Making EV car is difficult endeavor. Apple will need experience partner in auto industry to make it happen. But, Apple always go on it's own way so we have to wait and see for 2-3 years and see Apple car progress. One thing for sure. If Apple strategically decided to go after EV car market, than it will happen and it will be success.
It’s an interesting “What if?” situation, and Apple has existing economies of scale to assist in the costs of entry for car price (assuming, reasonably, electric) for batteries. Can Apple make use of the same battery tech between their mobile devices without wheels and the far larger mobile devices with wheels? If so, they can’t lose money on a key component cost there.
Now, how much functionality for self-driving would Apple’s presumed car have? That takes a hefty amount of computational power on a good day, no matter how good, bad or ugly it is. Look at Apple’s AR sensors, then look at their neural processing in their chips. Again, major pieces of technology Apple already has in mass production for other products, they lose nothing in worst-case scenario.
The biggest question, should Apple make their own cars, comes down to the major problem to solve for self-driving, and if they’re really that ambitious. With my decades of software development experience and driving, including driving in snowy/icy conditions and weird things happening, it’s a truly very hard problem, and the worst thing is when it appears to be ready, but fools people and they die.
I still believe it makes the most sense for Apple to NOT make/sell the major part of the car, too expensive to make for low margins, but low margins aren’t Apple’s pattern.
When you look at Apple’s past history, they have repeatedly worked out details of tech or available software on other things first, getting them more than sufficient, before leveraging them in completely new products. I didn’t even cover all Apple has done in that manner since the iPhone and later.
Making EV car is difficult endeavor. Apple will need experience partner in auto industry to make it happen. But, Apple always go on it's own way so we have to wait and see for 2-3 years and see Apple car progress. One thing for sure. If Apple strategically decided to go after EV car market, than it will happen and it will be success.
An experienced partner within the auto industry wouldn't really help much…
I mean, you can't underestimate the problems involved in making such a high level car that Apple would have to deliver; but at the same time the basic technologies involved in making a car are very basic. With enough dedication, time, and access to the internet, you yourself could get something going out of your own garage (at least good enough for a couple of spins around the block); so throwing lots of money and expertise on that will get an at least half decent car ready for mass production.
So what would Apple actually need from an experienced partner in the auto industry?!
Well… mass production isn't exactly unique for the auto industry, and the more unique talents can be recruited (just as is already done when new tech is used); so… once you start analysing the situation you end up with that the only things that Apple truly would need, that simply doesn't exist yet within the "experienced auto industry". We're talking the actual things that Apple would bring to the industry; so the actual physical car-related skills and experiences from the existing industry becomes trivial in comparison to what Apple would have to develop, and short of buying/partnering with Tesla, or maybe Google, Apple would have to develop that from scratch themselves.
Apple had their shot to buy Tesla back in 2016, according to Elon Musk. He was offering the company for pennies on the dollar compared to Tesla's current valuation. Apple chose not to, yet have been poaching Tesla people ever since. Apple must have been holding quite a hand for Tim Cook to refuse to even meet with Musk. It seems unlikely to me that Apple would be that far out from introducing SOMETHING that came from Project Titan.
Well at the time Tesla was losing money as fast as it could. Smart money was that they would have folded by 2020 not grown. If the call happened at all Musk was offering it at market price, not a bargain.
Had Apple bought it I doubt it would have succeeded. I can't see Tim Cook or (at the time) Jony Ive sleeping on the factory floor trying to get cars out the door.
More than likely they would have killed it off and scavenged the technology for their own future car -- and America would have lost what is shaping up to be its premier company of the technological future.
It will be interesting to see how GM, Ford, Honda and VW take on Tesla over the next 4 years -- and how Biden will handle it.
Actually, at this point, Musk may still want to sell because Tesla has mostly used up its federal credits to subsidize buyers of its cars while the other manufacturers still have their $7,500 government subsidies. That will give them a strong edge over Tesla. In addition, Biden has promised to build out charging stations across the country -- which will compete directly with those Tesla has already built and bought -- which will provide another advantage to Tesla's competitors courtesy of the U.S. government.
Musk has his work cut out for him. But regardless, he appears to be welcoming the competition. Perhaps that's because he believes the best man (or car) will win.
I find it very hard to believe how Apple could be spending $20 billion in R&D and NOT be preparing to enter and win in a new, very large market. The current product lineup and adjacent categories cannot possibly require that amount of resources
Either Apple is wasting R&D spend a la IBM, or it has very ambitious plans. It would be nice not to have to wait another 8 years to see what "new" new thing comes next
I don’t see the logical connection between the dollars spent in R&D and the conclusion that because it’s a certain amount that it MUST be for a car. Or that if a certain amount is spent then it’s wasted unless spent on car development.
Amazon spent over $22 billion on R&D last year. Is Amazon wasting money or developing a car?
Don't forget that Amazon owns one of (if not THE) world's biggest cloud services companies: AWS.
They took a hit when the U.S. DoD chose Microsoft for their cloud services. But now that Russia has implanted themselves into Microsoft's systems, they may be rethinking that.
Apple's car will be a critical move forward in maxing out utility and reducing CO2, waste, and energy, through increasing utility, reliability, and useful years. Apple's car will be sharable: one car for a couple, family, friends, neighbors, or dedicated fleets of cars.
In Short: Apple's car won't be a car; it will be a system of 'indestructible' reliable, super energy-efficient cars, communicating with each other ("I'm walking here." - Dustin Hoffman) to the purpose of making our Earth livable again.
Apple is dedicated to making a large contribution to regreening Earth, and supporting people's health and opportunities whatever nation they inhabit.
Apple's car will be a critical move forward in maxing out utility and reducing CO2, waste, and energy, through increasing utility, reliability, and useful years. Apple's car will be sharable: one car for a couple, family, friends, neighbors, or dedicated fleets of cars.
In Short: Apple's car won't be a car; it will be a system of 'indestructible' reliable, super energy-efficient cars, communicating with each other ("I'm walking here." - Dustin Hoffman) to the purpose of making our Earth livable again.
Apple is dedicated to making a large contribution to regreening Earth, and supporting people's health and opportunities whatever nation they inhabit.
Get China and India to reduce their output of pollution, then you’ll really have something.
Apple's car will be a critical move forward in maxing out utility and reducing CO2, waste, and energy, through increasing utility, reliability, and useful years. Apple's car will be sharable: one car for a couple, family, friends, neighbors, or dedicated fleets of cars.
In Short: Apple's car won't be a car; it will be a system of 'indestructible' reliable, super energy-efficient cars, communicating with each other ("I'm walking here." - Dustin Hoffman) to the purpose of making our Earth livable again.
Apple is dedicated to making a large contribution to regreening Earth, and supporting people's health and opportunities whatever nation they inhabit.
Get China and India to reduce their output of pollution, then you’ll really have something.
Do you know the population/overall carbon emission/Per capita carbon emission levels of India and USA? And guess which country comes out on top for the wrong reasons on a per capita basis?
Apple's car will be a critical move forward in maxing out utility and reducing CO2, waste, and energy, through increasing utility, reliability, and useful years. Apple's car will be sharable: one car for a couple, family, friends, neighbors, or dedicated fleets of cars.
In Short: Apple's car won't be a car; it will be a system of 'indestructible' reliable, super energy-efficient cars, communicating with each other ("I'm walking here." - Dustin Hoffman) to the purpose of making our Earth livable again.
Apple is dedicated to making a large contribution to regreening Earth, and supporting people's health and opportunities whatever nation they inhabit.
While EVs will undoubtedly reduce pollution and green house gasses (particularly if the power plants are cleaned up), I am not so sure about "Useful years". Right now batteries are meant to "Last the life of the car" -- which really means that the "Car will last the life of the battery" -- which is likely half as long as I have kept my last two cars (my Toyota ran 25 years while my current Honda is on year #22).
Hopefully though they find a reasonable way to replace and recycle those monsters.
But, with Musk creating "structural batteries", that sounds increasingly less likely. It's likely a place where government needs to step in: Car manufacturers have dual incentives to design cars that get scrapped when the battery dies: Their new cars will be cheaper and likely sleaker while creating the ultimate "Planned Obsolescence". But, the losers will be consumers and the environment from all the wasted production and scrapped cars. Government can and should step in to insure to protect the nation from that waste and abuse.
Biden will be promoting and subsidizing EVs -- he'll need to look 10 years down the road at the consequences too. Hopefully.
Simply electrifying automobiles without changing the fundamental model of how people actually use automobiles would be somewhat disappointing. Other than people who drive for a living or those whose jobs require continuous operation of an automobile, like a cop, the vast majority of automobiles are sitting idle and unused far more than they are being used. Whether they are sitting in your driveway or garage at home or sitting in a massive parking garage away from your home, they are doing no work at all, costing you money, and providing no utility whatsoever the vast majority of the time.
The big question, challenge, or whatever you want to call it, is whether there is a way to capture some of that inefficiency and reclaim that lost potential? I don't know how or even whether it's even possible, but I think it's worth getting some smart people thinking about the personal transportation problem from a perspective of reducing the massive inefficiencies that exist. For example, if a community had a pool of automobiles and could guarantee that a certain class of automobile would show up in your driveway in 5 minutes or less, would you forego having an automobile sitting in your garage at all times? Or perhaps it's simply a subscription model that keeps you from buying a second vehicle. Maybe you can get a pickup truck subscription that guarantees 5 minute delivery to get you a truck only when you actually need a pickup truck to ... you know, pick something up (even if it's just your manliness).
This all gets back to the question: What can Apple bring to the automobile market that is uniquely "Apple?" I don't mean yet another me-too EV, only with a shiny Apple logo on the grill and the Apple chime sound when you start boot it. Aim higher.
Apple's car will be a critical move forward in maxing out utility and reducing CO2, waste, and energy, through increasing utility, reliability, and useful years. Apple's car will be sharable: one car for a couple, family, friends, neighbors, or dedicated fleets of cars.
In Short: Apple's car won't be a car; it will be a system of 'indestructible' reliable, super energy-efficient cars, communicating with each other ("I'm walking here." - Dustin Hoffman) to the purpose of making our Earth livable again.
Apple is dedicated to making a large contribution to regreening Earth, and supporting people's health and opportunities whatever nation they inhabit.
Get China and India to reduce their output of pollution, then you’ll really have something.
Do you know the population/overall carbon emission/Per capita carbon emission levels of India and USA? And guess which country comes out on top for the wrong reasons on a per capita basis?
You'll never have any form of reasonable conversation with the "I want the world to burn as long as not the other ones stop ruining it first"-crowd.
Simply electrifying automobiles without changing the fundamental model of how people actually use automobiles would be somewhat disappointing. Other than people who drive for a living or those whose jobs require continuous operation of an automobile, like a cop, the vast majority of automobiles are sitting idle and unused far more than they are being used. Whether they are sitting in your driveway or garage at home or sitting in a massive parking garage away from your home, they are doing no work at all, costing you money, and providing no utility whatsoever the vast majority of the time.
The big question, challenge, or whatever you want to call it, is whether there is a way to capture some of that inefficiency and reclaim that lost potential? I don't know how or even whether it's even possible, but I think it's worth getting some smart people thinking about the personal transportation problem from a perspective of reducing the massive inefficiencies that exist. For example, if a community had a pool of automobiles and could guarantee that a certain class of automobile would show up in your driveway in 5 minutes or less, would you forego having an automobile sitting in your garage at all times? Or perhaps it's simply a subscription model that keeps you from buying a second vehicle. Maybe you can get a pickup truck subscription that guarantees 5 minute delivery to get you a truck only when you actually need a pickup truck to ... you know, pick something up (even if it's just your manliness).
This all gets back to the question: What can Apple bring to the automobile market that is uniquely "Apple?" I don't mean yet another me-too EV, only with a shiny Apple logo on the grill and the Apple chime sound when you start boot it. Aim higher.
That question was answered 100 some years ago: Most people lived in the city. And there were shops and grocers within walking distance -- and every street had side walks on both sides and houses were long and narrow -- and that was by intent: Property taxes were levied based on the amount of frontal space the house took up so that people could easily and efficiently walk to where they needed to get to. But, after WW-II the suburbs were developed with the automobile in mind: local grocers were replaced with shops you had to drive to. The narrow houses were replaced with wide houses with big front yards and side walk were eliminated -- so even if you could walk there it was too far and too dangerous. The thinking was that if you needed anything no matter how small, you got into your car and drove.
Uber and some others made some noises about self-driving cars showing up at your front door when called. That would be ideal for an older shut in. But I doubt that would be acceptable to most -- especially in today's climate where people won't even wear masks.
Simply electrifying automobiles without changing the fundamental model of how people actually use automobiles would be somewhat disappointing. Other than people who drive for a living or those whose jobs require continuous operation of an automobile, like a cop, the vast majority of automobiles are sitting idle and unused far more than they are being used. Whether they are sitting in your driveway or garage at home or sitting in a massive parking garage away from your home, they are doing no work at all, costing you money, and providing no utility whatsoever the vast majority of the time.
The big question, challenge, or whatever you want to call it, is whether there is a way to capture some of that inefficiency and reclaim that lost potential? I don't know how or even whether it's even possible, but I think it's worth getting some smart people thinking about the personal transportation problem from a perspective of reducing the massive inefficiencies that exist. For example, if a community had a pool of automobiles and could guarantee that a certain class of automobile would show up in your driveway in 5 minutes or less, would you forego having an automobile sitting in your garage at all times? Or perhaps it's simply a subscription model that keeps you from buying a second vehicle. Maybe you can get a pickup truck subscription that guarantees 5 minute delivery to get you a truck only when you actually need a pickup truck to ... you know, pick something up (even if it's just your manliness).
This all gets back to the question: What can Apple bring to the automobile market that is uniquely "Apple?" I don't mean yet another me-too EV, only with a shiny Apple logo on the grill and the Apple chime sound when you start boot it. Aim higher.
That question was answered 100 some years ago: Most people lived in the city. And there were shops and grocers within walking distance -- and every street had side walks on both sides and houses were long and narrow -- and that was by intent: Property taxes were levied based on the amount of frontal space the house took up so that people could easily and efficiently walk to where they needed to get to. But, after WW-II the suburbs were developed with the automobile in mind: local grocers were replaced with shops you had to drive to. The narrow houses were replaced with wide houses with big front yards and side walk were eliminated -- so even if you could walk there it was too far and too dangerous. The thinking was that if you needed anything no matter how small, you got into your car and drove.
Uber and some others made some noises about self-driving cars showing up at your front door when called. That would be ideal for an older shut in. But I doubt that would be acceptable to most -- especially in today's climate where people won't even wear masks.
Where in the 100 year old journals of history do I find the answer to "What can Apple bring to the automobile market that is uniquely "Apple?" Did people in 1920 know about Apple and the changes Apple would bring to society 100 years in the future? Mind bending ...
FWIW, I continue to disbelieve "Apple making a car." This is the sequel to Munster's "Apple branded HDTV" rumour.
I believe they are making a car PROTOTYPE to showcase their technologies, just as car companies have been doing from time immemorial. But my guess (and that's all it is) would be that Apple is creating a true "smart car" -- integrated technologies that work with both the hardware and software to enhance car/safety technology.
I think they will show off this tech and line up a partner who actually makes the cars -- an existing manufacturer that will incorporate some or all of Apple's tech into future vehicles, just as BMW (I think it was) incorporated the keyless iPhone tech into their cars just recently. Then -- as with CarPlay -- this tech will slowly become standard across many brands. Car companies can spend a paltry sum on licensing the tech from Apple rather than many millions on their own R&D to come up with something of their own that's pretty crap.
I find it very hard to believe how Apple could be spending $20 billion in R&D and NOT be preparing to enter and win in a new, very large market. The current product lineup and adjacent categories cannot possibly require that amount of resources
Either Apple is wasting R&D spend a la IBM, or it has very ambitious plans. It would be nice not to have to wait another 8 years to see what "new" new thing comes next
I don’t see the logical connection between the dollars spent in R&D and the conclusion that because it’s a certain amount that it MUST be for a car. Or that if a certain amount is spent then it’s wasted unless spent on car development.
Amazon spent over $22 billion on R&D last year. Is Amazon wasting money or developing a car?
Uh, what about the myriad evidence in the form of hires and patents etc that directly correlate to the development of a car? Are we just ignoring the last 5 years of paper trail leading to that conclusion?
FWIW, I continue to disbelieve "Apple making a car." This is the sequel to Munster's "Apple branded HDTV" rumour.
I believe they are making a car PROTOTYPE to showcase their technologies, just as car companies have been doing from time immemorial. But my guess (and that's all it is) would be that Apple is creating a true "smart car" -- integrated technologies that work with both the hardware and software to enhance car/safety technology.
I think they will show off this tech and line up a partner who actually makes the cars -- an existing manufacturer that will incorporate some or all of Apple's tech into future vehicles, just as BMW (I think it was) incorporated the keyless iPhone tech into their cars just recently. Then -- as with CarPlay -- this tech will slowly become standard across many brands. Car companies can spend a paltry sum on licensing the tech from Apple rather than many millions on their own R&D to come up with something of their own that's pretty crap.
You are 100% wrong. Go read the last five years of patents etc we've seen and come back and say this with a straight face. "line up a partner who actually makes the cars" — you have not been paying a bit of attention, have you? This is so not how Apple rolls now. There will be no fucking Rokr car.
Apple's car will be a critical move forward in maxing out utility and reducing CO2, waste, and energy, through increasing utility, reliability, and useful years. Apple's car will be sharable: one car for a couple, family, friends, neighbors, or dedicated fleets of cars.
In Short: Apple's car won't be a car; it will be a system of 'indestructible' reliable, super energy-efficient cars, communicating with each other ("I'm walking here." - Dustin Hoffman) to the purpose of making our Earth livable again.
Apple is dedicated to making a large contribution to regreening Earth, and supporting people's health and opportunities whatever nation they inhabit.
Get China and India to reduce their output of pollution, then you’ll really have something.
Do you know the population/overall carbon emission/Per capita carbon emission levels of India and USA? And guess which country comes out on top for the wrong reasons on a per capita basis?
He doesn’t know.
He doesn’t want to know.
He just wants to point his finger at foreigners and yell, “THEM!”
Comments
Now, how much functionality for self-driving would Apple’s presumed car have? That takes a hefty amount of computational power on a good day, no matter how good, bad or ugly it is. Look at Apple’s AR sensors, then look at their neural processing in their chips. Again, major pieces of technology Apple already has in mass production for other products, they lose nothing in worst-case scenario.
The biggest question, should Apple make their own cars, comes down to the major problem to solve for self-driving, and if they’re really that ambitious. With my decades of software development experience and driving, including driving in snowy/icy conditions and weird things happening, it’s a truly very hard problem, and the worst thing is when it appears to be ready, but fools people and they die.
I still believe it makes the most sense for Apple to NOT make/sell the major part of the car, too expensive to make for low margins, but low margins aren’t Apple’s pattern.
When you look at Apple’s past history, they have repeatedly worked out details of tech or available software on other things first, getting them more than sufficient, before leveraging them in completely new products. I didn’t even cover all Apple has done in that manner since the iPhone and later.
I mean, you can't underestimate the problems involved in making such a high level car that Apple would have to deliver; but at the same time the basic technologies involved in making a car are very basic. With enough dedication, time, and access to the internet, you yourself could get something going out of your own garage (at least good enough for a couple of spins around the block); so throwing lots of money and expertise on that will get an at least half decent car ready for mass production.
So what would Apple actually need from an experienced partner in the auto industry?!
Well… mass production isn't exactly unique for the auto industry, and the more unique talents can be recruited (just as is already done when new tech is used); so… once you start analysing the situation you end up with that the only things that Apple truly would need, that simply doesn't exist yet within the "experienced auto industry". We're talking the actual things that Apple would bring to the industry; so the actual physical car-related skills and experiences from the existing industry becomes trivial in comparison to what Apple would have to develop, and short of buying/partnering with Tesla, or maybe Google, Apple would have to develop that from scratch themselves.
Apple's car will be a critical move forward in maxing out utility and reducing CO2, waste, and energy, through increasing utility, reliability, and useful years. Apple's car will be sharable: one car for a couple, family, friends, neighbors, or dedicated fleets of cars.
In Short: Apple's car won't be a car; it will be a system of 'indestructible' reliable, super energy-efficient cars, communicating with each other ("I'm walking here." - Dustin Hoffman) to the purpose of making our Earth livable again.
Apple is dedicated to making a large contribution to regreening Earth, and supporting people's health and opportunities whatever nation they inhabit.
The big question, challenge, or whatever you want to call it, is whether there is a way to capture some of that inefficiency and reclaim that lost potential? I don't know how or even whether it's even possible, but I think it's worth getting some smart people thinking about the personal transportation problem from a perspective of reducing the massive inefficiencies that exist. For example, if a community had a pool of automobiles and could guarantee that a certain class of automobile would show up in your driveway in 5 minutes or less, would you forego having an automobile sitting in your garage at all times? Or perhaps it's simply a subscription model that keeps you from buying a second vehicle. Maybe you can get a pickup truck subscription that guarantees 5 minute delivery to get you a truck only when you actually need a pickup truck to ... you know, pick something up (even if it's just your manliness).
This all gets back to the question: What can Apple bring to the automobile market that is uniquely "Apple?" I don't mean yet another me-too EV, only with a shiny Apple logo on the grill and the Apple chime sound when you start boot it. Aim higher.
You are 100% wrong. Go read the last five years of patents etc we've seen and come back and say this with a straight face. "line up a partner who actually makes the cars" — you have not been paying a bit of attention, have you? This is so not how Apple rolls now. There will be no fucking Rokr car.