It makes even more sense to buy BMW. BMW is cheap at $60 Billion. It even makes a large profit which Tesla may never do. Apple likes profit. BMW already makes electric cars. And BMW can mass produce cars - Tesla cannot. Tesla' cars are flawed because it hasn't made cars for long. Tesla's bugs would drive perfectionistic Apple nuts Apple can buy BMW with only 6 months of revenue.
Better Subaru, is cheaper, well positioned to grow into a premium competitor if it wasn't for the derivative styling. With Ive leading the design team Subaru could go really for the premium market. Style wise it resembles the pre-Jobs Apple, but with record profits, sales and bulletproof reliability.
I have doubts about whether skills making glass slabs thinner is applicable to car design. That's an unfair characterization, I know, but the point is probably still valid. Automobile design is a pretty specialized field, requiring years of apprenticeship. I wouldn't assume Ive can do it effectively on day one.
I fracking doubt such high level info would get out of the god damn company, ever. No sources, no real confirmation from a second source, again pure absolute garbage,
I'm guessing the next person to be fired would be the person Ives confides in who leaks info hmmm... Shouldn't be to hard to track.... If that idiot even exists, which is doubtful.
Hiring freeze when when you already hired 1000 people... Well, that goes without saying.
The information quality on the internet is straight into the craphole.
If they were ready to commit 1000 people to this (probably nearly 1B in R&D per year), it's a high level strategic decision that was not done on a whim. and it's certainly not being reversed now, not a chance.
There is always going to be a problem with placing an artist in a position of complete control. Artists are never happy and the search for ultimate perfection leads to stagnation. The best artists have a partner (or boss) who keeps them on the path of progress, not perfection.
It's obvious that you don't think anything could possibly be wrong with this project, or Apple for that matter. But it's pretty clear that leaks like this are coming from that review. And most likely, the reason why that chief of the project is leaving. It's possible that Ive's not making things clear and getting upset that results aren't coming.
There are three major execs that left directly / indirectly due to Ive's displeasure. Scott Forstall, Greg Christie, and now Zadesky. I wonder if Ive is pushing his weight around a little too much or biting off more than he can chew.
I fracking doubt such high level info would get out of the god damn company, ever. No sources, no real confirmation from a second source, again pure absolute garbage,
I'm guessing the next person to be fired would be the person Ives confides in who leaks info hmmm... It that idiot even exists, which is doubtful.
Hiring freeze when when you already hired 1000 people... Well, that goes without saying.
The information quality on the internet is straight in the craphole.
maybe you should change your name to foggymind since your Apple biasness is clouding your judgement.
A Apple car is kinda silly. Car tech makes sense, buying Tesla.. maybe... Build a damn desktop computer and automate the home would be awesome.
It makes even more sense to buy BMW. BMW is cheap at $60 Billion. It even makes a large profit which Tesla may never do. Apple likes profit. BMW already makes electric cars. And BMW can mass produce cars - Tesla cannot. Tesla' cars are flawed because it hasn't made cars for long. Tesla's bugs would drive perfectionistic Apple nuts Apple can buy BMW with only 6 months of revenue.
What universe do you live in where Apple is still managed by perfectionists? Are they the ones responsible for the new apple mouse not scrolling for older operating systems than 10.11(current)? Are they the ones with the 5S that wont hold a charge? The antireflective screen coating that wipes off on laptops? The jumbo iPad that doesn't have the ability to split the keyboard like every other iPad on the market? The all black TV remote with microphones and touch pads built into it, but no illumination on the all black buttons to see what you're pressing when in a dark room? (it's perfectly symmetrical so you fumble with it every time you pick it up. Bonus!) I'm just wondering where this happy place is because I seem to be really far from it.
I've read multiple accounts that imply that the real reason they want to "work with BMW," is because what they've come up with in their lab is so similar to the i3, that they fear lawsuits if they move forward independently.
youve read these accounts from whom?
Hey, if so-called tech journalists can make shit up why can’t an anonymous user do the same. The credibility factor is about the same. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from following Apple all these years it’s that reality has nothing to do with anything. It’s all about making crap up and passing it off as factual reporting.
Personally, I think the only way this project makes sense is in the context of providing transportation as a service that one can order from one's iPhone. In other words, I think it would make sense for Apple to do a vertically integrated version of Uber, where they design everything from the phone to the app to the car itself.
I could see how there would be a lot of conflict over that idea, though. In some ways that might seem like a pretty radical/risky business model, because it's so different from what anyone else has ever done. But I think it's actually riskier to do what everyone else does. The big money is made when you succeed at doing something different.
And even if there was agreement on this general idea, there could be a lot of disagreement on whether they should wait for self-driving cars to make this work or if they should go with an intermediate version that has a driver. I'd vote to go all the way to self-driving, but I can see the opposite argument, too.
I fracking doubt such high level info would get out of the god damn company, ever. No sources, no real confirmation from a second source, again pure absolute garbage,
I'm guessing the next person to be fired would be the person Ives confides in who leaks info hmmm... It that idiot even exists, which is doubtful.
Hiring freeze when when you already hired 1000 people... Well, that goes without saying.
The information quality on the internet is straight in the craphole.
maybe you should change your name to foggymind since your Apple biasness is clouding your judgement.
Maybe you should change your name to "lamereply" since that's seemingly the specialty you're gunning for.
Make your case, find me some proof, or shut the hell up about bias; simple isn't it.
When you're wallowing in mud, calling out people for being dirty is absurd.
A Apple car is kinda silly. Car tech makes sense, buying Tesla.. maybe... Build a damn desktop computer and automate the home would be awesome.
It makes even more sense to buy BMW. BMW is cheap at $60 Billion. It even makes a large profit which Tesla may never do. Apple likes profit. BMW already makes electric cars. And BMW can mass produce cars - Tesla cannot. Tesla' cars are flawed because it hasn't made cars for long. Tesla's bugs would drive perfectionistic Apple nuts Apple can buy BMW with only 6 months of revenue.
... or 1/3(?) of it's sequestered profits. And at 60 Billion... you just 20Xed apple's previous largest buy (Beats), which was nearly 6X larger than the previous acquisition. That to me means, while you may think it makes sense, my guess is the CFO, COO, CEO, and BoD consider it a non-starter.
And Apple has never bought/invested-in a company for TTM profit... they have bought them for force multiplier technology or a raw material pipeline (e.g. Beats... they wanted a pipeline of talent/content, and a demographically recognized brand). Buying BMW for it's mass production seems silly [Did Apple buy Foxconn?].
And your logic on Tesla is flawed. if the only reason to to buy tesla is that it's doesn't have enough experience to build quality cars, just says it will mature into building quality just at a time when Apple can exploit it [Note: Im not for Apple buying Tesla either... I'm just shooting a hole in some dangling logic].
In all of this, I don't see the bottom line motive... now. But maybe in a couple years. I never thought in 2007 my phone would be doing today what it's doing now, so maybe in 10 years, when 'smart cars' (self driving) are the rage, then Apple's work now in the field is aligning with reality, but I'm still not certain what that reality is... I think it's a massive fleet of self-driving taxis, that I buy by the mile / hour if I'm anything less than the upper middle class car enthusiast... 'cloud commuting'. Which tells me that the end user market for cars will shrink to zero, and transportation will be a commodity. Thus I see Apple plugging into a SuperCarPlay mode, where your generic commute is enhanced by a superior transpo-mobile integration.
So, I do think Apple is building prototype cars, just not yet for retail... primarily to define the experience, and the interface.
There is always going to be a problem with placing an artist in a position of complete control. Artists are never happy and the search for ultimate perfection leads to stagnation. The best artists have a partner (or boss) who keeps them on the path of progress, not perfection.
Jobs was always looking for perfection, Ives was a lot like Jobs in a way. The look for perfection leads to stagnation? What? That's not even what they're saying in this article. Good grief.
A Apple car is kinda silly. Car tech makes sense, buying Tesla.. maybe... Build a damn desktop computer and automate the home would be awesome.
It makes even more sense to buy BMW. BMW is cheap at $60 Billion. It even makes a large profit which Tesla may never do. Apple likes profit. BMW already makes electric cars. And BMW can mass produce cars - Tesla cannot. Tesla' cars are flawed because it hasn't made cars for long. Tesla's bugs would drive perfectionistic Apple nuts Apple can buy BMW with only 6 months of revenue.
You don't want to know how the sausage is made, but here's a rumored progress report on the sausage getting made, and boy is it juicy. Let's all say it together: Apple Car is doomed.
I think this project just hit a patch of black ice, skidded off the road and plunged into a ravine.
Scratch that 'next big thing'
How about we do a TV guys?
Jobs already talked about wanting to do an AIO TV but couldn't because they were without a viable go-to-market strategy. A TV contract would change that possibility by allow a subsidised TV, but it's proven nigh impossible to iron out an attractive deal there.
It's obvious that you don't think anything could possibly be wrong with this project, or Apple for that matter. But it's pretty clear that leaks like this are coming from that review. And most likely, the reason why that chief of the project is leaving. It's possible that Ive's not making things clear and getting upset that results aren't coming.
There are three major execs that left directly / indirectly due to Ive's displeasure. Scott Forstall, Greg Christie, and now Zadesky. I wonder if Ive is pushing his weight around a little too much or biting off more than he can chew.
One, Apple has not confirmed that Zadesky left and the WSJ rumor said his leaving had nothing to do with his performance. Two, there were a number of execs unhappy with Scotf Forstall, not just Jony Ive. Bob Mansfield reportedly wouldn't be in a meeting with him without Tim Cook present. When Tony Fadell was asked about Forstall in a BBC interview he said Forstall "got what he deserved". Ask anybody somewhat in the know and they'll tell you Fadell and Forstall didn't get along at all. Three, listen to John Gruber's 4/21/14 podcast. He said Greg Christie actually got along better with Jony Ive than he did with Scott Forstall and that they're still good friends. He said Christie left because he worked at Apple a long time (mostly directly for Steve Jobs) and was just burned out. Matthew Panzarino at Tech Crunch reported the same thing.
It makes even more sense to buy BMW. BMW is cheap at $60 Billion. It even makes a large profit which Tesla may never do. Apple likes profit. BMW already makes electric cars. And BMW can mass produce cars - Tesla cannot. Tesla' cars are flawed because it hasn't made cars for long. Tesla's bugs would drive perfectionistic Apple nuts Apple can buy BMW with only 6 months of revenue.
I Better Subaru, is cheaper, well positioned to grow into a premium competitor if it wasn't for the derivative styling. With Ive leading the design team Subaru could go really for the premium market. Style wise it resembles the pre-Jobs Apple, but with record profits, sales and bulletproof reliability.
Subaru and bulletproof reliability? Surely you jest. The boxer engine is a joke. And when serious repairs are required, the engine needs to be pulled. And Fuji heavy industries is pitiful when it comes to powertrain technology and advanced metallurgy. They had to partner with Toyota to obtain gasoline direct injection technology and even then, it is a half-baked solution that increases the fuel delivery complexity by requiring both conventional fuel injectors along with direct injection.
Subaru doesn't have anything in the way of serious electric or hydrogen fuel cell technology. Much less advanced internal combustion technology.
Subaru is a not a company that Apple should approach with a 100 foot pole. LG's battery technology is state of the art. Hyundai is producing advanced light weight steels, fuel cells, hybrids and even working on advanced internal combustion technology. They even have an internally developed 8 speed automatic transmission along with automated dual clutch units. Toyota and Honda are further behind, but producing hybrids and have plans to bring fuel cell technology to market. GM and Ford are also working on advanced internal combustion technology and producing hybrid vehicles also. BMW is working on advanced internal combustion technology, fuel cells and electrified powertrains also. Most companies have fuel cell technology of some sort in the works, but Subaru is not one of them. If they have one, it must be of a secret nature.
The biggest factor in all of this is that the Koreans have figured out how to extract lithium from the ocean inexpensively. But Once an advanced technology carbon nanotube catalyst comes to market, hydrogen fuel cell technology will come to dominate propulsion systems.
Apple is first and foremost a technology company. Subaru makes low technology vehicles even by Japanese standards. A Subaru purchase by Apple makes no sense.
Comments
The only reasonable reaction this news story is... no reaction at all.
Because nothing actually happened.
I fracking doubt such high level info would get out of the god damn company, ever.
No sources, no real confirmation from a second source, again pure absolute garbage,
I'm guessing the next person to be fired would be the person Ives confides in who leaks info hmmm...
Shouldn't be to hard to track....
If that idiot even exists, which is doubtful.
Hiring freeze when when you already hired 1000 people... Well, that goes without saying.
The information quality on the internet is straight into the craphole.
If they were ready to commit 1000 people to this (probably nearly 1B in R&D per year), it's a high level strategic decision that was not done on a whim.
and it's certainly not being reversed now, not a chance.
I could see how there would be a lot of conflict over that idea, though. In some ways that might seem like a pretty radical/risky business model, because it's so different from what anyone else has ever done. But I think it's actually riskier to do what everyone else does. The big money is made when you succeed at doing something different.
And even if there was agreement on this general idea, there could be a lot of disagreement on whether they should wait for self-driving cars to make this work or if they should go with an intermediate version that has a driver. I'd vote to go all the way to self-driving, but I can see the opposite argument, too.
Make your case, find me some proof, or shut the hell up about bias; simple isn't it.
When you're wallowing in mud, calling out people for being dirty is absurd.
And Apple has never bought/invested-in a company for TTM profit... they have bought them for force multiplier technology or a raw material pipeline (e.g. Beats... they wanted a pipeline of talent/content, and a demographically recognized brand). Buying BMW for it's mass production seems silly [Did Apple buy Foxconn?].
And your logic on Tesla is flawed. if the only reason to to buy tesla is that it's doesn't have enough experience to build quality cars, just says it will mature into building quality just at a time when Apple can exploit it [Note: Im not for Apple buying Tesla either... I'm just shooting a hole in some dangling logic].
In all of this, I don't see the bottom line motive... now. But maybe in a couple years. I never thought in 2007 my phone would be doing today what it's doing now, so maybe in 10 years, when 'smart cars' (self driving) are the rage, then Apple's work now in the field is aligning with reality, but I'm still not certain what that reality is... I think it's a massive fleet of self-driving taxis, that I buy by the mile / hour if I'm anything less than the upper middle class car enthusiast... 'cloud commuting'. Which tells me that the end user market for cars will shrink to zero, and transportation will be a commodity. Thus I see Apple plugging into a SuperCarPlay mode, where your generic commute is enhanced by a superior transpo-mobile integration.
So, I do think Apple is building prototype cars, just not yet for retail... primarily to define the experience, and the interface.
The look for perfection leads to stagnation? What?
That's not even what they're saying in this article. Good grief.
This project is pretty big I reckon and will just lead to rampant (some true and some not) speculation.
Apple must be fine with it I guss.
Subaru doesn't have anything in the way of serious electric or hydrogen fuel cell technology. Much less advanced internal combustion technology.
Subaru is a not a company that Apple should approach with a 100 foot pole. LG's battery technology is state of the art. Hyundai is producing advanced light weight steels, fuel cells, hybrids and even working on advanced internal combustion technology. They even have an internally developed 8 speed automatic transmission along with automated dual clutch units. Toyota and Honda are further behind, but producing hybrids and have plans to bring fuel cell technology to market. GM and Ford are also working on advanced internal combustion technology and producing hybrid vehicles also. BMW is working on advanced internal combustion technology, fuel cells and electrified powertrains also. Most companies have fuel cell technology of some sort in the works, but Subaru is not one of them. If they have one, it must be of a secret nature.
The biggest factor in all of this is that the Koreans have figured out how to extract lithium from the ocean inexpensively. But Once an advanced technology carbon nanotube catalyst comes to market, hydrogen fuel cell technology will come to dominate propulsion systems.
Apple is first and foremost a technology company. Subaru makes low technology vehicles even by Japanese standards. A Subaru purchase by Apple makes no sense.