically it is not useful for a family car, tow vehicle or traveller that regularly travels long distances. Hence hybrids that all also have their deficiencies.
Barring a hydrogen car, which like tesla requires a whole new infrastructure, the only way to accommodate electric vehicles in a significant way is to totally change the use paradigm.
How about this: a subscription based service where you just book a trip on your smartphone, uber-like, to a driverless car service which has an extensive pool of vehicles always available, that automatically go to recharge when their batteries get low. Heck, in some circumstances you could even have a driverless resupply/ carrier truck to top up and drop off extra vehicles in more remote areas. It would disrupt the taxi business, heck even public transport in urban areas, solve the school drop off issues, and work like pony express over long distances. And people wouldn't have a $30k plus lump of engineering spending most of its time in the garage, or if that has been converted to a home theatre, outside in the elements.
Approximately 95% of car commuters in the U.S. travel less than 40 miles to work, so range for EV's is not an issue for most people. The charging can take place at work or home for a lot of people, it's an issue but not unsolvable. When you need to go on a longer trip you use the fast charging stations. I would say that price is the most limiting factor for EV's to become successful, but that will soon change in (1-2 years). I also think that productions of EV's can be an issue when to many wants buy an EV.
I am still not convinced that Apple will introduce their own branded auto. Similar to consumer electronics, autos are a cut-throat business with low margins and intrenched competitors. Apple would have to introduce something truly disruptive given the enormity of the challenge. Hope I am wrong, but my sense is that they are working on something 'auto-related' as opposed to a full-blown production auto...
"autos are a cut-throat business with low margins and intrenched competitors"
IOW, it's basically like every other business that Apple entered & everybody said Apple wouldn't enter.
Not quite.... Car companies earn very low margins (3-5%). The average price of a new vehicle in the US is $ 33,000, i.e., the operating costs are $31,500 per car. Given how competitive the car market is, it is not feasible that these operating costs can be lowered substantially (maybe some savings on marketing and distribution).
Apple has a 30%+ operating margin. In order for Apple to achieve this margin on cars, they would therefore have to increase the desirability of a $33,000 car so that people are willing to spend $ 45,000 on it; or since cars are already such an object of desire that one must assume that people already spend as much as they can afford, convince people that today are spending $ 45,000 on a car to accept a $ 33,000 build quality (the difference between a plastic Mazda interior and a proper Audi interior).
This is not impossible but very difficult (Tesla achieved some of this but at a minuscule scale).
It is very different from phones, just because a car is so much more expensive and elasticity of demand is therefore much lower.
It's doubtful that Apple wants to make a production electric car. It's more likely they want to control the Operating Systems of electric cars, but let GM/Ford/et al make the actual car. The OS will be the centerpiece for autodrive, power management, entertainment and climate control, etc. Apple wants their version of that OS running on electric cars.
When his Apple ever successfully been a piece of technology in somebody else's product? For me CarPlay doesn't count because it's just projecting UI onto the dashboard, it's not the main brains of the car. For people that suggest this the questions I have are:
When has Apple ever successfully been a piece of technology in somebody else's product?
Why would GM/Ford/Toyota etc. want the same OS in their cars? Look at how Android phone manufacturers are struggling as its hard to differentiate when you're running the same software.
How can you possibly build the brains of a car without being deeply involved in the production of the car? Can car brains be that modular?
Would Tim Cook need to authorize a team of 1000 employees if this was just CarPlay on steroids? One of the stories last year said Apple industrial designers were meeting with auto executives trying to get them to come to Apple. Again if Apple was just working on an operating system for other cars why would industrial designers need to be involved? When Jony Ive was promoted and gave up his day to day responsibilities Tim Cook said he would be working on new ideas and initiatives. What would those be?
It seems to me those saying Apple isn't working on a car are doing so not based on actual evidence but on the notion that it's silly to think a company that designs and manufacturers personal computers could design and manufacturer a car. But honestly I think that's exactly what Apple is doing, When your revenue base is north of $200B you need something big to grow it. Licensing revenues from expanded CarPlay won't do it.
I am still not convinced that Apple will introduce their own branded auto. Similar to consumer electronics, autos are a cut-throat business with low margins and intrenched competitors. Apple would have to introduce something truly disruptive given the enormity of the challenge. Hope I am wrong, but my sense is that they are working on something 'auto-related' as opposed to a full-blown production auto...
"autos are a cut-throat business with low margins and intrenched competitors"
IOW, it's basically like every other business that Apple entered & everybody said Apple wouldn't enter.
Not quite.... Car companies earn very low margins (3-5%). The average price of a new vehicle in the US is $ 33,000, i.e., the operating costs are $31,500 per car. Given how competitive the car market is, it is not feasible that these operating costs can be lowered substantially (maybe some savings on marketing and distribution).
Apple has a 30%+ operating margin. In order for Apple to achieve this margin on cars, they would therefore have to increase the desirability of a $33,000 car so that people are willing to spend $ 45,000 on it; or since cars are already such an object of desire that one must assume that people already spend as much as they can afford, convince people that today are spending $ 45,000 on a car to accept a $ 33,000 build quality (the difference between a plastic Mazda interior and a proper Audi interior).
This is not impossible but very difficult (Tesla achieved some of this but at a minuscule scale).
It is very different from phones, just because a car is so much more expensive and elasticity of demand is therefore much lower.
Luxury car makers have better margins.
Or... Apple might be looking to disrupt the nascent car-as-a-service segment, which has the potential to become a very large slice of the future of personal transportation. This would imply Apple would build functional vehicles with stylish but durable interiors, keeping costs down. The cars would represent a recurring revenue service rather than a one-time sale, and the market is represented by every dense population center around the world. Apple needs only create a few centralized charging depots at strategic locations near a population center, then unleash a swarm of Apple cars to serve that geographic area. Tight integration with an iPhone and Watch app would allow users to request a car, indicating their destination, either for immediate pickup or future pickup, calculated to ensure arrival at a specified time. Toss in regularly scheduled pickups, like taking the kids to school daily, and Apple could optimize the utilization, driving revenues and profits. The possibilities to create a seemless car service are coming into focus, as is the technology. This is where I think Apple is going.
Comments
Failing the widespread availability of a portable Mr Fusion capable of delivering 1.21 jigowatts of power instantly, what we need is a system that has a fuel station with a shed load of ready charged batteries that can be hot swapped, like charging the space liner in 'the fifth element', or failing that, a system that lets you just swap the car for a charged one, like pony express.
Dunno about that...
Apple Car Plus: the limousine.
Apple Car Nano: the single seat, get-to-places-within-the-city-for-errands-or-whatever model.
Apple Car C: the one with worse performance that comes in plastic rather than anodized aluminum.
Apple Car Socks: what you use when you don’t have a garage.
Apple Car Truck Nutz: because.
IOW, it's basically like every other business that Apple entered & everybody said Apple wouldn't enter.
Maybe this vehicle is some sort of hybrid hovercraft that hovers a few inches off the ground at highway speeds and then touches down at slower speeds. This design would eliminate road friction and improve range significantly but would be too difficult for drivers to handle so the car would need some automation to keep it steady (like a fly-by-wire system on jets).
I would have guessed their next product category would be a ring or a glove to go with the watch or a VR/Google Glass/full-face helmet type device. Not doubting this venture's existence at all, but it must be disruptive (or something Steve mentioned in his will that Apple MUST do and Tim just has to follow through with despite it being a bad idea).
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline
Then use applied super capacitors for charging ( build a store within a store model for charge stations, throw a few dozen in every Walmart parking lot )
Sunvault actually is trying to commercialize graphene based storage (licensed from UCLA):
http://www.sunvaultenergy.com/web20/
http://www.sunvaultenergy.com/web20/sunvault-energy-signs-joint-venture-agreement-and-creates-supervault-energy/
Anyway, lets all meet back her in 5 years :P
The big issue is what market is Apple going after, the Tesla market or the Volt market? At Tesla's current prices, that's a very small niche market. Not that many people will spend $70,000 to $100,000 on a car and that's aside from the infrastructure issues.
I was recently at the Tesla store in Sarasota, FL, and asked about the company's profit-making status. The young man told me that they paid back the government loan early, and that a big chunk of what would otherwise be considered profit was being invested in their supercharger network. Makes sense to me. I think being able to drive long distances for zero fuel cost will be quite a compelling selling point for a lot of people.
This could be a great way for Apple to develop their Self Driving 'Pod' (in public).
Approximately 95% of car commuters in the U.S. travel less than 40 miles to work, so range for EV's is not an issue for most people. The charging can take place at work or home for a lot of people, it's an issue but not unsolvable. When you need to go on a longer trip you use the fast charging stations. I would say that price is the most limiting factor for EV's to become successful, but that will soon change in (1-2 years). I also think that productions of EV's can be an issue when to many wants buy an EV.
Apple has a 30%+ operating margin. In order for Apple to achieve this margin on cars, they would therefore have to increase the desirability of a $33,000 car so that people are willing to spend $ 45,000 on it; or since cars are already such an object of desire that one must assume that people already spend as much as they can afford, convince people that today are spending $ 45,000 on a car to accept a $ 33,000 build quality (the difference between a plastic Mazda interior and a proper Audi interior).
This is not impossible but very difficult (Tesla achieved some of this but at a minuscule scale).
It is very different from phones, just because a car is so much more expensive and elasticity of demand is therefore much lower.
Or... Apple might be looking to disrupt the nascent car-as-a-service segment, which has the potential to become a very large slice of the future of personal transportation. This would imply Apple would build functional vehicles with stylish but durable interiors, keeping costs down. The cars would represent a recurring revenue service rather than a one-time sale, and the market is represented by every dense population center around the world. Apple needs only create a few centralized charging depots at strategic locations near a population center, then unleash a swarm of Apple cars to serve that geographic area. Tight integration with an iPhone and Watch app would allow users to request a car, indicating their destination, either for immediate pickup or future pickup, calculated to ensure arrival at a specified time. Toss in regularly scheduled pickups, like taking the kids to school daily, and Apple could optimize the utilization, driving revenues and profits. The possibilities to create a seemless car service are coming into focus, as is the technology. This is where I think Apple is going.