Powertrain doesn’t sound good. It’s the one thing you shouldn't have when building an electric car.
You still need a method of getting the rotational power generated by the Electric Motor to the wheels. Some EV's us a reduction gear and all that instant torque can rip the heart out of a conventional gearbox. Any EV powertrain will also need to work in reverse to allow Regen to work.
I agree with you in that a conventional ICE Manual or Automatic Gearbox is not required but there is still a need for an EV specific powertrain.
directly connecting the motor shaft to the wheels does not really work.
I appreciate your reply. But, you think too much in conventional car technology. No transmission, no shaft. In wheel motors are the solution, this is whats left for Apple (and others) to improve upon. And yes some inherent problems currently remain, but new research about unsprung wheight (and its importance for handling of the car) indicates that this at least isn’t such a big problem as assumed. I know of some other methods to solve unsprung weight (and other problems) but thats something I only disclose when paid for.
I will reiterate what I, and a few other insightful commentators, have predicted all along.
Apple will not sell a car. Instead, Apple will sell transportation as a service. Their transportation service will utilize their own fleet of self-driving electric vehicles.
A few years ago, people often reacted to this prediction by saying that Apple makes money by selling products to consumers, not by selling services. I think it's pretty clear now how insightful that line of reasoning wasn't. Apple execs are beating the service drum pretty hard these days. The idea of Apple preferring to sell a subscription service rather than hardware is not as alien now.
Furthermore, I think that as we discover how overly optimistic the Waymo/Tesla-fueled predictions were about the timeline for achieving 'full autonomy,' it becomes clear that selling a self-driving car to consumers will not be feasible for the foreseeable future.
What is likely to be feasible is a vehicle that is very adept at operating within a clearly defined space. Not just geo-fenced, but restricted to specific routes that it can handle.
I can imagine a service that mixes human-driven and autonomous vehicles, depending on the route requested.
Aaaaaand soooo booooring. People will fall asleep before ordering a seat on an Apple bus (Apple is pretty good at busses by the way, so this might be a good idea after all...). It seems, by the way, that most Apple services will fall flat on its face.
I appreciate your reply. But, you think too much in conventional car technology. No transmission, no shaft. In wheel motors are the solution, this is whats left for Apple (and others) to improve upon. And yes some inherent problems currently remain, but new research about unsprung wheight (and its importance for handling of the car) indicates that this at least isn’t such a big problem as assumed. I know of some other methods to solve unsprung weight (and other problems) but thats something I only disclose when paid for.
Wheel Motors? ROFL.
If you have the solution to unsprung weight then you should patent it right now..
There is a reason why there are virtually no vehicles on the road using them. The problems with Axle hung traction motors on trains and the effects on the tracks is well known and has been for 30+ years. They really beat up the track.
- Autonomous vehicle technology will slowly infiltrate into regular cars and road infrastructure until self-driving and regular cars become less and less distinct enities. Europe is already considering regulations to automatically govern the sped of all automobiles using GPS and local road signals. That could go from regulating top speed to the speed limit to automatically slowing cars as they approach a construction zone. That is the start....
I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is NOT the kind of world I look forward to.
Does this Orwellian future scare anyone else? Or is everyone just totally fine living in a 24/7/365 surveillance society?
It's not that it's a bad idea to have certain safety features, but it's like other kinds of unintended consequences, if you're not even considering what it means to have government (or even insurance companies) monitoring everywhere you go and when you go there, then you're not going to weigh that into any equation that balances pluses and minuses of such a system.
We need to be balancing these kinds of dangers into the equations, but clearly we're not doing a good job of it at the moment.
Tesla found out that actually building thousands of cars is real difficult, and I doubt the expertise Apple has gained in producing iPhones will be at all transferable to something as big & complicated as a car. On the other hand I would expect the user interface on an iCar to be much better than what Tesla has done. I have a Tesla & love driving it but the human/machine interface needs a lot of refinement.
I think 2023-2025 will be when electric cars really enter a new age of adoption. Thats when VW will be releasing their electric I.D. Buzz van with a 350 mile range, 30 minute quick charge, solar panel,on roof and starting at $25k. Apple will most likely announce their long awaited electric car within that period too. So 4-6 years from now electric cars will become more widely mainstream than ever before.
OK, my 2 cents for what they're worth ... I suspect Apple is aiming at fleet sales, not individuals. They are working on an Uber killer. A taxi if you will, that is locked into your Apple ID once booked via an app and uses biometrics to verify you when collecting you. It will be purely a driverless vehicle. The likes of Hertz and Avis would seem the ideal clients for this or perhaps Apple would open their own 'dispatch terminals' and not sell them at all, an entirely different business model.
Getting even further out on a limb I see no reason why it couldn't drive in either direction with front and rear facing seats, I'd guess up to six passengers. I see no reason why both front and rear (although obviously there is no front or rear) could turn giving it unbelievable levels of maneuverability. If someone managed to hack in somehow I would imagine it could double lock and take the idiot to a police station. This would be used primarily in urban locations and be part of Apple's walled garden.
I will reiterate what I, and a few other insightful commentators, have predicted all along.
Apple will not sell a car. Instead, Apple will sell transportation as a service. Their transportation service will utilize their own fleet of self-driving electric vehicles.
Furthermore, I think that as we discover how overly optimistic the Waymo/Tesla-fueled predictions were about the timeline for achieving 'full autonomy,' it becomes clear that selling a self-driving car to consumers will not be feasible for the foreseeable future.
Waymo has never indicated any intention of selling a car to consumers. Just as you are predicting for Apple, Waymo is going for transportation as a service. And yes full autonomy is active for them now. By choice, and for legal reasons probably in addition to making riders feel more secure, they're still (actually back to) including a Google employee on most of the rideshares. As I understand it tho not ALL of them.
I will reiterate what I, and a few other insightful commentators, have predicted all along.
Apple will not sell a car. Instead, Apple will sell transportation as a service. Their transportation service will utilize their own fleet of self-driving electric vehicles.
A few years ago, people often reacted to this prediction by saying that Apple makes money by selling products to consumers, not by selling services. I think it's pretty clear now how insightful that line of reasoning wasn't. Apple execs are beating the service drum pretty hard these days. The idea of Apple preferring to sell a subscription service rather than hardware is not as alien now.
Furthermore, I think that as we discover how overly optimistic the Waymo/Tesla-fueled predictions were about the timeline for achieving 'full autonomy,' it becomes clear that selling a self-driving car to consumers will not be feasible for the foreseeable future.
What is likely to be feasible is a vehicle that is very adept at operating within a clearly defined space. Not just geo-fenced, but restricted to specific routes that it can handle.
I can imagine a service that mixes human-driven and autonomous vehicles, depending on the route requested.
Aaaaaand soooo booooring. People will fall asleep before ordering a seat on an Apple bus (Apple is pretty good at busses by the way, so this might be a good idea after all...). It seems, by the way, that most Apple services will fall flat on its face.
Hater nonsense. So what if ride sharing is boring — services exist to make money, not protect you from life’s doldrums while surfing rumor sites.
Most services will fail? What on earth are you talking about? So far Apple Music and iCloud storage services are doing great. You’re high.
There were a number of charging experts that were saying that what Apple was trying to do with that mat was close to impossible. It’s easy to have a mat with two or three separate zones, sometimes with one only for a watch. But making it with one zone that would read what was being charged, and exactly where, at what angle, etc. and then supplying the exact amount of current for those three devices, randomingly placed, is, apparently, far more difficult, particularly at a price consumers would pay.
so it’s always easy to joke when you don’t understand the engineering involved.
I appreciate your reply. But, you think too much in conventional car technology. No transmission, no shaft. In wheel motors are the solution, this is whats left for Apple (and others) to improve upon. And yes some inherent problems currently remain, but new research about unsprung wheight (and its importance for handling of the car) indicates that this at least isn’t such a big problem as assumed. I know of some other methods to solve unsprung weight (and other problems) but thats something I only disclose when paid for.
Wheel Motors? ROFL.
If you have the solution to unsprung weight then you should patent it right now..
There is a reason why there are virtually no vehicles on the road using them. The problems with Axle hung traction motors on trains and the effects on the tracks is well known and has been for 30+ years. They really beat up the track.
No not a solution to unsprung weight. A patent is difficult because of the cost, its someting that is really obvious (as most patents nowadays are) and can be claimed by anyone. Anyway, its impossible to compete with big money.
Edit: trains have a specific problem in this regard (no air cushioning) and that will cause heavy vibrations, especially because of the heavy motor attached to the axle. For cars this roblem is different (it is mainly bouncing which is a problem when cornering (etc)). Wheel hub motors are widely used at the moment, most bicycles sold in the Netherlands (for example) have axle motors and its in widespread use by motored ‘skateboards’ and so on. As I mentioned recent research indicates that in wheel motors are not such a big problem as is indicated by earlier experiences ... and some other things can help to take the problem away compleyely ...
I’ve never agreed with that idea. Who will want to buy Apple’s platform? Considering how difficult it has been for Apple to get manufacturers just to install their entertainment platform, which is simple (it’s still on a minority of vehicles), how easy will it be for them to convince manufacturers to install that entire system? I think, very difficult.
one problem is that Apple is who they are, and their size. It’s one thing to be a medium size company specializing on power trains, and related equipment. It’s another thing entirely to be far larger than most auto manufacturers, where your business is not even in the auto industry, but can control much of what now will go into a car, and very possibly, from what we’re seeing, not being willing to share information that auto manufacturers have now.
additionally, they could fear that this is just a step for Apple in producing their own vehicles. So that Apple would be learning from this experience on top of other’s vehicles, with little of the downside, and then compete against their customers. A problem there is that unlike other manufacturers who have done this, Apple is very likely to withdraw their external sales if they do decide to compete directly with a vehicle. They do this all the time.
so manufacturers would understandably be wary of Apple peddling all of this equipment to them. They would need iron clad assurances that Apple would stick with it even if they did decide to compete, and that if they did, what they sold would be equal to what they were using for themselves. I don’t see Apple being willing to do that.
Powertrain doesn’t sound good. It’s the one thing you shouldn't have when building an electric car.
Yes, you do. Borg-Warner, Bosch and others make powertrains for electric vehicles. These are the motors, now integrated with gearing, clutches, brakes and controls. Sometimes they include the regen systems as well.
I have a feeling Apple is developing a EV chassis platform for others. Battery, frame, wheels, powertrain, software etc, but the actual "car" where you sit will be open to anything a manufacturer wants. Kind of like a bare stakebed truck. You could put a box on back, or a normal pickup back, or anything.
This would be a very un-Apple move. Apple is a consumer products company. Not saying they can't/won't...just seem very unlikely.
Powertrain doesn’t sound good. It’s the one thing you shouldn't have when building an electric car.
Indeed. This seems the signal that Apple couldn’t find a parther within its Autopilot/software ambition, and just (again?) tries to start building a carframe - in a mere “You have to start anywhere, don’t you ?”-approach Soon to find itself as Alice lost in carmakers' Wonderland of bodywork design/philosophy, production, outsourcing, provisioning, assemblage, plant design, upscaling production, dealer networks, parts distribution, aftersales-service, service and repairmen, education etc. This overly complex business requires understanding and refinement of carmakers’ assembly and provisioning networks as they evolved over the last 100 years. Successful carmakers made that happen, and evolved with it, or perished. This is a world far more complex for newcomers to enter, let alone survive. Far more complicated and less rewarding/profitable than iDevice business (that has its own, very different provisioning networks and laws) - making me wonder whether Apple realizes what it actually wants to achieve and at what price. I am afraid Tim expects to be the Champion of Everything (Media, News, Fashion, Health, Radio, Music Streaming, Video content - all very different expertise area's) but ends up as the culprit of epic diversification failure. Better limit ambitions to a smaller, more realistic scale - starting with a PowerMat (...)
That’s all wrong. There are more than a few companies that make portions of, or entire cars for bigger companies. Apple has been working with a couple. Offhand, I forget the name of one I’ve discussed in the past that Apple has been working with for years. They have over a dozen of their engineers working on Apple’s project. They designed, and build a car for BMW as well. They design, and build systems and parts for many auto companies around the world. Apple could easily, if they wanted to, buy this company, or just partner with them.
besides, talent and knowledge can be hired and bought. How do you think small companies in the business, such as Tesla got going? Really, either you’re naive, or deliberately dissembling. You’re entire argument is ridiculous.
Tesla found out that actually building thousands of cars is real difficult, and I doubt the expertise Apple has gained in producing iPhones will be at all transferable to something as big & complicated as a car. On the other hand I would expect the user interface on an iCar to be much better than what Tesla has done. I have a Tesla & love driving it but the human/machine interface needs a lot of refinement.
Nothing would prevent Apple from using a contract manufacturer to make cars. Many car companies do this already.
Generally speaking, electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles seem to get intermixed in reporting and conversations. Yet they are totally different.
For myself, I would predict:
- Electric vehicles will give way to plug in hybrids of some sort (even if they are fuel cell hybrids). And that will last till battery technology and recharging stations and technology have advanced considerably.
- Autonomous vehicle technology will slowly infiltrate into regular cars and road infrastructure until self-driving and regular cars become less and less distinct enities. Europe is already considering regulations to automatically govern the sped of all automobiles using GPS and local road signals. That could go from regulating top speed to the speed limit to automatically slowing cars as they approach a construction zone. That is the start....
I don’t know. I see it the other way around. When auto batteries could only give 80 miles to the charge, hybrids were the way to go. But battery technology advances about 5% a year. We’ve seen that. There are now electric cars that can go a “true” 225 miles on a charge. That is, with moderate use of heat or air. Without heat or air, 300 miles, and a slight bit more is happening with a few models.
that’s beginning to compare favorably with gas.
but the biggest problem relates to charge times and number of stations. While there are about 160,000 gas stations in the USA and Canada, there are only 40,000 charging stations. But, the number of gas stations has been very slowly declining, while charging station installs have been surging. Estimates I’ve seen have gas stations at slightly below 150,000 in five years, with charging stations reaching close to 100,000. Some gas station chains are adding charge stations.
we’re also seeing hotels and resorts adding charging stations to their own lots, for guests, and even some restaurants are as well. Some parking lots now have them as well, and, of course, if you own a home, you can install one. Apartment buildings are beginning to put them in too.
And as charging times continue to get shorter, it will be less of a problem, from the travel time aspect.
the autonomous portion is more difficult. Some think it will be as far away as 2030 before we see true autonomous vehicles on the road as a normal thing. Some think, 2025, and some think, never.
I will reiterate what I, and a few other insightful commentators, have predicted all along.
Apple will not sell a car. Instead, Apple will sell transportation as a service. Their transportation service will utilize their own fleet of self-driving electric vehicles.
A few years ago, people often reacted to this prediction by saying that Apple makes money by selling products to consumers, not by selling services. I think it's pretty clear now how insightful that line of reasoning wasn't. Apple execs are beating the service drum pretty hard these days. The idea of Apple preferring to sell a subscription service rather than hardware is not as alien now.
Furthermore, I think that as we discover how overly optimistic the Waymo/Tesla-fueled predictions were about the timeline for achieving 'full autonomy,' it becomes clear that selling a self-driving car to consumers will not be feasible for the foreseeable future.
What is likely to be feasible is a vehicle that is very adept at operating within a clearly defined space. Not just geo-fenced, but restricted to specific routes that it can handle.
I can imagine a service that mixes human-driven and autonomous vehicles, depending on the route requested.
Aaaaaand soooo booooring. People will fall asleep before ordering a seat on an Apple bus (Apple is pretty good at busses by the way, so this might be a good idea after all...). It seems, by the way, that most Apple services will fall flat on its face.
Tesla found out that actually building thousands of cars is real difficult, and I doubt the expertise Apple has gained in producing iPhones will be at all transferable to something as big & complicated as a car. On the other hand I would expect the user interface on an iCar to be much better than what Tesla has done. I have a Tesla & love driving it but the human/machine interface needs a lot of refinement.
Tesla has had a problem because, in certain respects, Musk is an idiot. It’s isn't that difficult to produce a lot of cars (insofar as manufacturing any large, complex product is, which is done everywhere). It’s difficult in ramping up to build a lot of cars in the time he said they would do it, as EVERYONE in the industry told him. He likes to promise things he can’t deliver.
I will reiterate what I, and a few other insightful commentators, have predicted all along.
Apple will not sell a car. Instead, Apple will sell transportation as a service. Their transportation service will utilize their own fleet of self-driving electric vehicles.
A few years ago, people often reacted to this prediction by saying that Apple makes money by selling products to consumers, not by selling services. I think it's pretty clear now how insightful that line of reasoning wasn't. Apple execs are beating the service drum pretty hard these days. The idea of Apple preferring to sell a subscription service rather than hardware is not as alien now.
Furthermore, I think that as we discover how overly optimistic the Waymo/Tesla-fueled predictions were about the timeline for achieving 'full autonomy,' it becomes clear that selling a self-driving car to consumers will not be feasible for the foreseeable future.
What is likely to be feasible is a vehicle that is very adept at operating within a clearly defined space. Not just geo-fenced, but restricted to specific routes that it can handle.
I can imagine a service that mixes human-driven and autonomous vehicles, depending on the route requested.
I don't understand why Apple can't do both. People act like it's one or the other.
My prediction is,
First: Apple introduces an iOS default app that provides rides. Will be DiDi or something new. This will collect AI data for better driving.
Later: Apple introduces their own Car with all the testing already done by Apple users.
Comments
But, you think too much in conventional car technology.
No transmission, no shaft. In wheel motors are the solution, this is whats left for Apple (and others) to improve upon.
And yes some inherent problems currently remain, but new research about unsprung wheight (and its importance for handling of the car) indicates that this at least isn’t such a big problem as assumed.
I know of some other methods to solve unsprung weight (and other problems) but thats something I only disclose when paid for.
It seems, by the way, that most Apple services will fall flat on its face.
Getting even further out on a limb I see no reason why it couldn't drive in either direction with front and rear facing seats, I'd guess up to six passengers. I see no reason why both front and rear (although obviously there is no front or rear) could turn giving it unbelievable levels of maneuverability. If someone managed to hack in somehow I would imagine it could double lock and take the idiot to a police station. This would be used primarily in urban locations and be part of Apple's walled garden.
Most services will fail? What on earth are you talking about? So far Apple Music and iCloud storage services are doing great. You’re high.
so it’s always easy to joke when you don’t understand the engineering involved.
A patent is difficult because of the cost, its someting that is really obvious (as most patents nowadays are) and can be claimed by anyone.
Anyway, its impossible to compete with big money.
Edit: trains have a specific problem in this regard (no air cushioning) and that will cause heavy vibrations, especially because of the heavy motor attached to the axle. For cars this roblem is different (it is mainly bouncing which is a problem when cornering (etc)).
Wheel hub motors are widely used at the moment, most bicycles sold in the Netherlands (for example) have axle motors and its in widespread use by motored ‘skateboards’ and so on. As I mentioned recent research indicates that in wheel motors are not such a big problem as is indicated by earlier experiences ... and some other things can help to take the problem away compleyely ...
I’ve never agreed with that idea. Who will want to buy Apple’s platform? Considering how difficult it has been for Apple to get manufacturers just to install their entertainment platform, which is simple (it’s still on a minority of vehicles), how easy will it be for them to convince manufacturers to install that entire system? I think, very difficult.
one problem is that Apple is who they are, and their size. It’s one thing to be a medium size company specializing on power trains, and related equipment. It’s another thing entirely to be far larger than most auto manufacturers, where your business is not even in the auto industry, but can control much of what now will go into a car, and very possibly, from what we’re seeing, not being willing to share information that auto manufacturers have now.
additionally, they could fear that this is just a step for Apple in producing their own vehicles. So that Apple would be learning from this experience on top of other’s vehicles, with little of the downside, and then compete against their customers. A problem there is that unlike other manufacturers who have done this, Apple is very likely to withdraw their external sales if they do decide to compete directly with a vehicle. They do this all the time.
so manufacturers would understandably be wary of Apple peddling all of this equipment to them. They would need iron clad assurances that Apple would stick with it even if they did decide to compete, and that if they did, what they sold would be equal to what they were using for themselves. I don’t see Apple being willing to do that.
Yes, you do. Borg-Warner, Bosch and others make powertrains for electric vehicles. These are the motors, now integrated with gearing, clutches, brakes and controls. Sometimes they include the regen systems as well.
That’s all wrong. There are more than a few companies that make portions of, or entire cars for bigger companies. Apple has been working with a couple. Offhand, I forget the name of one I’ve discussed in the past that Apple has been working with for years. They have over a dozen of their engineers working on Apple’s project. They designed, and build a car for BMW as well. They design, and build systems and parts for many auto companies around the world. Apple could easily, if they wanted to, buy this company, or just partner with them.
besides, talent and knowledge can be hired and bought. How do you think small companies in the business, such as Tesla got going? Really, either you’re naive, or deliberately dissembling. You’re entire argument is ridiculous.
I don’t know. I see it the other way around. When auto batteries could only give 80 miles to the charge, hybrids were the way to go. But battery technology advances about 5% a year. We’ve seen that. There are now electric cars that can go a “true” 225 miles on a charge. That is, with moderate use of heat or air. Without heat or air, 300 miles, and a slight bit more is happening with a few models.
that’s beginning to compare favorably with gas.
but the biggest problem relates to charge times and number of stations. While there are about 160,000 gas stations in the USA and Canada, there are only 40,000 charging stations. But, the number of gas stations has been very slowly declining, while charging station installs have been surging. Estimates I’ve seen have gas stations at slightly below 150,000 in five years, with charging stations reaching close to 100,000. Some gas station chains are adding charge stations.
we’re also seeing hotels and resorts adding charging stations to their own lots, for guests, and even some restaurants are as well. Some parking lots now have them as well, and, of course, if you own a home, you can install one. Apartment buildings are beginning to put them in too.
And as charging times continue to get shorter, it will be less of a problem, from the travel time aspect.
the autonomous portion is more difficult. Some think it will be as far away as 2030 before we see true autonomous vehicles on the road as a normal thing. Some think, 2025, and some think, never.
Tesla has had a problem because, in certain respects, Musk is an idiot. It’s isn't that difficult to produce a lot of cars (insofar as manufacturing any large, complex product is, which is done everywhere). It’s difficult in ramping up to build a lot of cars in the time he said they would do it, as EVERYONE in the industry told him. He likes to promise things he can’t deliver.
I don't understand why Apple can't do both. People act like it's one or the other.
My prediction is,
First: Apple introduces an iOS default app that provides rides. Will be DiDi or something new. This will collect AI data for better driving.
Later: Apple introduces their own Car with all the testing already done by Apple users.