'Apple Car' project to choose new direction in late 2017 - report

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 84
    I'm with Gruber and Marco Arment on this one:

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/10/17/bloomberg-apple-car

    Making a platform that Apple would, I can only suppose, license to actual car makers doesn’t sound anything like Apple at all. I’m not disputing Gurman and Webb’s reporting, I’m just pointing out that if true, it’s the most un-Apple-like project in the company’s history.

    There are ways to square this story with Apple’s traditional integrated approach. Perhaps they’re thinking, Do the software first, see if we can do something worth making, and if so, buy a car company. But even that doesn’t sound like Apple.

    Marco Arment:

    Even if only the big-picture story is correct and every detail is wrong, Project Titan makes no sense to me now.

  • Reply 62 of 84
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    sflagel said:
    xixo said:

    "a cellphone without buttons!?!? are they nuts? they'll sell maybe three!" - many former tech CEOs of formerly relevant corporations



    No one ever said that.... There were loads of full-screen cellphones in existence then. Apple' iPhone was not revolutionary when it first came out (although arguably some of the Apple Apps were better than the competition). The revolutionary thing was the App Store. That's what did it.
    How old are you 12? I hate when kids try to talk about iPhones history.



    You Remind me of those kids who never seen a flip phone or BlackBerry and just assumed iPhones always existed. Apple changed the industry forever


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 63 of 84
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
     Now regarding the Car, we don't want to look like Steve Ballmer up there. Let's just wait and see. Apple has an incredible track record with these things.
    monstrositywatto_cobra
  • Reply 64 of 84
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,982member
    brucemc said:
    I would expect that Apple would have a pretty big goal of "impact" on the car industry, in order to justify their entry (they would not be happy with progress like Tesla's over the years, taking a decade to get to 50K units/year).  They wouldn't just want to make a "better" electric car, but one which would be different in at least one, if not more, dimensions.  
    - Based on new manufacturing process (e.g. carbon fibre, ala BMW i3) which allows different economics / models / customization
    - Rethinking what a "car" is for.  Its jobs to be done, how it is designed, how it is used.  The seats, the layout, flexible spaces...
    - Autonomous driving
    - Vastly improved User Experience (based on potentially all of above).  Pace of change in the industry is glacial.  There are many compromises in the car driving experience based simply on the modern assembly line process, costs, suppliers, incumbent fear of change, etc.  A fresh approach could really shake things up (beyond the Tesla impact to electric drivetrain).

    Quite possible that in reviewing the marketplace, it was clear they could not make that impact (yet...or maybe ever)...or not in enough dimensions.  Lots of change on the horizon, and it is a big market, so Apple will want to either do it "right" (from their perspective), or not at all.

    I was pretty impressed with that analysis and costing that this company did on the i3;



    If accurate, and it appears so, it implies that there are many "best case" scenario's for manufacturing based on volume and price point; and more to the point, that most builders in the industry, including Tesla, really aren't pushing the manufacturing envelope at all, but merely playing to their existing strengths.

    I think it is wise for Apple to push the technologies that they need, and get their ducks in a row, and if it comes to pass that Apple decides to build a car, it isn't likely that they would be unable to compete due to supply chain, just that it would be a supply chain unlike that of most of the existing industry.
  • Reply 65 of 84
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    sog35 said:
    Personally I always thought building a car was a stupid idea.

    Risks are massive.
    Margins are slim.

    Just look at the 'success' story of Tesla who is losing $30k on every car they sell. There isn't much profit to make in the industry.

    Apple should just concentrate on making CarPlay much better. Or team up with a specific car company or several and build a better CarOS.

    Right now CarPlay is not even close to perfect. 



    And yet, Tesla just sold more Model S cars than BMW and Mercedes combined in the same segment.  Tesla is doing just fine. 
    when you're losing money on every unit sold, you can't "make it up with volume!" that only increases the problem. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 66 of 84
    This is why these projects are kept secret I guess... at least as much as they can.

    Kudos to Apple for trying something like this. With so much cash and talent they really should try out a lot of things like this and see what they can find and what they can make, it's only through this trial and error process that they may find something. It looks like the car project is struggling to find a purpose and who knows what will eventually come to market from it.

    I hope for Apple's sake they have more going on, as of late, for over a year this car project has been talked about as Apple's next big thing, if this Car project is not working out, what does Apple have up it's sleeve? Right now it's milking it's current product range rather nicely, but if they don't have something more interesting coming out in the next couple of years, Apple will lose a lot of it's relevancy. 

    Much like Microsoft, who are still chugging along nicely and making a good amount of bank, but at the same time nobody really cares about them anymore.


    iPhone sales are starting to fall, the phone is still the best around when you add up all the features, but lots of manufactures are able to make better features in some areas and the middle and lower end markets are getting really good now and continue to get better. This market is reaching a maturity level that without any big bumps in tech lead by Apple, then sales will continue to fall.  I am so happy with my 6s, i'm going to need something really special to upgrade to a 7s/8 next year. 

    The same has already happened to the iPad market... there isn't much reason to upgrade and cheap tablets are actually pretty damn good these days, heck Apple haven't even updated the Air,  this is only going to get worse for Apple.

    The computer industry is not really much of a big pie for Apple, and Apple is only really doing minor refreshes in this area for some time, about as much as it needs to do.

    The watch is a niche product. Siri and AI seem an interesting area but Apple despite bringing this tech to the forefront, has been very uninterested/lazy in doing much in this area for the past few years, suggesting that they are focusing elsewhere.

    So where next to Apple? Hopefully there working on something very exciting we haven't yet heard about!
  • Reply 67 of 84
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,784member
    sog35 said:
    Personally I always thought building a car was a stupid idea.

    Risks are massive.
    Margins are slim.

    Just look at the 'success' story of Tesla who is losing $30k on every car they sell. There isn't much profit to make in the industry.

    Apple should just concentrate on making CarPlay much better. Or team up with a specific car company or several and build a better CarOS.

    Right now CarPlay is not even close to perfect. 



    And yet, Tesla just sold more Model S cars than BMW and Mercedes combined in the same segment.  Tesla is doing just fine. 
    but Tesla is bleeding money. BMW & Mercedes are not.
    Musk at this point doesn't care about profits and is helping spur innovative solutions throughout the industry. Every single car manufacturer is now coming out with whole lines of electric vehicles. Musks vision is beyond profits right now. 
    How convenient. 

    bestkeptsecret
  • Reply 68 of 84
    As soon as you remove the steering wheel, it's a mobile living room, not a car.  Apple has to be in this space; its competitors are there. But as to what it will be?  No one has the foggiest.  I would love to sit in my living room and watch the sun set over the ocean, martini in paw.  Cheers!  Is it worth 75 grand to do it?  (I don't have an ocean view from my actual living room).  Maybe I would get an extra hour of sleep while my bedroom delivers me to my early morning meeting an hour's drive away.  I'd have to sleep in the car, though, to make it happen.  The early efforts will be experimental, to say the least.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 69 of 84
    I'm with Gruber and Marco Arment on this one:

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/10/17/bloomberg-apple-car

    Making a platform that Apple would, I can only suppose, license to actual car makers doesn’t sound anything like Apple at all. I’m not disputing Gurman and Webb’s reporting, I’m just pointing out that if true, it’s the most un-Apple-like project in the company’s history.

    There are ways to square this story with Apple’s traditional integrated approach. Perhaps they’re thinking, Do the software first, see if we can do something worth making, and if so, buy a car company. But even that doesn’t sound like Apple.

    Marco Arment:

    Even if only the big-picture story is correct and every detail is wrong, Project Titan makes no sense to me now.

    I don't agree with Gruber that buying a car company is un-Apple like. That would be saying that buying PA semi is unApple-like. If Apple feels like the need to buy another car company (there were rumors of them buying McLaren) for the purpose of getting the requisite car engineering / manufacturing expertise & to enter the market in a timely manner, then so be it. There's nothing unApple-like about that for the simple reason that Apple would still be doing the whole widget.

    Having thought about it for a bit, I do agree that making Project Titan the "Android" of cars, whereby Apple licenses the carOS to other car makers, would be unApple-like and is an avenue they should not pursue. Either they do it all or they don't.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 70 of 84
    fmalloy said:
    The key point here is about the automotive supply chain. Apple is used to bullying and pushing around parts suppliers - as well as the music industry - to get the control they want at the cheapest prices. Too bad it's not working on the movie industry or on the automotive industry. That's why AppleTV isn't going anywhere, and same for cars. They know Tesla is delivering (even if not financially) and they don't want to get in the game unless they can take over. They don't play well unless they're far in the lead. Boo hoo - Apple is going to have to play by the rules for once and not act like the spoiled 800lb gorilla they're used to being.
    congratulations on winning the Load of Garbage Troll Post of the Day award!
    fastasleepRayz2016watto_cobrabestkeptsecret
  • Reply 71 of 84

    flaneur said:
    zoetmb said:
    lkrupp said:
    Blathering speculation. Rumors of changes to a rumored plan, rumored to be behind schedule. No facts, no confirmation, no evidence, no nothing, just rumors from “sources.” This is either just pure fantasy invented by tech bloggers with too much time on their hands or leaked propaganda from Apple to direct away from their real objective. Either way it’s baloney. But baloney sells doesn’t it. I had a baloney sandwich yesterday.

    And what’s with the dumbass conceptual picture of Apple’s rumored vehicle? More fantasy dreamed up by some wannabe graphic artist?
    Baloney?  So all those people didn't get laid-off or left?   That was pretty specific information.

    I never personally thought Apple would pull off a car for all the obvious reasons:  very large capital investment, not core competency, supplier issues, high labor cost, low margins except perhaps at the luxury end of the market, different state and country regulations, and high liability costs if a car has a "bug", especially a self-driving car.  

    I still maintain (although almost no one agrees with me) that 20 years from now, Apple will be an A.I. and robotics company.   
    What experience does Apple have in AI and robotics? IMO the part of Apple that is lacking is not hardware, it's software. 
    Yeah, like Apple doesn't have experience in the software/hardware integration business (like Google doesn't), or Apple hasn't been buying up machine-sensing and AI companies right and left, or like they haven't been pursuing AR. 

    I can't resist — just because you refuse to have an open mind and evolve actively, doesn't mean that Apple remains dug in to the staus quo like you. You are projecting, if you're not just looking for another topic to be negative about.
    Not saying Apple can't evolve. But others are far ahead in this space. And Apple's magic is integrating hardware, software and services.  Not being the Android of cars.
    "these guys aren't going to just walk in there..."
    fastasleepRayz2016
  • Reply 72 of 84
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,895member
    Rayz2016 said:
    sog35 said:
    Personally I always thought building a car was a stupid idea.

    Risks are massive.
    Margins are slim.

    Just look at the 'success' story of Tesla who is losing $30k on every car they sell. There isn't much profit to make in the industry.

    Apple should just concentrate on making CarPlay much better. Or team up with a specific car company or several and build a better CarOS.

    Right now CarPlay is not even close to perfect. 



    And yet, Tesla just sold more Model S cars than BMW and Mercedes combined in the same segment.  Tesla is doing just fine. 
    but Tesla is bleeding money. BMW & Mercedes are not.
    Musk at this point doesn't care about profits and is helping spur innovative solutions throughout the industry. Every single car manufacturer is now coming out with whole lines of electric vehicles. Musks vision is beyond profits right now. 
    How convenient. 

    It's hilarious. "Beyond profits right now". Image the red ink without government support*. Must be a child, an academic, or some sort of communist**. But I repeat myself.

    *had to laugh at an article I read a few months ago claiming Tesla did not benefit from Government support, and to support their argument outlined all the ways it is supported. Apparently they don't count as these support measures are also available to other low emission vehicles.

    tesla is a visionary company and I am happy for them to make cars that accelerate new developments and act as a disruptor to the dinosaur car industry.  But eventually it will have to make a profit or die when Musk runs out of money. Watch the the usual suspects demand bigger handouts of future OPM then.


    ** hope the his doesn't need a /joke Tag. Or havent triggered anyone so they have to run to their safe place.
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 73 of 84
    entropys said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    sog35 said:
    Personally I always thought building a car was a stupid idea.

    Risks are massive.
    Margins are slim.

    Just look at the 'success' story of Tesla who is losing $30k on every car they sell. There isn't much profit to make in the industry.

    Apple should just concentrate on making CarPlay much better. Or team up with a specific car company or several and build a better CarOS.

    Right now CarPlay is not even close to perfect. 



    And yet, Tesla just sold more Model S cars than BMW and Mercedes combined in the same segment.  Tesla is doing just fine. 
    but Tesla is bleeding money. BMW & Mercedes are not.
    Musk at this point doesn't care about profits and is helping spur innovative solutions throughout the industry. Every single car manufacturer is now coming out with whole lines of electric vehicles. Musks vision is beyond profits right now. 
    How convenient. 

    It's hilarious. "Beyond profits right now". Image the red ink without government support*. Must be a child, an academic, or some sort of communist**. But I repeat myself.

    *had to laugh at an article I read a few months ago claiming Tesla did not benefit from Government support, and to support their argument outlined all the ways it is supported. Apparently they don't count as these support measures are also available to other low emission vehicles.

    tesla is a visionary company and I am happy for them to make cars that accelerate new developments and act as a disruptor to the dinosaur car industry.  But eventually it will have to make a profit or die when Musk runs out of money. Watch the the usual suspects demand bigger handouts of future OPM then.


    ** hope the his doesn't need a /joke Tag. Or havent triggered anyone so they have to run to their safe place.

    sooo... I have not seen Tesla's books or even there annual report, so perhaps a couple of questions perhaps the wise that have seen these (or internal accounting docs) could help me out with---

    1) if Tesla had not invested in the Model 3(or even perhaps model X).. what would their profit level be? (note -- Musk says in interview- the margin in model 3 is about 25%)

    2) Given above-- What is the known prove-able effect on Tesla Model S/X sales because the government subsidies? (zero, 100%? what? source please)

    3) Given above--- Does Tesla not showing much profit in recent years (ala Amazon) while experiencing massive capital infrastructure cost for model 3 really mean anything?

    BTW off topic - when I see that dash screen interface in model X/S, I swear that has to be Apple... but alas.. .sounds like not to be.

  • Reply 74 of 84

    flaneur said:
    zoetmb said:
    lkrupp said:
    Blathering speculation. Rumors of changes to a rumored plan, rumored to be behind schedule. No facts, no confirmation, no evidence, no nothing, just rumors from “sources.” This is either just pure fantasy invented by tech bloggers with too much time on their hands or leaked propaganda from Apple to direct away from their real objective. Either way it’s baloney. But baloney sells doesn’t it. I had a baloney sandwich yesterday.

    And what’s with the dumbass conceptual picture of Apple’s rumored vehicle? More fantasy dreamed up by some wannabe graphic artist?
    Baloney?  So all those people didn't get laid-off or left?   That was pretty specific information.

    I never personally thought Apple would pull off a car for all the obvious reasons:  very large capital investment, not core competency, supplier issues, high labor cost, low margins except perhaps at the luxury end of the market, different state and country regulations, and high liability costs if a car has a "bug", especially a self-driving car.  

    I still maintain (although almost no one agrees with me) that 20 years from now, Apple will be an A.I. and robotics company.   
    What experience does Apple have in AI and robotics? IMO the part of Apple that is lacking is not hardware, it's software. 
    Yeah, like Apple doesn't have experience in the software/hardware integration business (like Google doesn't), or Apple hasn't been buying up machine-sensing and AI companies right and left, or like they haven't been pursuing AR. 

    I can't resist — just because you refuse to have an open mind and evolve actively, doesn't mean that Apple remains dug in to the staus quo like you. You are projecting, if you're not just looking for another topic to be negative about.
    Not saying Apple can't evolve. But others are far ahead in this space. And Apple's magic is integrating hardware, software and services.  Not being the Android of cars.
    "these guys aren't going to just walk in there..."
    Right because a mobile phone and self driving car software are so much alike. 
  • Reply 75 of 84

    I'm with Gruber and Marco Arment on this one:

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/10/17/bloomberg-apple-car

    Making a platform that Apple would, I can only suppose, license to actual car makers doesn’t sound anything like Apple at all. I’m not disputing Gurman and Webb’s reporting, I’m just pointing out that if true, it’s the most un-Apple-like project in the company’s history.

    There are ways to square this story with Apple’s traditional integrated approach. Perhaps they’re thinking, Do the software first, see if we can do something worth making, and if so, buy a car company. But even that doesn’t sound like Apple.

    Marco Arment:

    Even if only the big-picture story is correct and every detail is wrong, Project Titan makes no sense to me now.

    I don't agree with Gruber that buying a car company is un-Apple like. That would be saying that buying PA semi is unApple-like. If Apple feels like the need to buy another car company (there were rumors of them buying McLaren) for the purpose of getting the requisite car engineering / manufacturing expertise & to enter the market in a timely manner, then so be it. There's nothing unApple-like about that for the simple reason that Apple would still be doing the whole widget.

    Having thought about it for a bit, I do agree that making Project Titan the "Android" of cars, whereby Apple licenses the carOS to other car makers, would be unApple-like and is an avenue they should not pursue. Either they do it all or they don't.
    Yes that's how I feel. Either do it all or scrap it. Maybe they could partner with an existing car company but that seems unlikely. The head of Mercedes said they're not going to become Foxconn for cars. Since most car companies are well on the path towards autonomous vehicles what do they need Apple for? Just to make a nicer looking dashboard UI? I don't think so.
  • Reply 76 of 84
    maestro64 said:
    spice-boy said:
    Self driving cars to me an solution to a problem that does not need one. I know a lot of people die in car accidents each year but unless all standard cars are replaced with self operational cars people will still get into crashes for various reasons. I am sure these vehicles will be very expensive and out of reach to most Americans, this whole effort smells like a Silicon Valley billionaire wet dream more than a Ford Model T solution. I suppose Apple is spending a lot of money and energy in how to make cars safer but ultimately software and hardware failures still exists in products no matter how advance they are. Who hasn't had an iPhone or other smart phone "crash" or fail completely? 


    Can not agree more, it is a solution for the few not the many.  Who wants a hand me down self driving car which you may not be capable of working on. Without going to a dealer and paying top $ for US worker who need to live in Million $ homes to work on your car. I personally work on my cars and I know the cost to go to the dealer to fix things. I work on cars because it is something I enjoy, but most people I know do not and as soon as they see that first expensive repair they want to get rid of the car and buy a new one. Even cars are becoming throw away items but most people can not afford to keep buying new.

    The biggest issue for self driving cars is, other human drivers on the road, and weather these cars work great until they have to deal with anything but sunny weather conditions.

    The need for self driving cars is not the driving (oh wot pun) force behind the tech...  it's just the first popular application of AI/UI.  That's it.  It's almost within reach and has or seems to have good market potential.  It's basically an international tech competition to see who delivers the best and ships.  Next comes standards/capabilities that can be regulated.  The basics are simple:  Accelerate, turn, navigate and brake.  If next week, Apple introduced a system that did everything great, and that was easily integrated into existing and new designs, then they'd corner the tech and set the archetype for standards.  Anything short of doing that or in the next 18-24 months is a failure, because the players are betting heavy and work g very hard to be in the patent game.  I think Apple has already lost, unfortunately.  Good idea, poor execution.
  • Reply 77 of 84
    kamilton said:
    maestro64 said:
    spice-boy said:
    Self driving cars to me an solution to a problem that does not need one. I know a lot of people die in car accidents each year but unless all standard cars are replaced with self operational cars people will still get into crashes for various reasons. I am sure these vehicles will be very expensive and out of reach to most Americans, this whole effort smells like a Silicon Valley billionaire wet dream more than a Ford Model T solution. I suppose Apple is spending a lot of money and energy in how to make cars safer but ultimately software and hardware failures still exists in products no matter how advance they are. Who hasn't had an iPhone or other smart phone "crash" or fail completely? 


    Can not agree more, it is a solution for the few not the many.  Who wants a hand me down self driving car which you may not be capable of working on. Without going to a dealer and paying top $ for US worker who need to live in Million $ homes to work on your car. I personally work on my cars and I know the cost to go to the dealer to fix things. I work on cars because it is something I enjoy, but most people I know do not and as soon as they see that first expensive repair they want to get rid of the car and buy a new one. Even cars are becoming throw away items but most people can not afford to keep buying new.

    The biggest issue for self driving cars is, other human drivers on the road, and weather these cars work great until they have to deal with anything but sunny weather conditions.

    The need for self driving cars is not the driving (oh wot pun) force behind the tech...  it's just the first popular application of AI/UI.  That's it.  It's almost within reach and has or seems to have good market potential.  It's basically an international tech competition to see who delivers the best and ships.  Next comes standards/capabilities that can be regulated.  The basics are simple:  Accelerate, turn, navigate and brake.  If next week, Apple introduced a system that did everything great, and that was easily integrated into existing and new designs, then they'd corner the tech and set the archetype for standards.  Anything short of doing that or in the next 18-24 months is a failure, because the players are betting heavy and work g very hard to be in the patent game.  I think Apple has already lost, unfortunately.  Good idea, poor execution.
    " I think Apple has already lost, unfortunately."

    Per this Bloomberg article, we will know this time next year.
  • Reply 78 of 84
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 3,293member
    smarky said:
    Much like Microsoft, who are still chugging along nicely and making a good amount of bank, but at the same time nobody really cares about them anymore.
    "Nobody"
    smarky said:
    iPhone sales are starting to fall
    Except that's only true when looking at a couple quarters year over year, after the giant outsize bump that happened when the 6 came out. Year over year the iPhone install base has increased by double digits. So about that Nobody you mentioned before...
  • Reply 79 of 84
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,526member
    boeyc15 said:
    entropys said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    sog35 said:
    Personally I always thought building a car was a stupid idea.

    Risks are massive.
    Margins are slim.

    Just look at the 'success' story of Tesla who is losing $30k on every car they sell. There isn't much profit to make in the industry.

    Apple should just concentrate on making CarPlay much better. Or team up with a specific car company or several and build a better CarOS.

    Right now CarPlay is not even close to perfect. 



    And yet, Tesla just sold more Model S cars than BMW and Mercedes combined in the same segment.  Tesla is doing just fine. 
    but Tesla is bleeding money. BMW & Mercedes are not.
    Musk at this point doesn't care about profits and is helping spur innovative solutions throughout the industry. Every single car manufacturer is now coming out with whole lines of electric vehicles. Musks vision is beyond profits right now. 
    How convenient. 

    It's hilarious. "Beyond profits right now". Image the red ink without government support*. Must be a child, an academic, or some sort of communist**. But I repeat myself.

    *had to laugh at an article I read a few months ago claiming Tesla did not benefit from Government support, and to support their argument outlined all the ways it is supported. Apparently they don't count as these support measures are also available to other low emission vehicles.

    tesla is a visionary company and I am happy for them to make cars that accelerate new developments and act as a disruptor to the dinosaur car industry.  But eventually it will have to make a profit or die when Musk runs out of money. Watch the the usual suspects demand bigger handouts of future OPM then.


    ** hope the his doesn't need a /joke Tag. Or havent triggered anyone so they have to run to their safe place.

    sooo... I have not seen Tesla's books or even there annual report, so perhaps a couple of questions perhaps the wise that have seen these (or internal accounting docs) could help me out with---

    1) if Tesla had not invested in the Model 3(or even perhaps model X).. what would their profit level be? (note -- Musk says in interview- the margin in model 3 is about 25%)

    2) Given above-- What is the known prove-able effect on Tesla Model S/X sales because the government subsidies? (zero, 100%? what? source please)

    3) Given above--- Does Tesla not showing much profit in recent years (ala Amazon) while experiencing massive capital infrastructure cost for model 3 really mean anything?

    BTW off topic - when I see that dash screen interface in model X/S, I swear that has to be Apple... but alas.. .sounds like not to be.

    Your point 1) hints at is what is wrong with the zombie meme that Tesla loses tens of thousands of dollars on every car.  People arrive at that number by dividing Tesla's bottom line earnings by the number of cars sold.  This simplistic analysis ignores the fact that Tesla is spending massively building a huge battery factory in Nevada, doubling the size of their Fremont factory, expanding their worldwide network of fast charging stations, adding showrooms and service centers around the world, and designing new vehicles, to name just a few items.  I guess if people want to attribute all of Tesla's expenses to manufacturing the cars they sell now, they would have to also say that all those other items are being done for free.  That would be an accomplishment unheard of in the history of industry.  It saddens me that it took until post 75 for someone to offer any resistance to this denialist encyclopedia of a thread.  Why do people root so hard against Tesla?

    Regarding the dash display, believe me, it's no Apple.  They just destroyed the ability to play your own music collection from USB with the most recent software update.
    They are having memory problems like early iPhones had with multiple open Safari tabs having to reload all the time.

    Even further off topic: it seems like about half the people on Tesla's forums hate Apple the same way people here hate Tesla.  People go berserk whenever there is a rumor that Apple might buy out Tesla and there is a massive thread on how Tesla should NOT implement CarPlay, in spite of the shortcomings of Tesla's audio software.
    edited October 2016 Roger_Fingasfastasleeppropod
  • Reply 80 of 84
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,521member
    ^^^I imagine a good number of Tesla nuts are left-brain alpha-male engineering types. This species of geek often hates the bohemian-tinged, right-brain Apple. (A personal observation.)
Sign In or Register to comment.