This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
We don't need anyone to tell us what is obvious. It makes perfect sense.
Except that it isn’t obvious. It wasn’t obvious that bringing back their hardware guy would result in a shutdown of the ‘Titan project. Just the opposite would have been obvious.
We’re at cross-purposes. I agree with 100% on that. There’s no way in hell they’ve shut that down. Red herrings abound here. The lazy tech news media is being affectively tricked on this. That $10B R&D is for the new Apple Pencil.
Personal transport is going through a huge transformation right now. Future car will be a 90/10 split between a comfortable seating pod with lots of entertainment and a tiny power train that you hardly notice. Software for engine management, navigation, and infotainment will be what differentiates brands. Think super lux pods in first class sections of airplanes. Would love to sleep my way to and from Vegas. Apple will be part of this.
I wonder if the majority of people simply stop buying cars. The convenience of tapping an app and getting a driverless car to collect you and drive you to your destination, without any of the maintenance and ownership concerns that come with owning a vehicle may prove too tempting to most. Especially if these car pods become quite paired down and mechanically simply. So regular people rather than opting for the best entertainment may opt for some cheaper solutions, while being advertised to and getting privacy raped: electrification, autonomy, ride hailing — as Tim has said, and Elon is doing.
What part of that ("So regular people rather than opting for the best entertainment may opt for some cheaper solutions, while being advertised to and getting privacy raped: electrification, autonomy, ride hailing") are you attributing to Tim?
Thanks for the link. I don't know exactly what he's saying (e.g., autonomy outside the scope of self-driving cars?), but I'm glad they have smart people looking hard at these issues.
For the most part he’s saying this because it’s a public company. He’d maybe say nothing were they private. He’s basically talking about cars, without talking about cars.
This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
We don't need anyone to tell us what is obvious. It makes perfect sense.
Except that it isn’t obvious. It wasn’t obvious that bringing back their hardware guy would result in a shutdown of the ‘Titan project. Just the opposite would have been obvious.
We’re at cross-purposes. I agree with 100% on that. There’s no way in hell they’ve shut that down. Red herrings abound here. The lazy tech news media is being affectively tricked on this. That $10B R&D is for the new Apple Pencil.
Exactly. What I think is happening is that Apple is looking at the hardware, but have slowed things down. Maybe they were actually thinking of doing it all themselves after their meetings with BMW didn’t work out. And we know those meetings did happen.
but maybe they found it to be too expensive, or too daunting. We do know they’re spending an inordinate amount of R&D money on batteries, and they poached some of the top people from companies in the lead in auto battery development. But as I said, they been working closely with Magna. Magna has developed, and build vehicles for BMW, and others, why not for Apple? It could be that Magna has taken over much of that development, at least for now.
apple hasn’t gotten rid of the factory property they bought for this project, which amounts to several million square feet, in several properties, or released the long term lease on the test track. That seems awful ambitious for just software and sensor development, wouldn’t you say?
If I had to guess, I'd say there are too many important variables up in the air rn for apple to commit to a particular design direction, so they're focusing on automation and individual pieces (e.g. engines, battery, materials, etc). It looks like there's probably even some legal issues to be sorted out before the big decision is made: steering wheel or no steering wheel.
If I had to guess, I'd say there are too many important variables up in the air rn for apple to commit to a particular design direction, so they're focusing on automation and individual pieces (e.g. engines, battery, materials, etc). It looks like there's probably even some legal issues to be sorted out before the big decision is made: steering wheel or no steering wheel.
People,forget that Apple is really a conservative company. They won’t come out with a vehicle unless all the T’s are crossed, and all of the i’s have dots on top.
it reminds me of when Disney came out with their first fully owned ship. The manufacturer complained that Disney’s inspectors wanted every rivet that was on the plans, where no one else cared.
Where do the most profitable per unit sale automobile reside in the market? I'd guess around the $50–120K range, but I don't know. If they make their own car wouldn't a high value, low volume option—like the Apple Watch—be their best bet for a multitude of reasons? Trying to jump into Rolls Royce or the Prius market doesn't seem like a great plan, but starting where Tesla did—or even higher—would make a lot of sense.
But this market is also very different than anything else they've done so I can see them having to increase unit sale of their IP and possibly their HW by creating a way for every other automobile manufacturer to use their tech, not unlike how Apple caused the iPod to explode by releasing iTunes for Windows (which Steve was reluctant to do).
The bottom line is what is the best way to generate the most money for Apple, and that depends on factors we will never know.
What I see here in that part of the debate is a phrase that I read a number of years ago, which is that Apple builds affordable luxury products. Products that aren’t more expensive, but don’t compete in the lower portion of the market, making it appear as though their products are more expensive, when they’re not.
so I don’t see Apple making a $100,000 car. But even a car that starts at $35,000 is above the average price for a car. And that’s where Tesla is pricing their “cheap” model. So possibly that’s a price that Apple could be looking at. Possibly they would have two cars, one at around the price, and one priced higher. Two different types of car.
would Apple produce a sports model? It’s hard to say. Apple primarily is a family oriented company, so a sedan seems most likely. A comfortable four passenger model, that might fit five, in a pinch, particularly if three were children.
but what else would they do?
That's an interesting idea about the product positioning, but I see it as Apple's chance to capture both the massive retiring and aging Boomer population (consisting of people who are at greater risk of getting into accidents) AND the younger set of unable-and-unwilling to buy a car Millennials.
Considering the late Didi investment, Car as a service is the way I see this going.
You got a point there. Considering Didi, AR and AI, it's very likely Apple developing software for future auto car service. Didi will be a brilliant way for AI learning, and considering the country origin, it would be easier too. As for the big question "what", we won't know yet for sure but guessing.
Personal transport is going through a huge transformation right now. Future car will be a 90/10 split between a comfortable seating pod with lots of entertainment and a tiny power train that you hardly notice. Software for engine management, navigation, and infotainment will be what differentiates brands. Think super lux pods in first class sections of airplanes. Would love to sleep my way to and from Vegas. Apple will be part of this.
I wonder if the majority of people simply stop buying cars. The convenience of tapping an app and getting a driverless car to collect you and drive you to your destination, without any of the maintenance and ownership concerns that come with owning a vehicle may prove too tempting to most. Especially if these car pods become quite paired down and mechanically simply. So regular people rather than opting for the best entertainment may opt for some cheaper solutions, while being advertised to and getting privacy raped: electrification, autonomy, ride hailing — as Tim has said, and Elon is doing.
As for Elon, hat tip to a guy that can create the buzz to sell EV's, but Tesla is firmly in the set of automakers not now making profits, nor likely to in the future. Tesla is no disruption in the industry. Automaking would be best described as a twilight industry that once was the driver of national economies, from manufacturing, to resource extraction, to retailing and service.
I wouldn’t bet against Tesla. Their company strategy looks good to me. Many people down the line will perhaps get their car, solar tiled roof and home battery from this company. And they have a clear ride sharing strategy, which may entice a certain portion of their users to buy several cars—as a business.
The word is still out on Tesla. They have to prove that they can produce the number of cars a year that they say they will, which is 500,000 in 2018, and increasing from that. So far, it doesn’t look as though they will meet that number.
and they don’t have the money for that complete expansion, which is why they’re selling those junk bonds, which I’m reading as some of the riskiest junk bonds ever released.
SolarCity was in very serious financial shape before the buyout, with some risk of bankruptcy. Another highly criticized business decision by Musk. His Gigafactory for lithium batteries has been having constant problems too, and his solar roofs cost a lot more than he was stating, and most buyers will never recover costs.
so while I’m not willing to count him out yet, the countdown is in progress.
Why do they have to “prove that” when others aren’t expected to do any such thing?
Cook called the self driving car " the mother of all AI projects". I think that says it all. I don't think they are really serious about designing the actual car yet because unless/until they have the software down it will be premature. If they designed the car now it would certainly not be what they want by the time they have the software ready. So, it's obvious to me why they will stick with the software for a while until the picture is a little clearer.
It would be what is called premature optimisation... Which companies like Tesla, and most car makers are doing right now.
This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
i also have strong doubts that Apple could have a wide success with a real CarOS. There are several entrenched competitors in this field. And yes, I know that Apple has faced entrenched industries before. But it really needs to be remembered that Apple made its success in those industries with software based hardware, not just software. Why would car makers want Apple’s OS? If Apple is as restrictive about sending info back to the car makers as they are with other clients, such as the Ad agencies, then the car makers will have the same reaction. Which is to move away. And if Apple doesn’t, then Apple will lose its voice as the holder of privacy for its customers.
So without an actual vehicle for this OS effort, I don’t see it going anywhere, unless fleets take a shine to it, and that seems very un Apple-like.
Reading the article it seemed as though there were team members wanting to reinvent the automobile and then reality set in and Bob Mansfield was brought in to bring the project back down to earth. But I don’t see how it goes anywhere unless Apple eventually develops its own vehicle.
EDIT: John Gruber had his own take (which sounds like he might have heard some things from employees):
“Shelved” is an accurate word, but I think many people have interpreted it as meaning that Apple has given up on designing its own vehicles. My understanding is that it’s more like “Let’s get the autonomous shit down first, and worry about designing vehicles to put it in after that.” Eat the steak one bite at a time rather than all at once.
This makes the most sense. If you don’t have the software nailed there’s really no point to a car.
I can basically agree with that. But as someone who has developed a fair amount of hardware, and done software development as well, I can say that if you are intending to do a major hardware project, such as a car, you need years of lead time for the hardware. It’s been said that it would take Apple at least four years, and likely five, to develop a commercially viable vehicle.
the only thing I can think of is that if Apple is still intending to do that that it would be with a company such as Magna Steyr. Apple has been working with them, and has had a lot of their engineers on this project.
It bothers me when people compare this to Nokia and RIM and use that “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote. There is no comparison. Building an autonomous/self-driving vehicle is WAY more complicated than building a computer for your pocket.
This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
We don't need anyone to tell us what is obvious. It makes perfect sense.
Except that it isn’t obvious. It wasn’t obvious that bringing back their hardware guy would result in a shutdown of the ‘Titan project. Just the opposite would have been obvious.
We’re at cross-purposes. I agree with 100% on that. There’s no way in hell they’ve shut that down. Red herrings abound here. The lazy tech news media is being affectively tricked on this. That $10B R&D is for the new Apple Pencil.
Exactly. What I think is happening is that Apple is looking at the hardware, but have slowed things down. Maybe they were actually thinking of doing it all themselves after their meetings with BMW didn’t work out. And we know those meetings did happen.
but maybe they found it to be too expensive, or too daunting. We do know they’re spending an inordinate amount of R&D money on batteries, and they poached some of the top people from companies in the lead in auto battery development. But as I said, they been working closely with Magna. Magna has developed, and build vehicles for BMW, and others, why not for Apple? It could be that Magna has taken over much of that development, at least for now.
apple hasn’t gotten rid of the factory property they bought for this project, which amounts to several million square feet, in several properties, or released the long term lease on the test track. That seems awful ambitious for just software and sensor development, wouldn’t you say?
LG basically delivered an engineered drive train and electronics integrated into one of GM's existing platforms to create the Bolt. Assuming that there will be autonomous driving mechatronics, telematics, electronics, and software bundles available on the market to automakers, and there will be, and understanding that auto manufacturing's entire history is built on diffusion of innovation, then what makes a successful company will be branding, design, and manufacturing prowess. Tesla, as an example, has mastered the first two, and is in the process of proving, or not, its manufacturing prowess.
I'm not seeing the difficultly of building a branded car within the supply chain, or even creating a bundle of autonomous technologies; it's expensive and time consuming, but Apple could certainly accomplish all of that. I think that there is an assumption that Apple will be late to the game if they don't have concrete plans in place to deliver a car by, let's say 2022. I don't see that, Even Toyota isn't planning on going big on EV until 2022. Current EV use in the world is a fraction of a percent of all vehicles in use, so there isn't a barrier to entry later if Apple chooses to deliver an autonomous EV.
I'm pessimistic that Apple will actually build a car, due to the low margins and profits in the industry, but I am agreement with you and others; it's still early in the development cycle for the technologies that will be required of a car.
This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
i also have strong doubts that Apple could have a wide success with a real CarOS. There are several entrenched competitors in this field. And yes, I know that Apple has faced entrenched industries before. But it really needs to be remembered that Apple made its success in those industries with software based hardware, not just software. Why would car makers want Apple’s OS? If Apple is as restrictive about sending info back to the car makers as they are with other clients, such as the Ad agencies, then the car makers will have the same reaction. Which is to move away. And if Apple doesn’t, then Apple will lose its voice as the holder of privacy for its customers.
So without an actual vehicle for this OS effort, I don’t see it going anywhere, unless fleets take a shine to it, and that seems very un Apple-like.
Reading the article it seemed as though there were team members wanting to reinvent the automobile and then reality set in and Bob Mansfield was brought in to bring the project back down to earth. But I don’t see how it goes anywhere unless Apple eventually develops its own vehicle.
EDIT: John Gruber had his own take (which sounds like he might have heard some things from employees):
“Shelved” is an accurate word, but I think many people have interpreted it as meaning that Apple has given up on designing its own vehicles. My understanding is that it’s more like “Let’s get the autonomous shit down first, and worry about designing vehicles to put it in after that.” Eat the steak one bite at a time rather than all at once.
This makes the most sense. If you don’t have the software nailed there’s really no point to a car.
I can basically agree with that. But as someone who has developed a fair amount of hardware, and done software development as well, I can say that if you are intending to do a major hardware project, such as a car, you need years of lead time for the hardware. It’s been said that it would take Apple at least four years, and likely five, to develop a commercially viable vehicle.
the only thing I can think of is that if Apple is still intending to do that that it would be with a company such as Magna Steyr. Apple has been working with them, and has had a lot of their engineers on this project.
It bothers me when people compare this to Nokia and RIM and use that “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote. There is no comparison. Building an autonomous/self-driving vehicle is WAY more complicated than building a computer for your pocket.
You just used the “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote.
If it’s impossible for Apple then how is Tesla, Google, Uber and many others able to work on this? Why is t not possible for Apple, but possible for everyone else?
This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
i also have strong doubts that Apple could have a wide success with a real CarOS. There are several entrenched competitors in this field. And yes, I know that Apple has faced entrenched industries before. But it really needs to be remembered that Apple made its success in those industries with software based hardware, not just software. Why would car makers want Apple’s OS? If Apple is as restrictive about sending info back to the car makers as they are with other clients, such as the Ad agencies, then the car makers will have the same reaction. Which is to move away. And if Apple doesn’t, then Apple will lose its voice as the holder of privacy for its customers.
So without an actual vehicle for this OS effort, I don’t see it going anywhere, unless fleets take a shine to it, and that seems very un Apple-like.
Reading the article it seemed as though there were team members wanting to reinvent the automobile and then reality set in and Bob Mansfield was brought in to bring the project back down to earth. But I don’t see how it goes anywhere unless Apple eventually develops its own vehicle.
EDIT: John Gruber had his own take (which sounds like he might have heard some things from employees):
“Shelved” is an accurate word, but I think many people have interpreted it as meaning that Apple has given up on designing its own vehicles. My understanding is that it’s more like “Let’s get the autonomous shit down first, and worry about designing vehicles to put it in after that.” Eat the steak one bite at a time rather than all at once.
This makes the most sense. If you don’t have the software nailed there’s really no point to a car.
I can basically agree with that. But as someone who has developed a fair amount of hardware, and done software development as well, I can say that if you are intending to do a major hardware project, such as a car, you need years of lead time for the hardware. It’s been said that it would take Apple at least four years, and likely five, to develop a commercially viable vehicle.
the only thing I can think of is that if Apple is still intending to do that that it would be with a company such as Magna Steyr. Apple has been working with them, and has had a lot of their engineers on this project.
It bothers me when people compare this to Nokia and RIM and use that “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote. There is no comparison. Building an autonomous/self-driving vehicle is WAY more complicated than building a computer for your pocket.
You just used the “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote.
If it’s impossible for Apple then how is Tesla, Google, Uber and many others able to work on this? Why is t not possible for Apple, but possible for everyone else?
Google isn't building a car either Soli, realizing a couple years ago that partnering with automakers and looking into ride-sharing as a service was the better way to monetize it. I believe that's one reason why several automakers are suddenly willing to work with Google in the past year or so, not worrying so much anymore that they are positioning themselves as a competing carmaker.
If the industry sees Apple as trying to steal their customers and kill their business they'll stop cooperating with them. That they haven't seems evidence that the carmakers don't believe Apple still plans a car either and they'd probably know better than any of us since engineers and managers move around so much. Just my opinion of course, and mine holds no more weight than yours so feel free to ignore it.
This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
i also have strong doubts that Apple could have a wide success with a real CarOS. There are several entrenched competitors in this field. And yes, I know that Apple has faced entrenched industries before. But it really needs to be remembered that Apple made its success in those industries with software based hardware, not just software. Why would car makers want Apple’s OS? If Apple is as restrictive about sending info back to the car makers as they are with other clients, such as the Ad agencies, then the car makers will have the same reaction. Which is to move away. And if Apple doesn’t, then Apple will lose its voice as the holder of privacy for its customers.
So without an actual vehicle for this OS effort, I don’t see it going anywhere, unless fleets take a shine to it, and that seems very un Apple-like.
Reading the article it seemed as though there were team members wanting to reinvent the automobile and then reality set in and Bob Mansfield was brought in to bring the project back down to earth. But I don’t see how it goes anywhere unless Apple eventually develops its own vehicle.
EDIT: John Gruber had his own take (which sounds like he might have heard some things from employees):
“Shelved” is an accurate word, but I think many people have interpreted it as meaning that Apple has given up on designing its own vehicles. My understanding is that it’s more like “Let’s get the autonomous shit down first, and worry about designing vehicles to put it in after that.” Eat the steak one bite at a time rather than all at once.
This makes the most sense. If you don’t have the software nailed there’s really no point to a car.
I can basically agree with that. But as someone who has developed a fair amount of hardware, and done software development as well, I can say that if you are intending to do a major hardware project, such as a car, you need years of lead time for the hardware. It’s been said that it would take Apple at least four years, and likely five, to develop a commercially viable vehicle.
the only thing I can think of is that if Apple is still intending to do that that it would be with a company such as Magna Steyr. Apple has been working with them, and has had a lot of their engineers on this project.
It bothers me when people compare this to Nokia and RIM and use that “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote. There is no comparison. Building an autonomous/self-driving vehicle is WAY more complicated than building a computer for your pocket.
You just used the “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote.
If it’s impossible for Apple then how is Tesla, Google, Uber and many others able to work on this? Why is t not possible for Apple, but possible for everyone else?
Google isn't building a car either Soli, realizing a couple years ago that partnering with automakers and looking into ride-sharing as a service was the better way to monetize it. I believe that's one reason why several automakers are suddenly willing to work with Google in the past year or so, not worrying so much anymore that they are positioning themselves as a competing carmaker.
If the industry sees Apple as trying to steal their customers and kill their business they'll stop cooperating with them. That they haven't seems evidence that the carmakers don't believe Apple still plans a car either and they'd probably know better than any of us since engineers and managers move around so much. Just my opinion of course, and mine holds no more weight than yours so feel free to ignore it.
Why are people conflating autonomous driving with building a car or creating a car company?
Personal transport is going through a huge transformation right now. Future car will be a 90/10 split between a comfortable seating pod with lots of entertainment and a tiny power train that you hardly notice. Software for engine management, navigation, and infotainment will be what differentiates brands. Think super lux pods in first class sections of airplanes. Would love to sleep my way to and from Vegas. Apple will be part of this.
I wonder if the majority of people simply stop buying cars. The convenience of tapping an app and getting a driverless car to collect you and drive you to your destination, without any of the maintenance and ownership concerns that come with owning a vehicle may prove too tempting to most. Especially if these car pods become quite paired down and mechanically simply. So regular people rather than opting for the best entertainment may opt for some cheaper solutions, while being advertised to and getting privacy raped: electrification, autonomy, ride hailing — as Tim has said, and Elon is doing.
As for Elon, hat tip to a guy that can create the buzz to sell EV's, but Tesla is firmly in the set of automakers not now making profits, nor likely to in the future. Tesla is no disruption in the industry. Automaking would be best described as a twilight industry that once was the driver of national economies, from manufacturing, to resource extraction, to retailing and service.
I wouldn’t bet against Tesla. Their company strategy looks good to me. Many people down the line will perhaps get their car, solar tiled roof and home battery from this company. And they have a clear ride sharing strategy, which may entice a certain portion of their users to buy several cars—as a business.
The word is still out on Tesla. They have to prove that they can produce the number of cars a year that they say they will, which is 500,000 in 2018, and increasing from that. So far, it doesn’t look as though they will meet that number.
and they don’t have the money for that complete expansion, which is why they’re selling those junk bonds, which I’m reading as some of the riskiest junk bonds ever released.
SolarCity was in very serious financial shape before the buyout, with some risk of bankruptcy. Another highly criticized business decision by Musk. His Gigafactory for lithium batteries has been having constant problems too, and his solar roofs cost a lot more than he was stating, and most buyers will never recover costs.
so while I’m not willing to count him out yet, the countdown is in progress.
Why do they have to “prove that” when others aren’t expected to do any such thing?
That’s not right. Every company is required to prove that they can produce what they claim, which is why many don’t make a claim. Every time Apple doesn’t meat expectations in sales, they get hammered, and they didn’t even claim some number. If a company make a claim, and doesn’t meet it, they get hammered. Tesla made a claim, if they can’t prove they they can meet that claim, by actually doing so, they will get hammered. Much of the price of their stock right has this 500,000 number built into the current, and future stock price. If they can only build 300,000 next year, that amount will be ripped,out of the price.
the reason he’s offering some of the worst junk bonds in history is because he’s desperate for cash. And this also shows why conservatives are always wrong about big tax breaks for these exceedingly wealthy individuals. If he wanted to, he could take some of that wealth he’s gotten from owning a large share of his companies stock, and financed it himself right now, without those bonds, or just bought the bonds up,himself. But people like that almost never invest their own money in their companies that way.
This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
We don't need anyone to tell us what is obvious. It makes perfect sense.
Except that it isn’t obvious. It wasn’t obvious that bringing back their hardware guy would result in a shutdown of the ‘Titan project. Just the opposite would have been obvious.
We’re at cross-purposes. I agree with 100% on that. There’s no way in hell they’ve shut that down. Red herrings abound here. The lazy tech news media is being affectively tricked on this. That $10B R&D is for the new Apple Pencil.
Exactly. What I think is happening is that Apple is looking at the hardware, but have slowed things down. Maybe they were actually thinking of doing it all themselves after their meetings with BMW didn’t work out. And we know those meetings did happen.
but maybe they found it to be too expensive, or too daunting. We do know they’re spending an inordinate amount of R&D money on batteries, and they poached some of the top people from companies in the lead in auto battery development. But as I said, they been working closely with Magna. Magna has developed, and build vehicles for BMW, and others, why not for Apple? It could be that Magna has taken over much of that development, at least for now.
apple hasn’t gotten rid of the factory property they bought for this project, which amounts to several million square feet, in several properties, or released the long term lease on the test track. That seems awful ambitious for just software and sensor development, wouldn’t you say?
LG basically delivered an engineered drive train and electronics integrated into one of GM's existing platforms to create the Bolt. Assuming that there will be autonomous driving mechatronics, telematics, electronics, and software bundles available on the market to automakers, and there will be, and understanding that auto manufacturing's entire history is built on diffusion of innovation, then what makes a successful company will be branding, design, and manufacturing prowess. Tesla, as an example, has mastered the first two, and is in the process of proving, or not, its manufacturing prowess.
I'm not seeing the difficultly of building a branded car within the supply chain, or even creating a bundle of autonomous technologies; it's expensive and time consuming, but Apple could certainly accomplish all of that. I think that there is an assumption that Apple will be late to the game if they don't have concrete plans in place to deliver a car by, let's say 2022. I don't see that, Even Toyota isn't planning on going big on EV until 2022. Current EV use in the world is a fraction of a percent of all vehicles in use, so there isn't a barrier to entry later if Apple chooses to deliver an autonomous EV.
I'm pessimistic that Apple will actually build a car, due to the low margins and profits in the industry, but I am agreement with you and others; it's still early in the development cycle for the technologies that will be required of a car.
Nobody has to built every part of the vehicle from scratch. Bosch has motors, with associated components for the drives. Others make different portions, as you mentioned.
im not concerned about the amount of profit. Just because old line companies, with their complex web of suppliers, dealers, etc. make lower profits, doesn’t mean that Apple would.
This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
i also have strong doubts that Apple could have a wide success with a real CarOS. There are several entrenched competitors in this field. And yes, I know that Apple has faced entrenched industries before. But it really needs to be remembered that Apple made its success in those industries with software based hardware, not just software. Why would car makers want Apple’s OS? If Apple is as restrictive about sending info back to the car makers as they are with other clients, such as the Ad agencies, then the car makers will have the same reaction. Which is to move away. And if Apple doesn’t, then Apple will lose its voice as the holder of privacy for its customers.
So without an actual vehicle for this OS effort, I don’t see it going anywhere, unless fleets take a shine to it, and that seems very un Apple-like.
Reading the article it seemed as though there were team members wanting to reinvent the automobile and then reality set in and Bob Mansfield was brought in to bring the project back down to earth. But I don’t see how it goes anywhere unless Apple eventually develops its own vehicle.
EDIT: John Gruber had his own take (which sounds like he might have heard some things from employees):
“Shelved” is an accurate word, but I think many people have interpreted it as meaning that Apple has given up on designing its own vehicles. My understanding is that it’s more like “Let’s get the autonomous shit down first, and worry about designing vehicles to put it in after that.” Eat the steak one bite at a time rather than all at once.
This makes the most sense. If you don’t have the software nailed there’s really no point to a car.
I can basically agree with that. But as someone who has developed a fair amount of hardware, and done software development as well, I can say that if you are intending to do a major hardware project, such as a car, you need years of lead time for the hardware. It’s been said that it would take Apple at least four years, and likely five, to develop a commercially viable vehicle.
the only thing I can think of is that if Apple is still intending to do that that it would be with a company such as Magna Steyr. Apple has been working with them, and has had a lot of their engineers on this project.
It bothers me when people compare this to Nokia and RIM and use that “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote. There is no comparison. Building an autonomous/self-driving vehicle is WAY more complicated than building a computer for your pocket.
You just used the “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote.
If it’s impossible for Apple then how is Tesla, Google, Uber and many others able to work on this? Why is t not possible for Apple, but possible for everyone else?
Google isn't building a car either Soli, realizing a couple years ago that partnering with automakers and looking into ride-sharing as a service was the better way to monetize it. I believe that's one reason why several automakers are suddenly willing to work with Google in the past year or so, not worrying so much anymore that they are positioning themselves as a competing carmaker.
If the industry sees Apple as trying to steal their customers and kill their business they'll stop cooperating with them. That they haven't seems evidence that the carmakers don't believe Apple still plans a car either and they'd probably know better than any of us since engineers and managers move around so much. Just my opinion of course, and mine holds no more weight than yours so feel free to ignore it.
I do t think that Google was ever interested in making a car for a very simple,e reason. Everything Google does, whether a service, a product they do themselves, or a company they buy, is devoted to getting user information that they can use for their advertisers. Everything. They don’t make their own phones or tablets, because the ROI on those is too low. So they hand them off to other companies who design them and make them. Google’s input is very minor except for native Android on the devices. They sell in small numbers, because they’re really not great devices, usually.
a car is far worse. There is no way they could ever retrieve their investments making cars. And that retrieval is mostly the customermdata they would derive from it. They are not a real hardware maker. The only successful hardware they make costs less than $50, and no doubt is sold for a loss.
but Apple is a hardware makers, one of the largest in the world. It’s where they lake their money from. App,EU knows hardware. They know when it’s too complex as well, as possibly this project is right now. They haven’t fully committed. We don’t know where they’re going with this long term, but both Williams and Cook have indicated their very serious interest.
i can’t see Apple developing autonomous software just for the purpose of selling it. That really makes no sense. Your last paragraph makes no sense either
This makes no sense. This use would be so trivial as to be a complete waste of talent, time and money. If this is, instead just a way to get experience, then it could be useful, but the article doesn’t seem to be saying that.
i also have strong doubts that Apple could have a wide success with a real CarOS. There are several entrenched competitors in this field. And yes, I know that Apple has faced entrenched industries before. But it really needs to be remembered that Apple made its success in those industries with software based hardware, not just software. Why would car makers want Apple’s OS? If Apple is as restrictive about sending info back to the car makers as they are with other clients, such as the Ad agencies, then the car makers will have the same reaction. Which is to move away. And if Apple doesn’t, then Apple will lose its voice as the holder of privacy for its customers.
So without an actual vehicle for this OS effort, I don’t see it going anywhere, unless fleets take a shine to it, and that seems very un Apple-like.
Reading the article it seemed as though there were team members wanting to reinvent the automobile and then reality set in and Bob Mansfield was brought in to bring the project back down to earth. But I don’t see how it goes anywhere unless Apple eventually develops its own vehicle.
EDIT: John Gruber had his own take (which sounds like he might have heard some things from employees):
“Shelved” is an accurate word, but I think many people have interpreted it as meaning that Apple has given up on designing its own vehicles. My understanding is that it’s more like “Let’s get the autonomous shit down first, and worry about designing vehicles to put it in after that.” Eat the steak one bite at a time rather than all at once.
This makes the most sense. If you don’t have the software nailed there’s really no point to a car.
I can basically agree with that. But as someone who has developed a fair amount of hardware, and done software development as well, I can say that if you are intending to do a major hardware project, such as a car, you need years of lead time for the hardware. It’s been said that it would take Apple at least four years, and likely five, to develop a commercially viable vehicle.
the only thing I can think of is that if Apple is still intending to do that that it would be with a company such as Magna Steyr. Apple has been working with them, and has had a lot of their engineers on this project.
It bothers me when people compare this to Nokia and RIM and use that “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote. There is no comparison. Building an autonomous/self-driving vehicle is WAY more complicated than building a computer for your pocket.
You just used the “they’re not going to just walk in here...” quote.
If it’s impossible for Apple then how is Tesla, Google, Uber and many others able to work on this? Why is t not possible for Apple, but possible for everyone else?
Google isn't building a car either Soli, realizing a couple years ago that partnering with automakers and looking into ride-sharing as a service was the better way to monetize it. I believe that's one reason why several automakers are suddenly willing to work with Google in the past year or so, not worrying so much anymore that they are positioning themselves as a competing carmaker.
If the industry sees Apple as trying to steal their customers and kill their business they'll stop cooperating with them. That they haven't seems evidence that the carmakers don't believe Apple still plans a car either and they'd probably know better than any of us since engineers and managers move around so much. Just my opinion of course, and mine holds no more weight than yours so feel free to ignore it.
I do t think that Google was ever interested in making a car for a very simple,e reason. Everything Google does, whether a service, a product they do themselves, or a company they buy, is devoted to getting user information that they can use for their advertisers. Everything. They don’t make their own phones or tablets, because the ROI on those is too low. So they hand them off to other companies who design them and make them. Google’s input is very minor except for native Android on the devices. They sell in small numbers, because they’re really not great devices, usually.
a car is far worse. There is no way they could ever retrieve their investments making cars. And that retrieval is mostly the customermdata they would derive from it. They are not a real hardware maker. The only successful hardware they make costs less than $50, and no doubt is sold for a loss.
but Apple is a hardware makers, one of the largest in the world. It’s where they lake their money from. App,EU knows hardware. They know when it’s too complex as well, as possibly this project is right now. They haven’t fully committed. We don’t know where they’re going with this long term, but both Williams and Cook have indicated their very serious interest.
i can’t see Apple developing autonomous software just for the purpose of selling it. That really makes no sense. Your last paragraph makes no sense either
Last paragraph makes no sense to you? And that's coming from a former business owner that no doubt had worked with outside companies when you were younger? Sure you understand it.
That’s not right. Every company is required to prove that they can produce what they claim, which is why many don’t make a claim. Every time Apple doesn’t meat expectations in sales, they get hammered, and they didn’t even claim some number. If a company make a claim, and doesn’t meet it, they get hammered. Tesla made a claim, if they can’t prove they they can meet that claim, by actually doing so, they will get hammered. Much of the price of their stock right has this 500,000 number built into the current, and future stock price. If they can only build 300,000 next year, that amount will be ripped,out of the price.
the reason he’s offering some of the worst junk bonds in history is because he’s desperate for cash. And this also shows why conservatives are always wrong about big tax breaks for these exceedingly wealthy individuals. If he wanted to, he could take some of that wealth he’s gotten from owning a large share of his companies stock, and financed it himself right now, without those bonds, or just bought the bonds up,himself. But people like that almost never invest their own money in their companies that way.
Again, why does Tesla have to produce x-number of vehicles but other automobile companies don't? You people on this forum have been claiming Tesla is going to go under any day now since he first announced the Roadster. A fast EV is impossible blah blah blah. It's just a money grab from a shyster Yada yada yada. Now we're on their 4th car and they've created a massive and growing factory or the Model 3 and batteries. Why does no other automobile company get this sort of scrutiny or derision for having rapid growth and success? I'd think you'd be happy to see a new company and blow out expectations like Apple, to see a company that is doing what was deemed impossible, and yet all you can do is sound like any anti-Apple pundit by claiming that their success is going to end any day. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already said: I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
That’s not right. Every company is required to prove that they can produce what they claim, which is why many don’t make a claim. Every time Apple doesn’t meat expectations in sales, they get hammered, and they didn’t even claim some number. If a company make a claim, and doesn’t meet it, they get hammered. Tesla made a claim, if they can’t prove they they can meet that claim, by actually doing so, they will get hammered. Much of the price of their stock right has this 500,000 number built into the current, and future stock price. If they can only build 300,000 next year, that amount will be ripped,out of the price.
the reason he’s offering some of the worst junk bonds in history is because he’s desperate for cash. And this also shows why conservatives are always wrong about big tax breaks for these exceedingly wealthy individuals. If he wanted to, he could take some of that wealth he’s gotten from owning a large share of his companies stock, and financed it himself right now, without those bonds, or just bought the bonds up,himself. But people like that almost never invest their own money in their companies that way.
Again, why does Tesla have to produce x-number of vehicles but other automobile companies don't? You people on this forum have been claiming Tesla is going to go under any day now since he first announced the Roadster. A fast EV is impossible blah blah blah. It's just a money grab from a shyster Yada yada yada. Now we're on their 4th car and they've created a massive and growing factory or the Model 3 and batteries. Why does no other automobile company get this sort of scrutiny or derision for having rapid growth and success? I'd think you'd be happy to see a new company and blow out expectations like Apple, to see a company that is doing what was deemed impossible, and yet all you can do is sound like any anti-Apple pundit by claiming that their success is going to end any day. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already said: I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
All good points. Tesla has done well so far despite all the noise from the naysayers.
Every time there's a rumor that Apple might enter some new field a few fans start a scorched earth effort decrying how horrid the sometimes previously-praised companies already in that space are and predicting their demise. I think oft-times it has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality or worthiness of other companies and their products but instead fan cheer-leading for Apple to take all the profits out of another industry segment and seize it for themselves. Bigger isn't always better.
Comments
but maybe they found it to be too expensive, or too daunting. We do know they’re spending an inordinate amount of R&D money on batteries, and they poached some of the top people from companies in the lead in auto battery development. But as I said, they been working closely with Magna. Magna has developed, and build vehicles for BMW, and others, why not for Apple? It could be that Magna has taken over much of that development, at least for now.
apple hasn’t gotten rid of the factory property they bought for this project, which amounts to several million square feet, in several properties, or released the long term lease on the test track. That seems awful ambitious for just software and sensor development, wouldn’t you say?
it reminds me of when Disney came out with their first fully owned ship. The manufacturer complained that Disney’s inspectors wanted every rivet that was on the plans, where no one else cared.
You got a point there. Considering Didi, AR and AI, it's very likely Apple developing software for future auto car service. Didi will be a brilliant way for AI learning, and considering the country origin, it would be easier too. As for the big question "what", we won't know yet for sure but guessing.
LG basically delivered an engineered drive train and electronics integrated into one of GM's existing platforms to create the Bolt. Assuming that there will be autonomous driving mechatronics, telematics, electronics, and software bundles available on the market to automakers, and there will be, and understanding that auto manufacturing's entire history is built on diffusion of innovation, then what makes a successful company will be branding, design, and manufacturing prowess. Tesla, as an example, has mastered the first two, and is in the process of proving, or not, its manufacturing prowess.
I'm not seeing the difficultly of building a branded car within the supply chain, or even creating a bundle of autonomous technologies; it's expensive and time consuming, but Apple could certainly accomplish all of that. I think that there is an assumption that Apple will be late to the game if they don't have concrete plans in place to deliver a car by, let's say 2022. I don't see that, Even Toyota isn't planning on going big on EV until 2022. Current EV use in the world is a fraction of a percent of all vehicles in use, so there isn't a barrier to entry later if Apple chooses to deliver an autonomous EV.
I'm pessimistic that Apple will actually build a car, due to the low margins and profits in the industry, but I am agreement with you and others; it's still early in the development cycle for the technologies that will be required of a car.
If it’s impossible for Apple then how is Tesla, Google, Uber and many others able to work on this? Why is t not possible for Apple, but possible for everyone else?
If the industry sees Apple as trying to steal their customers and kill their business they'll stop cooperating with them. That they haven't seems evidence that the carmakers don't believe Apple still plans a car either and they'd probably know better than any of us since engineers and managers move around so much. Just my opinion of course, and mine holds no more weight than yours so feel free to ignore it.
the reason he’s offering some of the worst junk bonds in history is because he’s desperate for cash. And this also shows why conservatives are always wrong about big tax breaks for these exceedingly wealthy individuals. If he wanted to, he could take some of that wealth he’s gotten from owning a large share of his companies stock, and financed it himself right now, without those bonds, or just bought the bonds up,himself. But people like that almost never invest their own money in their companies that way.
Nobody has to built every part of the vehicle from scratch. Bosch has motors, with associated components for the drives. Others make different portions, as you mentioned.
im not concerned about the amount of profit. Just because old line companies, with their complex web of suppliers, dealers, etc. make lower profits, doesn’t mean that Apple would.
I do t think that Google was ever interested in making a car for a very simple,e reason. Everything Google does, whether a service, a product they do themselves, or a company they buy, is devoted to getting user information that they can use for their advertisers. Everything. They don’t make their own phones or tablets, because the ROI on those is too low. So they hand them off to other companies who design them and make them. Google’s input is very minor except for native Android on the devices. They sell in small numbers, because they’re really not great devices, usually.
a car is far worse. There is no way they could ever retrieve their investments making cars. And that retrieval is mostly the customermdata they would derive from it. They are not a real hardware maker. The only successful hardware they make costs less than $50, and no doubt is sold for a loss.
but Apple is a hardware makers, one of the largest in the world. It’s where they lake their money from. App,EU knows hardware. They know when it’s too complex as well, as possibly this project is right now. They haven’t fully committed. We don’t know where they’re going with this long term, but both Williams and Cook have indicated their very serious interest.
i can’t see Apple developing autonomous software just for the purpose of selling it. That really makes no sense. Your last paragraph makes no sense either
Every time there's a rumor that Apple might enter some new field a few fans start a scorched earth effort decrying how horrid the sometimes previously-praised companies already in that space are and predicting their demise. I think oft-times it has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality or worthiness of other companies and their products but instead fan cheer-leading for Apple to take all the profits out of another industry segment and seize it for themselves. Bigger isn't always better.