I'm gonna assume because they both have their own initiatives.
What Apple is looking for may be hard to find. It's something you don't find in the automotive industry. They just want someone to build their products for them and most if not all car manufacturers are probably gonna be very uneasy about doing that because it impacts what they can do as well. I'm sure Apple doesn't want Hyundai or any other manufacturer building a competitor to AppleCar alongside AppleCar. So I'm guessing it limits what the manufacturer can do in the long term as well. Then if Apple jumps ship that manufacturer is screwed and way behind because of Apple's terms.
In the end, Apple may either end up buying a manufacturer to get this done, or just give in and build their own assembly plants which will cost them tens of billions of dollars to do and put them behind. You don't just throw a very advanced assembly plant together overnight.
I know people will disagree, but I think Apple should have bought Tesla, or just buy them now. They've already spent the time and money building assembly plants and they can implement some of Tesla's technology, and improve upon it. This is something Apple does very well, take someone's technology and make it 50x better and implement it the right way.
If Hyundai decides to Ditch Apple, and Apple doesn't find another car manufacturer ready to assemble their cars, it will become really tough for Apple. They will have to build their own factories which will further delay the project. Though I wonder why Magna didn't say yes to it. They are basically the Foxconn for car manufacturers. And I am sure Apple must have approached them earlier.
Like you, I think Apple contacted Magna early in the process. Probably one of the first companies Apple contacted. I think 2 things made Magna an unacceptable partner. 1. Location - I really think Apple desires a US assembly location. The infrastructure for manufacturing and assembling their general tech (phones, computers, tablets, etc) is concentrated in Asia. That's not the case for cars, and assembly in the US could even be cheaper. Magna has no N. American plants. It's rumored (again) they're looking to open a N. American plant, but that rumor has surfaced many times over the past couple of decades. 2. Capacity - I've no doubt Magna could handle Apple's initial assembly and volume. Apple's thinking long term. Scale and capacity would be Magna's issue. Magna doesn't have an advantage in ether of those factors that could compete with Hyundai's capacity. Hyundai/Kia has the ability scale their production to meet any capacity Apple may need. Magna doesn't have that ability. They already contract manufacture Jaguar's I-Pace and E-Pace, Toyota's Supra, BMW's 5-Series and Z4, and MB's G-Class.
When this story initially broke, I said Apple was looking for an OEM/contract manufacturer, not a brand partner. Some people are still incorrectly looking at this from a brand partner perspective. Not really sure why. Questions like, "why Hyundai and not BMW, MB, Porsche, or [insert luxury brand here]" still abound. None of those brands would ever consider being an OEM manufacturer. They would have the same concerns that Hyundai is expressing about brand erosion, 'cept their concerns would be magnified because their brands are waaaaaaay more valuable and influential than Hyundai's. That's not a knock on Hyundai. That's just reality.
I agree with you on the aspect of finding a manufacturing partner. I had mentioned the same thing when people were like "Hyundai sucks. Why not BMW?". If Apple has to build its own factories, it's going to make this project much more complex and time consuming, and delay it by a few more years. Though Apple might indirectly partner with Magna in a way they did with Sharp for manufacturing LCD displays. They can pump in half of the money (or more) in Magna required to make a N. American plant. A financial push from Apple, combined with the long term benefits might be enough for Magna to start building a plant in N. America.
I agree that a US location is key,....
Why?
The world's largest auto market is no longer the U.S.
Tesla, Ford and GM are all introducing their most modern, technologically advanced products in a country that shall remain nameless because right wing heads tend to explode at the mere mention of the name.
Perhaps Apple is afraid it cannot compete there?
Building a car is much more complicated than a phone, and Apple have no experience building a car. By building in the US, Apple can learn and keep tabs of the process. Plus, there are no travel restrictions within the US (or at least much less than international travel).
Hyundai's quality for US-built Sonata, Elantra, Santa Fe (all built in Alabama) are good, so US workers can put out decent quality.
If Hyundai decides to Ditch Apple, and Apple doesn't find another car manufacturer ready to assemble their cars, it will become really tough for Apple. They will have to build their own factories which will further delay the project. Though I wonder why Magna didn't say yes to it. They are basically the Foxconn for car manufacturers. And I am sure Apple must have approached them earlier.
Like you, I think Apple contacted Magna early in the process. Probably one of the first companies Apple contacted. I think 2 things made Magna an unacceptable partner. 1. Location - I really think Apple desires a US assembly location. The infrastructure for manufacturing and assembling their general tech (phones, computers, tablets, etc) is concentrated in Asia. That's not the case for cars, and assembly in the US could even be cheaper. Magna has no N. American plants. It's rumored (again) they're looking to open a N. American plant, but that rumor has surfaced many times over the past couple of decades. 2. Capacity - I've no doubt Magna could handle Apple's initial assembly and volume. Apple's thinking long term. Scale and capacity would be Magna's issue. Magna doesn't have an advantage in ether of those factors that could compete with Hyundai's capacity. Hyundai/Kia has the ability scale their production to meet any capacity Apple may need. Magna doesn't have that ability. They already contract manufacture Jaguar's I-Pace and E-Pace, Toyota's Supra, BMW's 5-Series and Z4, and MB's G-Class.
When this story initially broke, I said Apple was looking for an OEM/contract manufacturer, not a brand partner. Some people are still incorrectly looking at this from a brand partner perspective. Not really sure why. Questions like, "why Hyundai and not BMW, MB, Porsche, or [insert luxury brand here]" still abound. None of those brands would ever consider being an OEM manufacturer. They would have the same concerns that Hyundai is expressing about brand erosion, 'cept their concerns would be magnified because their brands are waaaaaaay more valuable and influential than Hyundai's. That's not a knock on Hyundai. That's just reality.
I agree with you on the aspect of finding a manufacturing partner. I had mentioned the same thing when people were like "Hyundai sucks. Why not BMW?". If Apple has to build its own factories, it's going to make this project much more complex and time consuming, and delay it by a few more years. Though Apple might indirectly partner with Magna in a way they did with Sharp for manufacturing LCD displays. They can pump in half of the money (or more) in Magna required to make a N. American plant. A financial push from Apple, combined with the long term benefits might be enough for Magna to start building a plant in N. America.
I agree that a US location is key,....
Why?
The world's largest auto market is no longer the U.S.
Tesla, Ford and GM are all introducing their most modern, technologically advanced products in a country that shall remain nameless because right wing heads tend to explode at the mere mention of the name.
Perhaps Apple is afraid it cannot compete there?
Building a car is much more complicated than a phone, and Apple have no experience building a car. By building in the US, Apple can learn and keep tabs of the process. Plus, there are no travel restrictions within the US (or at least much less than international travel).
Hyundai's quality for US-built Sonata, Elantra, Santa Fe (all built in Alabama) are good, so US workers can put out decent quality.
Do you think iPhones are built in China because they are simple to build?
If Hyundai decides to Ditch Apple, and Apple doesn't find another car manufacturer ready to assemble their cars, it will become really tough for Apple. They will have to build their own factories which will further delay the project. Though I wonder why Magna didn't say yes to it. They are basically the Foxconn for car manufacturers. And I am sure Apple must have approached them earlier.
Like you, I think Apple contacted Magna early in the process. Probably one of the first companies Apple contacted. I think 2 things made Magna an unacceptable partner. 1. Location - I really think Apple desires a US assembly location. The infrastructure for manufacturing and assembling their general tech (phones, computers, tablets, etc) is concentrated in Asia. That's not the case for cars, and assembly in the US could even be cheaper. Magna has no N. American plants. It's rumored (again) they're looking to open a N. American plant, but that rumor has surfaced many times over the past couple of decades. 2. Capacity - I've no doubt Magna could handle Apple's initial assembly and volume. Apple's thinking long term. Scale and capacity would be Magna's issue. Magna doesn't have an advantage in ether of those factors that could compete with Hyundai's capacity. Hyundai/Kia has the ability scale their production to meet any capacity Apple may need. Magna doesn't have that ability. They already contract manufacture Jaguar's I-Pace and E-Pace, Toyota's Supra, BMW's 5-Series and Z4, and MB's G-Class.
When this story initially broke, I said Apple was looking for an OEM/contract manufacturer, not a brand partner. Some people are still incorrectly looking at this from a brand partner perspective. Not really sure why. Questions like, "why Hyundai and not BMW, MB, Porsche, or [insert luxury brand here]" still abound. None of those brands would ever consider being an OEM manufacturer. They would have the same concerns that Hyundai is expressing about brand erosion, 'cept their concerns would be magnified because their brands are waaaaaaay more valuable and influential than Hyundai's. That's not a knock on Hyundai. That's just reality.
I agree with you on the aspect of finding a manufacturing partner. I had mentioned the same thing when people were like "Hyundai sucks. Why not BMW?". If Apple has to build its own factories, it's going to make this project much more complex and time consuming, and delay it by a few more years. Though Apple might indirectly partner with Magna in a way they did with Sharp for manufacturing LCD displays. They can pump in half of the money (or more) in Magna required to make a N. American plant. A financial push from Apple, combined with the long term benefits might be enough for Magna to start building a plant in N. America.
I agree that a US location is key,....
Why?
The world's largest auto market is no longer the U.S.
Tesla, Ford and GM are all introducing their most modern, technologically advanced products in a country that shall remain nameless because right wing heads tend to explode at the mere mention of the name.
Perhaps Apple is afraid it cannot compete there?
Building a car is much more complicated than a phone, and Apple have no experience building a car. By building in the US, Apple can learn and keep tabs of the process. Plus, there are no travel restrictions within the US (or at least much less than international travel).
Hyundai's quality for US-built Sonata, Elantra, Santa Fe (all built in Alabama) are good, so US workers can put out decent quality.
Do you think iPhones are built in China because they are simple to build?
I didn't say anything about the iPhone or China specifically, but I'll bite.
The Apple iPhone is assembled in China primarily due to cheaper labour.
The Apple car would be assembled in US primarily due to more direct control and observation for a FIRST-TIME product. For later iterations, possibly anywhere else.
Note1: much of the electronic functional testing of an iPhone is automated (with very custom equipment, built to Apple specs); the mechanical assembly is not automated, so (cheap) labour is required; once it is, manufacturing can move anywhere (but that won't happen any time soon).
Note2: a smartphone contains less than 1k parts, while a car contains 20k+ parts. Wouldn't you want to closely watch over a new product assembly that contains more than 20x more parts than your high-end product (iPhone)?
If Hyundai decides to Ditch Apple, and Apple doesn't find another car manufacturer ready to assemble their cars, it will become really tough for Apple. They will have to build their own factories which will further delay the project. Though I wonder why Magna didn't say yes to it. They are basically the Foxconn for car manufacturers. And I am sure Apple must have approached them earlier.
Like you, I think Apple contacted Magna early in the process. Probably one of the first companies Apple contacted. I think 2 things made Magna an unacceptable partner. 1. Location - I really think Apple desires a US assembly location. The infrastructure for manufacturing and assembling their general tech (phones, computers, tablets, etc) is concentrated in Asia. That's not the case for cars, and assembly in the US could even be cheaper. Magna has no N. American plants. It's rumored (again) they're looking to open a N. American plant, but that rumor has surfaced many times over the past couple of decades. 2. Capacity - I've no doubt Magna could handle Apple's initial assembly and volume. Apple's thinking long term. Scale and capacity would be Magna's issue. Magna doesn't have an advantage in ether of those factors that could compete with Hyundai's capacity. Hyundai/Kia has the ability scale their production to meet any capacity Apple may need. Magna doesn't have that ability. They already contract manufacture Jaguar's I-Pace and E-Pace, Toyota's Supra, BMW's 5-Series and Z4, and MB's G-Class.
When this story initially broke, I said Apple was looking for an OEM/contract manufacturer, not a brand partner. Some people are still incorrectly looking at this from a brand partner perspective. Not really sure why. Questions like, "why Hyundai and not BMW, MB, Porsche, or [insert luxury brand here]" still abound. None of those brands would ever consider being an OEM manufacturer. They would have the same concerns that Hyundai is expressing about brand erosion, 'cept their concerns would be magnified because their brands are waaaaaaay more valuable and influential than Hyundai's. That's not a knock on Hyundai. That's just reality.
I agree with you on the aspect of finding a manufacturing partner. I had mentioned the same thing when people were like "Hyundai sucks. Why not BMW?". If Apple has to build its own factories, it's going to make this project much more complex and time consuming, and delay it by a few more years. Though Apple might indirectly partner with Magna in a way they did with Sharp for manufacturing LCD displays. They can pump in half of the money (or more) in Magna required to make a N. American plant. A financial push from Apple, combined with the long term benefits might be enough for Magna to start building a plant in N. America.
I agree that a US location is key,....
Why?
The world's largest auto market is no longer the U.S.
Tesla, Ford and GM are all introducing their most modern, technologically advanced products in a country that shall remain nameless because right wing heads tend to explode at the mere mention of the name.
Perhaps Apple is afraid it cannot compete there?
Building a car is much more complicated than a phone, and Apple have no experience building a car. By building in the US, Apple can learn and keep tabs of the process. Plus, there are no travel restrictions within the US (or at least much less than international travel).
Hyundai's quality for US-built Sonata, Elantra, Santa Fe (all built in Alabama) are good, so US workers can put out decent quality.
Do you think iPhones are built in China because they are simple to build?
I didn't say anything about the iPhone or China specifically, but I'll bite.
The Apple iPhone is assembled in China primarily due to cheaper labour.
The Apple car would be assembled in US primarily due to more direct control and observation for a FIRST-TIME product. For later iterations, possibly anywhere else.
Note1: much of the electronic functional testing of an iPhone is automated (with very custom equipment, built to Apple specs); the mechanical assembly is not automated, so (cheap) labour is required; once it is, manufacturing can move anywhere (but that won't happen any time soon).
Note2: a smartphone contains less than 1k parts, while a car contains 20k+ parts. Wouldn't you want to closely watch over a new product assembly that contains more than 20x more parts than your high-end product (iPhone)?
Do you have any manufacturing experience?
I don't think either of you can make a comparative statement between the technical complexity between the car business and the phone business. Each will have their complexities that will make it impossible to compare, and the act of assembling the product is but one part, possibly a small part, of someone being successful at the respective businesses.
Lucid Motors has about 1000 employees. They are spending about $1b to get their first factory for Lucid Air sedan production and hopefully selling and shipping to customers in about of year. That doesn't sound like a lot of money or technical complexity. Lucid will only sell single digit thousands of vehicles per quarter, so the capital investments aren't done yet, nor will they become self sufficient for awhile.
I think I've heard that Apple has 1000 employees working on the camera modules for the iPhones alone. Would not be surprised if Apple fronts Sony, and the camera module assembler billions of dollars too. The camera modules are rather complicated beasts and are only getting more complicated. About the same money, but technically more complicated than what Lucid is doing? You can't compare it. They are complicated in different ways.
I do think Lucid's big problems are all wetware, not the assembly of the vehicles. Their vehicles will be good. Getting people to buy them is a whole different matter, and that's often left to winging it. The car market is hyper mature with entrenched players. The point of sales of cars in the USA is regulated to go only through auto dealers in some American states! If there is any problem that new players have in the auto market that's hard to overcome, it's selling cars, not producing them.
Thing is, EVs represents a transition in the market, from supply chains, manufacturing, sales and servicing. I'm tempted to think the auto dealer network as the car market has experienced it will be going away. There is a different supply chain. There are different types of engines and power sources. So, the advantages that entrenched players have won't be as big, and most of the entrenched players will be too slow to change. So, Apple has a window.
There is going to be someone in the EV car world that will follow the Foxconn model. If it is not an existing auto manufacturer, I think existing auto manufacturers better be thinking really really hard about this, and they have to move 2x as fast. They aren't going to be able to catch up if they fall behind.
If Hyundai decides to Ditch Apple, and Apple doesn't find another car manufacturer ready to assemble their cars, it will become really tough for Apple. They will have to build their own factories which will further delay the project. Though I wonder why Magna didn't say yes to it. They are basically the Foxconn for car manufacturers. And I am sure Apple must have approached them earlier.
Like you, I think Apple contacted Magna early in the process. Probably one of the first companies Apple contacted. I think 2 things made Magna an unacceptable partner. 1. Location - I really think Apple desires a US assembly location. The infrastructure for manufacturing and assembling their general tech (phones, computers, tablets, etc) is concentrated in Asia. That's not the case for cars, and assembly in the US could even be cheaper. Magna has no N. American plants. It's rumored (again) they're looking to open a N. American plant, but that rumor has surfaced many times over the past couple of decades. 2. Capacity - I've no doubt Magna could handle Apple's initial assembly and volume. Apple's thinking long term. Scale and capacity would be Magna's issue. Magna doesn't have an advantage in ether of those factors that could compete with Hyundai's capacity. Hyundai/Kia has the ability scale their production to meet any capacity Apple may need. Magna doesn't have that ability. They already contract manufacture Jaguar's I-Pace and E-Pace, Toyota's Supra, BMW's 5-Series and Z4, and MB's G-Class.
When this story initially broke, I said Apple was looking for an OEM/contract manufacturer, not a brand partner. Some people are still incorrectly looking at this from a brand partner perspective. Not really sure why. Questions like, "why Hyundai and not BMW, MB, Porsche, or [insert luxury brand here]" still abound. None of those brands would ever consider being an OEM manufacturer. They would have the same concerns that Hyundai is expressing about brand erosion, 'cept their concerns would be magnified because their brands are waaaaaaay more valuable and influential than Hyundai's. That's not a knock on Hyundai. That's just reality.
I agree with you on the aspect of finding a manufacturing partner. I had mentioned the same thing when people were like "Hyundai sucks. Why not BMW?". If Apple has to build its own factories, it's going to make this project much more complex and time consuming, and delay it by a few more years. Though Apple might indirectly partner with Magna in a way they did with Sharp for manufacturing LCD displays. They can pump in half of the money (or more) in Magna required to make a N. American plant. A financial push from Apple, combined with the long term benefits might be enough for Magna to start building a plant in N. America.
I agree that a US location is key,....
Why?
The world's largest auto market is no longer the U.S.
Tesla, Ford and GM are all introducing their most modern, technologically advanced products in a country that shall remain nameless because right wing heads tend to explode at the mere mention of the name.
Perhaps Apple is afraid it cannot compete there?
Building a car is much more complicated than a phone, and Apple have no experience building a car. By building in the US, Apple can learn and keep tabs of the process. Plus, there are no travel restrictions within the US (or at least much less than international travel).
Hyundai's quality for US-built Sonata, Elantra, Santa Fe (all built in Alabama) are good, so US workers can put out decent quality.
Do you think iPhones are built in China because they are simple to build?
I didn't say anything about the iPhone or China specifically, but I'll bite.
The Apple iPhone is assembled in China primarily due to cheaper labour.
The Apple car would be assembled in US primarily due to more direct control and observation for a FIRST-TIME product. For later iterations, possibly anywhere else.
Note1: much of the electronic functional testing of an iPhone is automated (with very custom equipment, built to Apple specs); the mechanical assembly is not automated, so (cheap) labour is required; once it is, manufacturing can move anywhere (but that won't happen any time soon).
Note2: a smartphone contains less than 1k parts, while a car contains 20k+ parts. Wouldn't you want to closely watch over a new product assembly that contains more than 20x more parts than your high-end product (iPhone)?
Do you have any manufacturing experience?
Well, yeh, you kinda did say something about an iPhone: "Building a car is much more complicated than a phone"
And, by inference, China:
"By building in the US, Apple can ...."
But just to clear up your last point that: "The Apple iPhone is assembled in China primarily due to cheaper labour."
Tim called bull on that assumption long ago and specifically said it was NOT built in China because it is cheaper. It's built there because its built better, faster and more reliably. It's simply a better manufacturing environment for a number of reasons.
That's the age old dilemma of being an Apple partner. You're not going to make a lot of $$, in fact you may end up losing income. But the flip side is you are an Apple partner that is worth a ton in both experience in building quality products and the halo effect in marketing.
Hyundai/Kia could use a boost in brand prestige, there's nothing to think about, they should be going all-in on this relationship and giving it their all for the benefit for both companies.
I for one would love this see this relationship happen, especially since Boston Dynamics is now part of Hyundai. Clearly a win-win-win for all.
It's likely that Apple is exploring an assortment of scenarios, including setting up its own production. Right now, all we're seeing is both Apple and Hyundai drawing attention at no cost, which is not a bad thing for either company.
There are many ways this could go. Apple could establish production itself, considering its deep pockets, far deeper than any of the other companies contemplating entering the BEV fray. Apple could farm out production to a start-up established specifically to build Apple's vehicles or Apple could cut a deal with an established manufacturer. It only makes sense that Apple would be exploring all its options. What is significant, if it is true that Apple has been talking to manufacturers, is that Apple appears to be seriously moving towards launching a car. My guess is that it hasn't launched a car yet in order to wait for the technology to make it possible to deliver what it wants. Mainly, it's about battery technolgy that needs to provide excellent range at a price point that makes switching to BEVs attractive. If BEVs are ballpark to ICEs (internal combustion engines) in initial cost and have a range approaching 500 miles, the migration to BEVs will be dramatic considering the lower maintenance, including cost of fuel. It is likely, too, that as gasoline consumption declines, the cost per gallon will rise, making it easier still for BEVs to make more sense. A 500-mile range combined with a $3000 to $5000 premium to purchase would basically mean game over for the ICE.
Long-term, BEVs might well be simpler and less costly to build than ICEs due to offering less complex powertrains. ICEs are rather messy, requiring a cooling system, an ignition system, a transmission, an exhaust system, not to mention frequent engine maintenance. Comparatively speaking, less goes into a BEV making it better suited to regular consumer use. It's just that until recently not enough had been done to bring battery tech along, rendering BEVs impractical with not enough range and at a high cost. We appear to be nearing the point where range and cost will be such that BEVs make more sense for average consumer use. That's the point at which I could see Apple jumping into the mix.
It has never been about Apple being the first to launch into a given segment. It's more a case of good timing, entering the fray when a product could be launched that immediately makes sense for the end user. Launch a product when it's ready for prime time and not before. Until battery tech has caught up to what consumers want and/or need, hang back, keep refining, and strike when it makes sense. If this is Apple's strategy regarding launching a car, no one should be surprised. That's classic Apple.
It must be assembled in the U.S. and preferably with UAW plants and workers. That’s the only way, in my opinion, it could succeed with the general public.
Because the general public does not buy cars from VW, Honda, Toyota, etc., at non-UAW plants? I would be surprised if any car they make (if they make one) is built in a union plant.
If Hyundai decides to Ditch Apple, and Apple doesn't find another car manufacturer ready to assemble their cars, it will become really tough for Apple. They will have to build their own factories which will further delay the project. Though I wonder why Magna didn't say yes to it. They are basically the Foxconn for car manufacturers. And I am sure Apple must have approached them earlier.
Like you, I think Apple contacted Magna early in the process. Probably one of the first companies Apple contacted. I think 2 things made Magna an unacceptable partner. 1. Location - I really think Apple desires a US assembly location. The infrastructure for manufacturing and assembling their general tech (phones, computers, tablets, etc) is concentrated in Asia. That's not the case for cars, and assembly in the US could even be cheaper. Magna has no N. American plants. It's rumored (again) they're looking to open a N. American plant, but that rumor has surfaced many times over the past couple of decades. 2. Capacity - I've no doubt Magna could handle Apple's initial assembly and volume. Apple's thinking long term. Scale and capacity would be Magna's issue. Magna doesn't have an advantage in ether of those factors that could compete with Hyundai's capacity. Hyundai/Kia has the ability scale their production to meet any capacity Apple may need. Magna doesn't have that ability. They already contract manufacture Jaguar's I-Pace and E-Pace, Toyota's Supra, BMW's 5-Series and Z4, and MB's G-Class.
When this story initially broke, I said Apple was looking for an OEM/contract manufacturer, not a brand partner. Some people are still incorrectly looking at this from a brand partner perspective. Not really sure why. Questions like, "why Hyundai and not BMW, MB, Porsche, or [insert luxury brand here]" still abound. None of those brands would ever consider being an OEM manufacturer. They would have the same concerns that Hyundai is expressing about brand erosion, 'cept their concerns would be magnified because their brands are waaaaaaay more valuable and influential than Hyundai's. That's not a knock on Hyundai. That's just reality.
I agree with you on the aspect of finding a manufacturing partner. I had mentioned the same thing when people were like "Hyundai sucks. Why not BMW?". If Apple has to build its own factories, it's going to make this project much more complex and time consuming, and delay it by a few more years. Though Apple might indirectly partner with Magna in a way they did with Sharp for manufacturing LCD displays. They can pump in half of the money (or more) in Magna required to make a N. American plant. A financial push from Apple, combined with the long term benefits might be enough for Magna to start building a plant in N. America.
I agree that a US location is key,....
Why?
The world's largest auto market is no longer the U.S.
Tesla, Ford and GM are all introducing their most modern, technologically advanced products in a country that shall remain nameless because right wing heads tend to explode at the mere mention of the name.
Perhaps Apple is afraid it cannot compete there?
Building a car is much more complicated than a phone, and Apple have no experience building a car. By building in the US, Apple can learn and keep tabs of the process. Plus, there are no travel restrictions within the US (or at least much less than international travel).
Hyundai's quality for US-built Sonata, Elantra, Santa Fe (all built in Alabama) are good, so US workers can put out decent quality.
Do you think iPhones are built in China because they are simple to build?
I didn't say anything about the iPhone or China specifically, but I'll bite.
The Apple iPhone is assembled in China primarily due to cheaper labour.
The Apple car would be assembled in US primarily due to more direct control and observation for a FIRST-TIME product. For later iterations, possibly anywhere else.
Note1: much of the electronic functional testing of an iPhone is automated (with very custom equipment, built to Apple specs); the mechanical assembly is not automated, so (cheap) labour is required; once it is, manufacturing can move anywhere (but that won't happen any time soon).
Note2: a smartphone contains less than 1k parts, while a car contains 20k+ parts. Wouldn't you want to closely watch over a new product assembly that contains more than 20x more parts than your high-end product (iPhone)?
Do you have any manufacturing experience?
But just to clear up your last point that: "The Apple iPhone is assembled in China primarily due to cheaper labour."
Tim called bull on that assumption long ago and specifically said it was NOT built in China because it is cheaper. It's built there because its built better, faster and more reliably. It's simply a better manufacturing environment for a number of reasons.
Labor cost is part of it. As is the components industry being in Asia. And a population so desperate for steady work & income that the labor force will live in dormitories and work absurd hours. In a society where people have a better quality of life and life-work balance, you won’t find many adults willing to live in a dorm and staff factories 24/7. And that’s a good thing.
If Hyundai decides to Ditch Apple, and Apple doesn't find another car manufacturer ready to assemble their cars, it will become really tough for Apple. They will have to build their own factories which will further delay the project. Though I wonder why Magna didn't say yes to it. They are basically the Foxconn for car manufacturers. And I am sure Apple must have approached them earlier.
Like you, I think Apple contacted Magna early in the process. Probably one of the first companies Apple contacted. I think 2 things made Magna an unacceptable partner. 1. Location - I really think Apple desires a US assembly location. The infrastructure for manufacturing and assembling their general tech (phones, computers, tablets, etc) is concentrated in Asia. That's not the case for cars, and assembly in the US could even be cheaper. Magna has no N. American plants. It's rumored (again) they're looking to open a N. American plant, but that rumor has surfaced many times over the past couple of decades. 2. Capacity - I've no doubt Magna could handle Apple's initial assembly and volume. Apple's thinking long term. Scale and capacity would be Magna's issue. Magna doesn't have an advantage in ether of those factors that could compete with Hyundai's capacity. Hyundai/Kia has the ability scale their production to meet any capacity Apple may need. Magna doesn't have that ability. They already contract manufacture Jaguar's I-Pace and E-Pace, Toyota's Supra, BMW's 5-Series and Z4, and MB's G-Class.
When this story initially broke, I said Apple was looking for an OEM/contract manufacturer, not a brand partner. Some people are still incorrectly looking at this from a brand partner perspective. Not really sure why. Questions like, "why Hyundai and not BMW, MB, Porsche, or [insert luxury brand here]" still abound. None of those brands would ever consider being an OEM manufacturer. They would have the same concerns that Hyundai is expressing about brand erosion, 'cept their concerns would be magnified because their brands are waaaaaaay more valuable and influential than Hyundai's. That's not a knock on Hyundai. That's just reality.
I agree with you on the aspect of finding a manufacturing partner. I had mentioned the same thing when people were like "Hyundai sucks. Why not BMW?". If Apple has to build its own factories, it's going to make this project much more complex and time consuming, and delay it by a few more years. Though Apple might indirectly partner with Magna in a way they did with Sharp for manufacturing LCD displays. They can pump in half of the money (or more) in Magna required to make a N. American plant. A financial push from Apple, combined with the long term benefits might be enough for Magna to start building a plant in N. America.
I agree that a US location is key,....
Why?
The world's largest auto market is no longer the U.S.
Tesla, Ford and GM are all introducing their most modern, technologically advanced products in a country that shall remain nameless because right wing heads tend to explode at the mere mention of the name.
Perhaps Apple is afraid it cannot compete there?
Building a car is much more complicated than a phone, and Apple have no experience building a car. By building in the US, Apple can learn and keep tabs of the process. Plus, there are no travel restrictions within the US (or at least much less than international travel).
Hyundai's quality for US-built Sonata, Elantra, Santa Fe (all built in Alabama) are good, so US workers can put out decent quality.
Do you think iPhones are built in China because they are simple to build?
I didn't say anything about the iPhone or China specifically, but I'll bite.
The Apple iPhone is assembled in China primarily due to cheaper labour.
The Apple car would be assembled in US primarily due to more direct control and observation for a FIRST-TIME product. For later iterations, possibly anywhere else.
Note1: much of the electronic functional testing of an iPhone is automated (with very custom equipment, built to Apple specs); the mechanical assembly is not automated, so (cheap) labour is required; once it is, manufacturing can move anywhere (but that won't happen any time soon).
Note2: a smartphone contains less than 1k parts, while a car contains 20k+ parts. Wouldn't you want to closely watch over a new product assembly that contains more than 20x more parts than your high-end product (iPhone)?
Do you have any manufacturing experience?
But just to clear up your last point that: "The Apple iPhone is assembled in China primarily due to cheaper labour."
Tim called bull on that assumption long ago and specifically said it was NOT built in China because it is cheaper. It's built there because its built better, faster and more reliably. It's simply a better manufacturing environment for a number of reasons.
Labor cost is part of it. As is the components industry being in Asia. And a population so desperate for steady work & income that the labor force will live in dormitories and work absurd hours. In a society where people have a better quality of life and life-work balance, you won’t find many adults willing to live in a dorm and staff factories 24/7. And that’s a good thing.
Work ethic makes a difference -- no matter what you ascribe it to.
U.S. workers tend to believe that they are (for some reason) "better" and that makes the difference -- and it just might -- if they actually were.
But, as you mentioned, that's where the supporting industries are -- and that makes a very big difference -- perhaps even more so than the workers themselves.
In the end, it boils down to getting better products more quickly, reliably and cheaply -- which is what free market capitalism is all about: survival of the fittest.
What is significant, if it is true that Apple has been talking to manufacturers, is that Apple appears to be seriously moving towards launching a car. My guess is that it hasn't launched a car yet in order to wait for the technology to make it possible to deliver what it wants.
Yeah, the interesting thing is what features Apple will offer that’s different from EVs from other companies. The Watch, AirPods, iPhone, iPad all entered into the market with feature sets that set them apart from the existing market, and enabled them to wedge into the market or dominate the market.
What is it about a car that I would want to be better? Tough question. Complete driving automation yes, but I’d not hard over on that. I would appreciate a solar PV surfaces with no-directional charger. I think I’d like convenient compartmentalization of the interior, like removal of seats, or changeover of seats. Maybe, more convenient doors.
If BEVs are ballpark to ICEs (internal combustion engines) in initial cost and have a range approaching 500 miles, the migration to BEVs will be dramatic considering the lower maintenance, including cost of fuel. It is likely, too, that as gasoline consumption declines, the cost per gallon will rise, making it easier still for BEVs to make more sense. A 500-mile range combined with a $3000 to $5000 premium to purchase would basically mean game over for the ICE.
In the USA, the key feature set for mass market penetration is probably a compact SUV with 300mi for $25k, and likewise a full sized truck with 300mi for $30k. 500mi range is overkill. Most gas cars don’t even deliver that.
I think the cost of gas will likely drop and stay at a minimal viable price. Gas will basically be in semi-permanent oversupply because demand will continuously drop and cheap gas will be necessary to retard the adoption of EVs. If gas goes up, it will only drive more adoption of EVs, a vicious cycle. Eventually, yes, demand will drop so low that only niches will pay for the actual cost.
Just bought a Santa Fe highlander. It is very well built, lovely inside and has all the fruit you could think of. I am still discovering more stuff.
A diesel chewing only 6.1 l/100km wihich I don’t think is available in the USA. The new platform in the Santa Fe/Sorento/palisade can be a hybrid and will be in the next few months (a 1.6l turbo paired with a 40kw Electric motor and a 1.36KWH battery), but diesel fits my use case better (long distance country driving pulling stuff). It only puts out 330nm of torque compared with the diesel 440nm. I reckon a partnership would be good.
In the USA, the key feature set for mass market penetration is probably a compact SUV with 300mi for $25k, and likewise a full sized truck with 300mi for $30k. 500mi range is overkill. Most gas cars don’t even deliver that.
a key factor in EV uptake is range anxiety, mainly related to recharging time. Putting a huge battery with large range helps solve that problem, as with lesser capacity it still takes an ICE age (geddit!) to recharge. A bigger battery would be worse in that respect, but actual trips where it would be a problem are fewer.
In the USA, the key feature set for mass market penetration is probably a compact SUV with 300mi for $25k, and likewise a full sized truck with 300mi for $30k. 500mi range is overkill. Most gas cars don’t even deliver that.
I think the cost of gas will likely drop and stay at a minimal viable price. Gas will basically be in semi-permanent oversupply because demand will continuously drop and cheap gas will be necessary to retard the adoption of EVs. If gas goes up, it will only drive more adoption of EVs, a vicious cycle. Eventually, yes, demand will drop so low that only niches will pay for the actual cost.
While it is true that the market seems to be seeking the 300 mile marker for EVs, I simply don't get it: how many people how often drive 300 miles at a time non-stop? For most people 1/3 or 1/2 of that would take care of 90-95% of their needs. Perhaps somebody living in the city with on street parking might have a problem. But for most, they would have no problem charging overnight. For myself, 50 to a 100 miles would be fine (assuming we had a decent charging grid) -- and I could rent a vehicle for longer trips.
As for gas becoming cheaper, that certainly fits with classic economic theory. But my gut is telling me that there will be other factors impacting it: things like EVs becoming increasingly cheap while gas will not only lose its government explicit and implicit subsidies but that it could experience taxation to pay for the economic impact of the devastation if causes through climate change.
One thing that is keeping the price of EVs high is how they've been tied to driverless driving and similar high technology features (like a bullet proof pickup truck).
I think we will start to see low cost highly functional EVs coming out after the initial Musk fueled euphoria wears off.
If Hyundai decides to Ditch Apple, and Apple doesn't find another car manufacturer ready to assemble their cars, it will become really tough for Apple. They will have to build their own factories which will further delay the project. Though I wonder why Magna didn't say yes to it. They are basically the Foxconn for car manufacturers. And I am sure Apple must have approached them earlier.
Like you, I think Apple contacted Magna early in the process. Probably one of the first companies Apple contacted. I think 2 things made Magna an unacceptable partner. 1. Location - I really think Apple desires a US assembly location. The infrastructure for manufacturing and assembling their general tech (phones, computers, tablets, etc) is concentrated in Asia. That's not the case for cars, and assembly in the US could even be cheaper. Magna has no N. American plants. It's rumored (again) they're looking to open a N. American plant, but that rumor has surfaced many times over the past couple of decades. 2. Capacity - I've no doubt Magna could handle Apple's initial assembly and volume. Apple's thinking long term. Scale and capacity would be Magna's issue. Magna doesn't have an advantage in ether of those factors that could compete with Hyundai's capacity. Hyundai/Kia has the ability scale their production to meet any capacity Apple may need. Magna doesn't have that ability. They already contract manufacture Jaguar's I-Pace and E-Pace, Toyota's Supra, BMW's 5-Series and Z4, and MB's G-Class.
When this story initially broke, I said Apple was looking for an OEM/contract manufacturer, not a brand partner. Some people are still incorrectly looking at this from a brand partner perspective. Not really sure why. Questions like, "why Hyundai and not BMW, MB, Porsche, or [insert luxury brand here]" still abound. None of those brands would ever consider being an OEM manufacturer. They would have the same concerns that Hyundai is expressing about brand erosion, 'cept their concerns would be magnified because their brands are waaaaaaay more valuable and influential than Hyundai's. That's not a knock on Hyundai. That's just reality.
I agree with you on the aspect of finding a manufacturing partner. I had mentioned the same thing when people were like "Hyundai sucks. Why not BMW?". If Apple has to build its own factories, it's going to make this project much more complex and time consuming, and delay it by a few more years. Though Apple might indirectly partner with Magna in a way they did with Sharp for manufacturing LCD displays. They can pump in half of the money (or more) in Magna required to make a N. American plant. A financial push from Apple, combined with the long term benefits might be enough for Magna to start building a plant in N. America.
I agree that a US location is key,....
Why?
The world's largest auto market is no longer the U.S.
Tesla, Ford and GM are all introducing their most modern, technologically advanced products in a country that shall remain nameless because right wing heads tend to explode at the mere mention of the name.
Perhaps Apple is afraid it cannot compete there?
Building a car is much more complicated than a phone, and Apple have no experience building a car. By building in the US, Apple can learn and keep tabs of the process. Plus, there are no travel restrictions within the US (or at least much less than international travel).
Hyundai's quality for US-built Sonata, Elantra, Santa Fe (all built in Alabama) are good, so US workers can put out decent quality.
But building an electric car is much less complicated than building an ICE-based car. Controlling, containing, and sustaining gasoline explosions, converting the energy from those explosions into productive work, and managing the extreme waste heat and toxic gasses —-that’s complicated.
The biggest complication of a BEV is the B not the EV.
So I bet Foxconn could do it. Another option could be Tata, which might have geopolitical advantages.
What is significant, if it is true that Apple has been talking to manufacturers, is that Apple appears to be seriously moving towards launching a car. My guess is that it hasn't launched a car yet in order to wait for the technology to make it possible to deliver what it wants.
Yeah, the interesting thing is what features Apple will offer that’s different from EVs from other companies. The Watch, AirPods, iPhone, iPad all entered into the market with feature sets that set them apart from the existing market, and enabled them to wedge into the market or dominate the market.
What is it about a car that I would want to be better? Tough question. Complete driving automation yes, but I’d not hard over on that. I would appreciate a solar PV surfaces with no-directional charger. I think I’d like convenient compartmentalization of the interior, like removal of seats, or changeover of seats. Maybe, more convenient doors.
If BEVs are ballpark to ICEs (internal combustion engines) in initial cost and have a range approaching 500 miles, the migration to BEVs will be dramatic considering the lower maintenance, including cost of fuel. It is likely, too, that as gasoline consumption declines, the cost per gallon will rise, making it easier still for BEVs to make more sense. A 500-mile range combined with a $3000 to $5000 premium to purchase would basically mean game over for the ICE.
In the USA, the key feature set for mass market penetration is probably a compact SUV with 300mi for $25k, and likewise a full sized truck with 300mi for $30k. 500mi range is overkill. Most gas cars don’t even deliver that.
I think the cost of gas will likely drop and stay at a minimal viable price. Gas will basically be in semi-permanent oversupply because demand will continuously drop and cheap gas will be necessary to retard the adoption of EVs. If gas goes up, it will only drive more adoption of EVs, a vicious cycle. Eventually, yes, demand will drop so low that only niches will pay for the actual cost.
This may be an indicator where things are headed:
Shell is announcing that, for the next decade, they will back carbon based fuels in order to finance low carbon energy projects -- not necessarily only renewables but things like hydrogen as well....
In the USA, the key feature set for mass market penetration is probably a compact SUV with 300mi for $25k, and likewise a full sized truck with 300mi for $30k. 500mi range is overkill. Most gas cars don’t even deliver that.
I think the cost of gas will likely drop and stay at a minimal viable price. Gas will basically be in semi-permanent oversupply because demand will continuously drop and cheap gas will be necessary to retard the adoption of EVs. If gas goes up, it will only drive more adoption of EVs, a vicious cycle. Eventually, yes, demand will drop so low that only niches will pay for the actual cost.
While it is true that the market seems to be seeking the 300 mile marker for EVs, I simply don't get it: how many people how often drive 300 miles at a time non-stop? For most people 1/3 or 1/2 of that would take care of 90-95% of their needs. Perhaps somebody living in the city with on street parking might have a problem. But for most, they would have no problem charging overnight. For myself, 50 to a 100 miles would be fine (assuming we had a decent charging grid) -- and I could rent a vehicle for longer trips.
My 2017 BMW i3 had 110 mile range at 60 mph. That was about bare minimum for going work, picking up someone at the airport, and home, with 20% in the battery left, or about 20 miles. Fine for the commute to work, but not comfortable if I needed to go to the airport too. So, for me, 200 mile highway range is probably the practical minimum, where I don't need to be mindful of how much range is left, where I know I can go on another errand without spending 30 minutes charging.
With 300 miles, that's basically a regular gas car experience, especially if 100 kW chargers are nearby. People who don't have access to chargers at home really need something like this, where they only have to go to charger station once a week. This neutralizes the biggest advantage of a gas car, enabling all the other advantages to sell the EV. Wish I had solar PV on my Model 3 with a bi-directional charger. Effectively increases efficiency, saves you money on home electricity, can keep your house running during a blackout.
If Hyundai decides to Ditch Apple, and Apple doesn't find another car manufacturer ready to assemble their cars, it will become really tough for Apple. They will have to build their own factories which will further delay the project. Though I wonder why Magna didn't say yes to it. They are basically the Foxconn for car manufacturers. And I am sure Apple must have approached them earlier.
Like you, I think Apple contacted Magna early in the process. Probably one of the first companies Apple contacted. I think 2 things made Magna an unacceptable partner. 1. Location - I really think Apple desires a US assembly location. The infrastructure for manufacturing and assembling their general tech (phones, computers, tablets, etc) is concentrated in Asia. That's not the case for cars, and assembly in the US could even be cheaper. Magna has no N. American plants. It's rumored (again) they're looking to open a N. American plant, but that rumor has surfaced many times over the past couple of decades. 2. Capacity - I've no doubt Magna could handle Apple's initial assembly and volume. Apple's thinking long term. Scale and capacity would be Magna's issue. Magna doesn't have an advantage in ether of those factors that could compete with Hyundai's capacity. Hyundai/Kia has the ability scale their production to meet any capacity Apple may need. Magna doesn't have that ability. They already contract manufacture Jaguar's I-Pace and E-Pace, Toyota's Supra, BMW's 5-Series and Z4, and MB's G-Class.
When this story initially broke, I said Apple was looking for an OEM/contract manufacturer, not a brand partner. Some people are still incorrectly looking at this from a brand partner perspective. Not really sure why. Questions like, "why Hyundai and not BMW, MB, Porsche, or [insert luxury brand here]" still abound. None of those brands would ever consider being an OEM manufacturer. They would have the same concerns that Hyundai is expressing about brand erosion, 'cept their concerns would be magnified because their brands are waaaaaaay more valuable and influential than Hyundai's. That's not a knock on Hyundai. That's just reality.
BMW -did- consider being an OEM partner with Apple. It fell apart as BMW lost their way on EV, giving up on i3, giving up on the electric 3 series prototypes used in SF, and refocusing on gas.
Comments
Why not Honda, or even Toyota?
What Apple is looking for may be hard to find. It's something you don't find in the automotive industry. They just want someone to build their products for them and most if not all car manufacturers are probably gonna be very uneasy about doing that because it impacts what they can do as well. I'm sure Apple doesn't want Hyundai or any other manufacturer building a competitor to AppleCar alongside AppleCar. So I'm guessing it limits what the manufacturer can do in the long term as well. Then if Apple jumps ship that manufacturer is screwed and way behind because of Apple's terms.
In the end, Apple may either end up buying a manufacturer to get this done, or just give in and build their own assembly plants which will cost them tens of billions of dollars to do and put them behind. You don't just throw a very advanced assembly plant together overnight.
I know people will disagree, but I think Apple should have bought Tesla, or just buy them now. They've already spent the time and money building assembly plants and they can implement some of Tesla's technology, and improve upon it. This is something Apple does very well, take someone's technology and make it 50x better and implement it the right way.
Lucid Motors has about 1000 employees. They are spending about $1b to get their first factory for Lucid Air sedan production and hopefully selling and shipping to customers in about of year. That doesn't sound like a lot of money or technical complexity. Lucid will only sell single digit thousands of vehicles per quarter, so the capital investments aren't done yet, nor will they become self sufficient for awhile.
I think I've heard that Apple has 1000 employees working on the camera modules for the iPhones alone. Would not be surprised if Apple fronts Sony, and the camera module assembler billions of dollars too. The camera modules are rather complicated beasts and are only getting more complicated. About the same money, but technically more complicated than what Lucid is doing? You can't compare it. They are complicated in different ways.
I do think Lucid's big problems are all wetware, not the assembly of the vehicles. Their vehicles will be good. Getting people to buy them is a whole different matter, and that's often left to winging it. The car market is hyper mature with entrenched players. The point of sales of cars in the USA is regulated to go only through auto dealers in some American states! If there is any problem that new players have in the auto market that's hard to overcome, it's selling cars, not producing them.
Thing is, EVs represents a transition in the market, from supply chains, manufacturing, sales and servicing. I'm tempted to think the auto dealer network as the car market has experienced it will be going away. There is a different supply chain. There are different types of engines and power sources. So, the advantages that entrenched players have won't be as big, and most of the entrenched players will be too slow to change. So, Apple has a window.
There is going to be someone in the EV car world that will follow the Foxconn model. If it is not an existing auto manufacturer, I think existing auto manufacturers better be thinking really really hard about this, and they have to move 2x as fast. They aren't going to be able to catch up if they fall behind.
"Building a car is much more complicated than a phone"
And, by inference, China:
"The Apple iPhone is assembled in China primarily due to cheaper labour."
Hyundai/Kia could use a boost in brand prestige, there's nothing to think about, they should be going all-in on this relationship and giving it their all for the benefit for both companies.
I for one would love this see this relationship happen, especially since Boston Dynamics is now part of Hyundai. Clearly a win-win-win for all.
Dumb management.
There are many ways this could go. Apple could establish production itself, considering its deep pockets, far deeper than any of the other companies contemplating entering the BEV fray. Apple could farm out production to a start-up established specifically to build Apple's vehicles or Apple could cut a deal with an established manufacturer. It only makes sense that Apple would be exploring all its options. What is significant, if it is true that Apple has been talking to manufacturers, is that Apple appears to be seriously moving towards launching a car. My guess is that it hasn't launched a car yet in order to wait for the technology to make it possible to deliver what it wants. Mainly, it's about battery technolgy that needs to provide excellent range at a price point that makes switching to BEVs attractive. If BEVs are ballpark to ICEs (internal combustion engines) in initial cost and have a range approaching 500 miles, the migration to BEVs will be dramatic considering the lower maintenance, including cost of fuel. It is likely, too, that as gasoline consumption declines, the cost per gallon will rise, making it easier still for BEVs to make more sense. A 500-mile range combined with a $3000 to $5000 premium to purchase would basically mean game over for the ICE.
Long-term, BEVs might well be simpler and less costly to build than ICEs due to offering less complex powertrains. ICEs are rather messy, requiring a cooling system, an ignition system, a transmission, an exhaust system, not to mention frequent engine maintenance. Comparatively speaking, less goes into a BEV making it better suited to regular consumer use. It's just that until recently not enough had been done to bring battery tech along, rendering BEVs impractical with not enough range and at a high cost. We appear to be nearing the point where range and cost will be such that BEVs make more sense for average consumer use. That's the point at which I could see Apple jumping into the mix.
It has never been about Apple being the first to launch into a given segment. It's more a case of good timing, entering the fray when a product could be launched that immediately makes sense for the end user. Launch a product when it's ready for prime time and not before. Until battery tech has caught up to what consumers want and/or need, hang back, keep refining, and strike when it makes sense. If this is Apple's strategy regarding launching a car, no one should be surprised. That's classic Apple.
Jesus.
In the USA, the key feature set for mass market penetration is probably a compact SUV with 300mi for $25k, and likewise a full sized truck with 300mi for $30k. 500mi range is overkill. Most gas cars don’t even deliver that.
I reckon a partnership would be good.
a key factor in EV uptake is range anxiety, mainly related to recharging time. Putting a huge battery with large range helps solve that problem, as with lesser capacity it still takes an ICE age (geddit!) to recharge. A bigger battery would be worse in that respect, but actual trips where it would be a problem are fewer.
With 300 miles, that's basically a regular gas car experience, especially if 100 kW chargers are nearby. People who don't have access to chargers at home really need something like this, where they only have to go to charger station once a week. This neutralizes the biggest advantage of a gas car, enabling all the other advantages to sell the EV. Wish I had solar PV on my Model 3 with a bi-directional charger. Effectively increases efficiency, saves you money on home electricity, can keep your house running during a blackout.
MB (Daimler) had talks, considered, and ended them as well. https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/04/20/rumor-control-of-user-data-railroaded-project-titan-talks-between-apple-and-bmw-daimler
https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/04/18/apple-runs-secret-car-lab-in-berlin-with-15-20-employees-report-says
We covered it here at AppleInsider.