Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Apple excels at the combination of hardware, software and services. If they don't think they can create that magic here I think they should shut the whole thing down. All the big car companies are far down the road of autonomous and self driving vehicles. Even Uber is testing vehicles. What do they need Apple for? To provide a nice looking dashboard UI?
What confuses me is if Apple has decided to shift focus to providing software to existing manufacturers why did Cook put a former hardware executive in charge of the project?
I agree, they should shut it down if Apple feels they can't make a meaningful contribution here. Not like other divisions don't need the talent. On Mansfield leading the project, just because he has a hardware background doesn't necessarily mean he's not fit to run the project. His position is more managerial / strategy than anything. He's proven himself to be best of the best and a lot of people seem to respect him, so why not.
Maybe because "truly autonomous" (meaning no backup driver required) cars are far from becoming mainstream, and so a reset there is required, when reality set in.
Maybe Mansfield is just trimming the fat (you get that when projects are staffed quickly in a ramp up).
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Apple excels at the combination of hardware, software and services. If they don't think they can create that magic here I think they should shut the whole thing down. All the big car companies are far down the road of autonomous and self driving vehicles. Even Uber is testing vehicles. What do they need Apple for? To provide a nice looking dashboard UI?
What confuses me is if Apple has decided to shift focus to providing software to existing manufacturers why did Cook put a former hardware executive in charge of the project?
Eventually Apple will give up on car/autonomous driving, because there is a Tesla. Shutting down now would be a smart thing to do, but they can't do that yet. That's like saying "I was wrong, go find another CEO".
Keep in mind that the NYT authors who wrote this, DAISUKE WAKABAYASHI and BRIAN X. CHEN, also wrote extensive reports that maintained for months that Samsung had basically crushed Apple's smartphone business and was fated to knock iPhones out of relevance, and prior to that, that Japan "hated" the iPhone and it would never catch on there, respectively.
This year, Samsung limped back toward its all time smartphone performance peak from 2014 while Apple essentially maintained/replicated the world-leading megacycle performance it achieved with iPhone 6.
And for the last few years, Japan has been one of the world's top markets for iPhone and everything else Apple makes, with globally leading market share for iPhone sales.
What they print is frequently not journalism. It is advocacy mixed with pure credulity in anonymous "sources" with no clear track record.
So take their scoop with a grain of salt.
And yet, you reprinted it here, and only mentioned their poor track record in a forum post.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Apple excels at the combination of hardware, software and services. If they don't think they can create that magic here I think they should shut the whole thing down. All the big car companies are far down the road of autonomous and self driving vehicles. Even Uber is testing vehicles. What do they need Apple for? To provide a nice looking dashboard UI?
What confuses me is if Apple has decided to shift focus to providing software to existing manufacturers why did Cook put a former hardware executive in charge of the project?
Eventually Apple will give up on car/autonomous driving, because there is a Tesla. Shutting down now would be a smart thing to do, but they can't do that yet. That's like saying "I was wrong, go find another CEO".
People look at Tesla as if they're the holy grail for the future of the automobile. They're still a blip in the grand scheme of things. As far as CEO's admitting that they're wrong, well it takes courage (no pun intended) and Steve Jobs changed course many a time when he was wrong. That's part of what separates the good CEO's from the great ones.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Maybe because you're hearing about it 3rd or 4th or 5th hand. They were probably finished with the initial engineering portions and those people were no longer needed? Then again this is the NY Times and I don't put much stock in what they report anymore.
I agree. My point was I don't believe any of this crap and seems way too fishy.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Apple excels at the combination of hardware, software and services. If they don't think they can create that magic here I think they should shut the whole thing down. All the big car companies are far down the road of autonomous and self driving vehicles. Even Uber is testing vehicles. What do they need Apple for? To provide a nice looking dashboard UI?
What confuses me is if Apple has decided to shift focus to providing software to existing manufacturers why did Cook put a former hardware executive in charge of the project?
Eventually Apple will give up on car/autonomous driving, because there is a Tesla. Shutting down now would be a smart thing to do, but they can't do that yet. That's like saying "I was wrong, go find another CEO".
People look at Tesla as if they're the holy grail for the future of the automobile.
How are they not? What Tesla has done as a start up has changed the future of the automotive industry. They are now following Tesla's lead into the future.
I'm starting to wonder if Apple is paralyzed by their obsession with perfection. With all of their money and staff and the opportunities in connected home, wearables, VR, auto and beyond—how is it possible that all we've gotten is an OK watch? I'm not saying I want them to release any old junk, but there is a threshold after which perfection in detail simply doesn't matter as much as having a real product in hand. A lot of artists and creator-driven companies get caught in an echo chamber of high expectations and lose site of just how good what they've already created is. Release, iterate, perfect over time so I can have more Apple, sooner!
I think that is pretty well a summation of what is happening with the Watch. I have been playing with the first generation, and although it looks very slick the usability can be much approved.
The assumed autonomous driving aspect of the project never made sense to me. One of the traditional core competences of Apple is user interaction. "Autonomous", by definition, means _without_ user interaction. Where is the unique selling point here?
To me, a car from Apple would only make sense if they came up with a new battery technology that offers significanly improved energy density (3 to 5 fold). Such batteries would also give them an advantage in their other main fields, smartphones, tablets and laptops, and would hence result in a nice synergetic effect. But as it seems, such a technology break through was not achieved, since else, we would have heard some rumors by now.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Apple excels at the combination of hardware, software and services. If they don't think they can create that magic here I think they should shut the whole thing down. All the big car companies are far down the road of autonomous and self driving vehicles. Even Uber is testing vehicles. What do they need Apple for? To provide a nice looking dashboard UI?
What confuses me is if Apple has decided to shift focus to providing software to existing manufacturers why did Cook put a former hardware executive in charge of the project?
Eventually Apple will give up on car/autonomous driving, because there is a Tesla. Shutting down now would be a smart thing to do, but they can't do that yet. That's like saying "I was wrong, go find another CEO".
There's no guarantee Tesla will even be around in 5-10 years. The company just sought out another 1/2 billion in new loans. They seem to be teetering on the edge of failure more often and if they miss their deliveries or sales goals too often, they're toast. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that Musk is working like a man possessed to make Tesla and SpaceX work, but he's rushing it because he has to rush it. He has almost no cushion.
I think the that when electric cars become main stream, they will quickly become highly commoditized with low margins, like televisions; so I can see why Apple may wish to avoid that particular market. But Apple can still contribute like they are doing with AppleTV and HomeKit, ResearchKit etc...
Apple's go to market strategy may include an automotive platform including the software framework and related key components technologies such as coherent navigation technologies and power management technologies. The same way HomeKit can have all your home appliances collaborating, CarKit and related protocols compliant automobiles will be able to collaborate on the roads for safety and traffic flow advantages.
Apple is already dealing with virtually all auto makers with CarPlay where each auto maker integrate some Apple Technologies in their infotainment systems. That can eventually be extended to a core framework that allows customization and differentiation while providing vital core technologies for the auto industry.
Note that Apple has already trademarked the term Iris Engine and Iris Picture Engine, these engines could be to recognize live 3D objects like pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles and 2D images such as road signs respectively. Apple is also working very hard on camera technologies that could compete with MobileEye technologies.
Imagine your car inside your garage first telling your garage door to open up and then telling other protocol compliant cars that it see in the driveway to move so that it can get out.
And another story in 6 months, Apple Car project never stopped. Dozens of people could be 36. There are 1,000 people on this project, many of which are mechanical engineers. Now there are 964 people on it? It's not stopping. I'd bet my life on it.
Or....this could mean that Apples goal was never to come to market selling a full fledged car, but the internals instead, and once they built the actual cars to test them on, they are downsizing from the first phase of the project and moving on to the second. Sort of like if had a revolutionary new roof for houses...id hire someone to build few house for me, put my roof on, and now I can test my concept. Just bc I am no longer employing the cement guy that layed the foundation does not mean chaos has ensued and my project has no direction anymore.
How about making computers for professionals again Apple? A Mac Pro that can be upgraded and doesn't look like a trash can would be nice.
Putting a bunch of extra crap in a box? Bulky, hot and noisy.
No thanks, the CPU core + external peripherals approach is better for professionals. Need more CPU, change the core, keep the other boxes.
Also whisper quiet machine is more valuable than the ability to cram outdated PCI cards into a sockets. Lots of iMacs in places where Mac Pros used to be required.
The latest Mac Pro is upgradable, from 4 to 12 cores, RAM and video capabilities as well. Oh were you talking about third party upgrades later down the road after purchase? Yeah, no. Serious professional uses of machines don't generally screw around and dick with upgrading. They just buy new machines. They also tend to prefer longer term, stable workflows. The upgrade every second mindset is for the low level guys who didn't buy what they needed out of the gate. Or gamers, and they are a non-professional niche.
When new Mac Pros are updated it will be in sync with how major professional users purchase machines. For example, movie studios purchase hundreds of Macs at a time, some purchase them in the thousands. Lots of employees and processes to adapt to new tech, and much more important to how Mac Pros are developed than the never-satisfied baby wants of forum 'enthusiasts'.
"Instead of designing and producing a full-fledged self-driving car, the company has shifted focus to work on backbone autonomous vehicle technology, the report said."
So......did you expect them to work on the actual physical car forever...once they have a shell built the main research or "backbone" is the autonomous technology. So because they are laying off the upholstery guy means nothing.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Producing an electric car changes nothing, even if the industry went upside down.
There are some very, very big conglomerates that have gentlemen agreements between them that makes the ME VS ALL approach to an auto-product not worth it at all. I'm not saying that Apple couldn't make a fantastic car, superior on every metric to any other mass market car. They could, as time goes on it's all about electronics and software and supply chain, and no one can touch Apple on those parameters.
What I'm saying is: Unlike the cellphone industry, where Apple managed to get the support of big, big players like Google + AT&T in order to have a chance to sell and show a great product, there's no way in hell that Apple can hold a candle Vs FIAT + Daimler + Volkswagen + Exxon + Shell + PetroChina and so on.
Apple should and will completely ignore cars. More than ever, cars are toys and will become toys to petrolheads like me (911R, please). The real goldmine, the real issue, the real treasure, is transportation.
Apple should focus on Buses, Trains, Trucks and so on in order to have a big, global level impact. They should make a fully electric, modern bus that people actually want to use, and sell it to companies and countries (like Phone Carriers). Same for trains and trucks.
Cars are already a liability on big, with high population density, cities. The trillion dollars opportunity is transportation. Change and modernize that.
Comments
Maybe Mansfield is just trimming the fat (you get that when projects are staffed quickly in a ramp up).
Shutting down now would be a smart thing to do, but they can't do that yet. That's like saying "I was wrong, go find another CEO".
To me, a car from Apple would only make sense if they came up with a new battery technology that offers significanly improved energy density (3 to 5 fold). Such batteries would also give them an advantage in their other main fields, smartphones, tablets and laptops, and would hence result in a nice synergetic effect. But as it seems, such a technology break through was not achieved, since else, we would have heard some rumors by now.
Apple's go to market strategy may include an automotive platform including the software framework and related key components technologies such as coherent navigation technologies and power management technologies. The same way HomeKit can have all your home appliances collaborating, CarKit and related protocols compliant automobiles will be able to collaborate on the roads for safety and traffic flow advantages.
Apple is already dealing with virtually all auto makers with CarPlay where each auto maker integrate some Apple Technologies in their infotainment systems. That can eventually be extended to a core framework that allows customization and differentiation while providing vital core technologies for the auto industry.
Note that Apple has already trademarked the term Iris Engine and Iris Picture Engine, these engines could be to recognize live 3D objects like pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles and 2D images such as road signs respectively. Apple is also working very hard on camera technologies that could compete with MobileEye technologies.
Imagine your car inside your garage first telling your garage door to open up and then telling other protocol compliant cars that it see in the driveway to move so that it can get out.
Time will tell.
Sort of like if had a revolutionary new roof for houses...id hire someone to build few house for me, put my roof on, and now I can test my concept. Just bc I am no longer employing the cement guy that layed the foundation does not mean chaos has ensued and my project has no direction anymore.
No thanks, the CPU core + external peripherals approach is better for professionals.
Need more CPU, change the core, keep the other boxes.
Also whisper quiet machine is more valuable than the ability to cram outdated PCI cards into a sockets. Lots of iMacs in places where Mac Pros used to be required.
The latest Mac Pro is upgradable, from 4 to 12 cores, RAM and video capabilities as well. Oh were you talking about third party upgrades later down the road after purchase? Yeah, no. Serious professional uses of machines don't generally screw around and dick with upgrading. They just buy new machines. They also tend to prefer longer term, stable workflows. The upgrade every second mindset is for the low level guys who didn't buy what they needed out of the gate. Or gamers, and they are a non-professional niche.
When new Mac Pros are updated it will be in sync with how major professional users purchase machines. For example, movie studios purchase hundreds of Macs at a time, some purchase them in the thousands. Lots of employees and processes to adapt to new tech, and much more important to how Mac Pros are developed than the never-satisfied baby wants of forum 'enthusiasts'.
So......did you expect them to work on the actual physical car forever...once they have a shell built the main research or "backbone" is the autonomous technology. So because they are laying off the upholstery guy means nothing.
amazing the posts here
There are some very, very big conglomerates that have gentlemen agreements between them that makes the ME VS ALL approach to an auto-product not worth it at all.
I'm not saying that Apple couldn't make a fantastic car, superior on every metric to any other mass market car. They could, as time goes on it's all about electronics and software and supply chain, and no one can touch Apple on those parameters.
What I'm saying is: Unlike the cellphone industry, where Apple managed to get the support of big, big players like Google + AT&T in order to have a chance to sell and show a great product, there's no way in hell that Apple can hold a candle Vs FIAT + Daimler + Volkswagen + Exxon + Shell + PetroChina and so on.
Apple should and will completely ignore cars. More than ever, cars are toys and will become toys to petrolheads like me (911R, please). The real goldmine, the real issue, the real treasure, is transportation.
Apple should focus on Buses, Trains, Trucks and so on in order to have a big, global level impact. They should make a fully electric, modern bus that people actually want to use, and sell it to companies and countries (like Phone Carriers). Same for trains and trucks.
Cars are already a liability on big, with high population density, cities. The trillion dollars opportunity is transportation. Change and modernize that.