'Apple Car' team dissolved & 2025 launch may be in doubt says Ming-Chi Kuo

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 54
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,825member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Beats said:
    JWSC said:

    I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off.  News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly.  But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can?   Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?

    Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI.  You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation.  Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology.  Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance.  Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.

    It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car.  I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI.  But cool design is not enough.  I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it.  But it may be time to sunset this project.  Just get me my Mac Studio.  We’ll still love you Apple.


    So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?

    please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone. 
    An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms. 

    They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.

    The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.

    How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions. 
    No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software. 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/27/rim_thought_apple_was_lying_about_original_iphone_in_2007

    RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"

    ...they were wrong. 

    Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.

    So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
    I suppose that is your very own shot at reality distortion coupled with not even bothering to fully read what I wrote. 

    I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars. 

    I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort. 

    Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps. 

    What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?

    Why not actually finish reading what I actually said? 




    Quite a disingenuous argument on your part, given that it is in fact the levels of integration that Apple brings to its various market niches that are also recognized disruptions. Your desire to separate out a hardware BOM without Apple's levels of integration is just more weak sauce in your argument.

    I haven't a clue what Apple plans to bring to the Automotive market, but Apple evidently believes that it can bring some kind of innovation to the market. I am also certain that you will deny Apple's silicon innovations of late will not be disruptive if applied to the automotive market.

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.



    You seem to have lost track of what a was replying to. 

    I doubt very much that Apple intends to bring any disruption to this market. 

    It's more likely a case of revenue streams.


    You once stated that you don't even own a car, yet here you are assuming that there are no more disruptions to be made. Meh.

    How would Apple even be able to enter the automotive market without some sort of disruption? Do you think that Apple "fans" are going to line up and buy anything from Apple?
    What does not owning a car have to do with anything? 

    I travel in them constantly. Is the difference between driving one and driving in one relevant in this context?

    Apple could enter the market without disrupting it. Why are you connecting those two dots together?

    There will be a plethora of companies offering similar solutions - just like there are now. Apple could easily end up being just another one.

    That is the more reasonable view. 
    Again, my POV is that Apple won't enter the market if there is no disruption possible.

    The Automotive industry has very low margins and requires massive investments in production processes. 

    Why would Apple just accept "ending up as just another one"? That isn't a reasonable view.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 54
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,515member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Beats said:
    JWSC said:

    I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off.  News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly.  But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can?   Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?

    Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI.  You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation.  Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology.  Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance.  Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.

    It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car.  I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI.  But cool design is not enough.  I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it.  But it may be time to sunset this project.  Just get me my Mac Studio.  We’ll still love you Apple.


    So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?

    please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone. 
    An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms. 

    They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.

    The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.

    How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions. 
    No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software. 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/27/rim_thought_apple_was_lying_about_original_iphone_in_2007

    RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"

    ...they were wrong. 

    Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.

    So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
    I suppose that is your very own shot at reality distortion coupled with not even bothering to fully read what I wrote. 

    I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars. 

    I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort. 

    Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps. 

    What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?

    Why not actually finish reading what I actually said? 




    Quite a disingenuous argument on your part, given that it is in fact the levels of integration that Apple brings to its various market niches that are also recognized disruptions. Your desire to separate out a hardware BOM without Apple's levels of integration is just more weak sauce in your argument.

    I haven't a clue what Apple plans to bring to the Automotive market, but Apple evidently believes that it can bring some kind of innovation to the market. I am also certain that you will deny Apple's silicon innovations of late will not be disruptive if applied to the automotive market.

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.



    You seem to have lost track of what a was replying to. 

    I doubt very much that Apple intends to bring any disruption to this market. 

    It's more likely a case of revenue streams.


    You once stated that you don't even own a car, yet here you are assuming that there are no more disruptions to be made. Meh.

    How would Apple even be able to enter the automotive market without some sort of disruption? Do you think that Apple "fans" are going to line up and buy anything from Apple?
    What does not owning a car have to do with anything? 

    I travel in them constantly. Is the difference between driving one and driving in one relevant in this context?

    Apple could enter the market without disrupting it. Why are you connecting those two dots together?

    There will be a plethora of companies offering similar solutions - just like there are now. Apple could easily end up being just another one.

    That is the more reasonable view. 
    Again, my POV is that Apple won't enter the market if there is no disruption possible.

    The Automotive industry has very low margins and requires massive investments in production processes. 

    Why would Apple just accept "ending up as just another one"? That isn't a reasonable view.
    Revenue. 
  • Reply 43 of 54
    command_fcommand_f Posts: 396member
    An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms. 

    They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.

    The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.

    How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions. 
    You didn't have the same Blackberry as I did then! The BB had a physical keyboard taking half of its size. The iPhone was all display with a (usable, adaptive) keyboard appearing when it was needed. That was a game changer: the display was 2x the size of the BB's when it needed to be.

    How many phones have physical keyboards now, I wonder.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 54
    designrdesignr Posts: 782member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Beats said:
    JWSC said:

    I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off.  News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly.  But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can?   Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?

    Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI.  You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation.  Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology.  Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance.  Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.

    It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car.  I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI.  But cool design is not enough.  I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it.  But it may be time to sunset this project.  Just get me my Mac Studio.  We’ll still love you Apple.


    So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?

    please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone. 
    An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms. 

    They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.

    The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.

    How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions. 
    No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software. 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/27/rim_thought_apple_was_lying_about_original_iphone_in_2007

    RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"

    ...they were wrong. 

    Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.

    So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
    I suppose that is your very own shot at reality distortion coupled with not even bothering to fully read what I wrote. 

    I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars. 

    I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort. 

    Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps. 

    What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?

    Why not actually finish reading what I actually said? 




    Quite a disingenuous argument on your part, given that it is in fact the levels of integration that Apple brings to its various market niches that are also recognized disruptions. Your desire to separate out a hardware BOM without Apple's levels of integration is just more weak sauce in your argument.

    I haven't a clue what Apple plans to bring to the Automotive market, but Apple evidently believes that it can bring some kind of innovation to the market. I am also certain that you will deny Apple's silicon innovations of late will not be disruptive if applied to the automotive market.

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.



    You seem to have lost track of what a was replying to. 

    I doubt very much that Apple intends to bring any disruption to this market. 

    It's more likely a case of revenue streams.


    You once stated that you don't even own a car, yet here you are assuming that there are no more disruptions to be made. Meh.

    How would Apple even be able to enter the automotive market without some sort of disruption? Do you think that Apple "fans" are going to line up and buy anything from Apple?
    What does not owning a car have to do with anything? 

    I travel in them constantly. Is the difference between driving one and driving in one relevant in this context?

    Apple could enter the market without disrupting it. Why are you connecting those two dots together?

    There will be a plethora of companies offering similar solutions - just like there are now. Apple could easily end up being just another one.

    That is the more reasonable view. 
    Again, my POV is that Apple won't enter the market if there is no disruption possible.

    The Automotive industry has very low margins and requires massive investments in production processes. 

    Why would Apple just accept "ending up as just another one"? That isn't a reasonable view.
    Do you have some data on auto industry margins?
  • Reply 45 of 54
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,515member
    command_f said:
    An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms. 

    They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.

    The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.

    How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions. 
    You didn't have the same Blackberry as I did then! The BB had a physical keyboard taking half of its size. The iPhone was all display with a (usable, adaptive) keyboard appearing when it was needed. That was a game changer: the display was 2x the size of the BB's when it needed to be.

    How many phones have physical keyboards now, I wonder.
    "Functional terms'

    In functional terms a keyboard is a keyboard. It gets the job done. 

    Some people still prefer physical keyboards even when an onscreen keyboard is available. On tablets for example. 

    It wasn't so much the keyboard but the attraction of more screen estate that won out. Especially as in those days, full screen devices were mainly consumption devices. Blackberrys were mainly production devices and text was a big part of that. 

    And of course when your keyboard is on screen you are still losing a large chunk of screen space. 

    But in functional terms both devices got their respective jobs done. 

    Picking out one element does not change anything. The point was Apple is not going to change the game in car technology from a hardware functional standpoint. 

  • Reply 46 of 54
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,825member
    designr said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Beats said:
    JWSC said:

    I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off.  News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly.  But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can?   Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?

    Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI.  You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation.  Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology.  Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance.  Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.

    It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car.  I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI.  But cool design is not enough.  I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it.  But it may be time to sunset this project.  Just get me my Mac Studio.  We’ll still love you Apple.


    So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?

    please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone. 
    An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms. 

    They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.

    The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.

    How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions. 
    No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software. 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/27/rim_thought_apple_was_lying_about_original_iphone_in_2007

    RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"

    ...they were wrong. 

    Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.

    So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
    I suppose that is your very own shot at reality distortion coupled with not even bothering to fully read what I wrote. 

    I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars. 

    I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort. 

    Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps. 

    What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?

    Why not actually finish reading what I actually said? 




    Quite a disingenuous argument on your part, given that it is in fact the levels of integration that Apple brings to its various market niches that are also recognized disruptions. Your desire to separate out a hardware BOM without Apple's levels of integration is just more weak sauce in your argument.

    I haven't a clue what Apple plans to bring to the Automotive market, but Apple evidently believes that it can bring some kind of innovation to the market. I am also certain that you will deny Apple's silicon innovations of late will not be disruptive if applied to the automotive market.

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.



    You seem to have lost track of what a was replying to. 

    I doubt very much that Apple intends to bring any disruption to this market. 

    It's more likely a case of revenue streams.


    You once stated that you don't even own a car, yet here you are assuming that there are no more disruptions to be made. Meh.

    How would Apple even be able to enter the automotive market without some sort of disruption? Do you think that Apple "fans" are going to line up and buy anything from Apple?
    What does not owning a car have to do with anything? 

    I travel in them constantly. Is the difference between driving one and driving in one relevant in this context?

    Apple could enter the market without disrupting it. Why are you connecting those two dots together?

    There will be a plethora of companies offering similar solutions - just like there are now. Apple could easily end up being just another one.

    That is the more reasonable view. 
    Again, my POV is that Apple won't enter the market if there is no disruption possible.

    The Automotive industry has very low margins and requires massive investments in production processes. 

    Why would Apple just accept "ending up as just another one"? That isn't a reasonable view.
    Do you have some data on auto industry margins?
    This link my give you an idea;

    https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GPI/group-1-automotive/profit-margins

    compared to Apple's gross margins

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/263436/apples-gross-margin-since-2005/

    Premium car builders such as Porsche, BMW, and Ferrari, have higher margins typically.


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 54
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,825member
    avon b7 said:
    command_f said:
    An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms. 

    They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.

    The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.

    How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions. 
    You didn't have the same Blackberry as I did then! The BB had a physical keyboard taking half of its size. The iPhone was all display with a (usable, adaptive) keyboard appearing when it was needed. That was a game changer: the display was 2x the size of the BB's when it needed to be.

    How many phones have physical keyboards now, I wonder.
    "Functional terms'

    In functional terms a keyboard is a keyboard. It gets the job done. 

    Some people still prefer physical keyboards even when an onscreen keyboard is available. On tablets for example. 

    It wasn't so much the keyboard but the attraction of more screen estate that won out. Especially as in those days, full screen devices were mainly consumption devices. Blackberrys were mainly production devices and text was a big part of that. 

    And of course when your keyboard is on screen you are still losing a large chunk of screen space. 

    But in functional terms both devices got their respective jobs done. 

    Picking out one element does not change anything. The point was Apple is not going to change the game in car technology from a hardware functional standpoint. 

    More gibberish, and more denial. 

    Blackberry is extinct, and indication of how badly they competed against the iPhone and Android OS devices. Murdered by App stores, and by sticking to keyboards too long.
    edited March 2022 watto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 54
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,515member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    command_f said:
    An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms. 

    They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.

    The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.

    How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions. 
    You didn't have the same Blackberry as I did then! The BB had a physical keyboard taking half of its size. The iPhone was all display with a (usable, adaptive) keyboard appearing when it was needed. That was a game changer: the display was 2x the size of the BB's when it needed to be.

    How many phones have physical keyboards now, I wonder.
    "Functional terms'

    In functional terms a keyboard is a keyboard. It gets the job done. 

    Some people still prefer physical keyboards even when an onscreen keyboard is available. On tablets for example. 

    It wasn't so much the keyboard but the attraction of more screen estate that won out. Especially as in those days, full screen devices were mainly consumption devices. Blackberrys were mainly production devices and text was a big part of that. 

    And of course when your keyboard is on screen you are still losing a large chunk of screen space. 

    But in functional terms both devices got their respective jobs done. 

    Picking out one element does not change anything. The point was Apple is not going to change the game in car technology from a hardware functional standpoint. 

    More gibberish, and more denial. 

    Blackberry is extinct, and indication of how badly they competed against the iPhone and Android OS devices. Murdered by App stores, and by sticking to keyboards too long.
    None of that has the slightest to do with what I said. 
  • Reply 49 of 54
    designrdesignr Posts: 782member
    tmay said:
    designr said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Beats said:
    JWSC said:

    I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off.  News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly.  But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can?   Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?

    Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI.  You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation.  Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology.  Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance.  Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.

    It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car.  I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI.  But cool design is not enough.  I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it.  But it may be time to sunset this project.  Just get me my Mac Studio.  We’ll still love you Apple.


    So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?

    please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone. 
    An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms. 

    They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.

    The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.

    How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions. 
    No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software. 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/27/rim_thought_apple_was_lying_about_original_iphone_in_2007

    RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"

    ...they were wrong. 

    Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.

    So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
    I suppose that is your very own shot at reality distortion coupled with not even bothering to fully read what I wrote. 

    I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars. 

    I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort. 

    Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps. 

    What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?

    Why not actually finish reading what I actually said? 




    Quite a disingenuous argument on your part, given that it is in fact the levels of integration that Apple brings to its various market niches that are also recognized disruptions. Your desire to separate out a hardware BOM without Apple's levels of integration is just more weak sauce in your argument.

    I haven't a clue what Apple plans to bring to the Automotive market, but Apple evidently believes that it can bring some kind of innovation to the market. I am also certain that you will deny Apple's silicon innovations of late will not be disruptive if applied to the automotive market.

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.



    You seem to have lost track of what a was replying to. 

    I doubt very much that Apple intends to bring any disruption to this market. 

    It's more likely a case of revenue streams.


    You once stated that you don't even own a car, yet here you are assuming that there are no more disruptions to be made. Meh.

    How would Apple even be able to enter the automotive market without some sort of disruption? Do you think that Apple "fans" are going to line up and buy anything from Apple?
    What does not owning a car have to do with anything? 

    I travel in them constantly. Is the difference between driving one and driving in one relevant in this context?

    Apple could enter the market without disrupting it. Why are you connecting those two dots together?

    There will be a plethora of companies offering similar solutions - just like there are now. Apple could easily end up being just another one.

    That is the more reasonable view. 
    Again, my POV is that Apple won't enter the market if there is no disruption possible.

    The Automotive industry has very low margins and requires massive investments in production processes. 

    Why would Apple just accept "ending up as just another one"? That isn't a reasonable view.
    Do you have some data on auto industry margins?
    This link my give you an idea;

    https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GPI/group-1-automotive/profit-margins

    compared to Apple's gross margins

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/263436/apples-gross-margin-since-2005/

    Premium car builders such as Porsche, BMW, and Ferrari, have higher margins typically.
    Thanks!

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 54
    DAalseth said:
    I have doubted, and still am skeptical that Apple will release a car. Components for cars, yes. Systems to work in cars, almost certainly. But they can make a lot of money with a lot less hassle, producing things to go in other people’s cars. You’d still need to do everything they have been doing, road testing and such, to develop products for other companies vehicles. 
    if I'm GM or VW, I look at Apple trying to get further and further into my business with a great degree of skepticism. Hey, I'm GM, I'm VW, those companies are a pretty big deal in their own right, we have the resources to hire great engineers, we know cars a lot better than these SV douchebags, why should we let Apple get their nose in the door and make their fat 30+% profit margins when we could be doing that?

    If Apple Car is really about selling self-driving AI and so on to automakers... well, they're working on that stuff themselves and they know a few things about how to make cars. CarPlay is one thing, it attracts buyers to certain models and automakers aren't making the smart devices that people carry around. But beyond that... what does Apple bring to the table that automakers themselves can't do themselves? I have a pretty hard time envisioning Apple coming up with self-driving AI that's so much better than anyone else's, that automakers will pay them for it.
    edited March 2022 avon b7
  • Reply 51 of 54
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,980member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Beats said:
    JWSC said:

    I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off.  News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly.  But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can?   Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?

    Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI.  You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation.  Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology.  Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance.  Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.

    It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car.  I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI.  But cool design is not enough.  I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it.  But it may be time to sunset this project.  Just get me my Mac Studio.  We’ll still love you Apple.


    So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?

    please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone. 
    An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms. 

    They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.

    The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.

    How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions. 
    No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software. 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/27/rim_thought_apple_was_lying_about_original_iphone_in_2007

    RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"

    ...they were wrong. 

    Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.

    So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
    I suppose that is your very own shot at reality distortion coupled with not even bothering to fully read what I wrote. 

    I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars. 

    I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort. 

    Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps. 

    What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?

    Why not actually finish reading what I actually said? 




    Quite a disingenuous argument on your part, given that it is in fact the levels of integration that Apple brings to its various market niches that are also recognized disruptions. Your desire to separate out a hardware BOM without Apple's levels of integration is just more weak sauce in your argument.

    I haven't a clue what Apple plans to bring to the Automotive market, but Apple evidently believes that it can bring some kind of innovation to the market. I am also certain that you will deny Apple's silicon innovations of late will not be disruptive if applied to the automotive market.

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.



    You seem to have lost track of what a was replying to. 

    I doubt very much that Apple intends to bring any disruption to this market. 

    It's more likely a case of revenue streams.


    You once stated that you don't even own a car, yet here you are assuming that there are no more disruptions to be made. Meh.

    How would Apple even be able to enter the automotive market without some sort of disruption? Do you think that Apple "fans" are going to line up and buy anything from Apple?
    What does not owning a car have to do with anything? 

    I travel in them constantly. Is the difference between driving one and driving in one relevant in this context?

    Apple could enter the market without disrupting it. Why are you connecting those two dots together?

    There will be a plethora of companies offering similar solutions - just like there are now. Apple could easily end up being just another one.

    That is the more reasonable view. 
    Again, my POV is that Apple won't enter the market if there is no disruption possible.

    The Automotive industry has very low margins and requires massive investments in production processes. 

    Why would Apple just accept "ending up as just another one"? That isn't a reasonable view.
    Disruption is not only possible it's coming ready or not removing the driver changes the fundaments of the physical product but leaves the emotional product exposed. If the Existing industry can't see it or want to hang on the the die embers of what they had then sure they should do that.

    Same true of iPhone, once all that overhead of the phone was stripped bare the personal connections shown through.

    There will be 2 types of autonomous "cars" ones owned by consumers as mini-extensions to their house and safe space (much like current cars are anyway but no overhead of some people needing to know how to drive) and those owned by companies. 

    Apples branding, ecosystem and indeed privacy stand and trust give them appeal in the first group. that group will give them appeal in the second group same as BYODevice has driven business integration of Mac,iPad and iPhones. Would you trust a car to run your kids to school if you don't trust it with Grandmas phone number.

    Which Car makers have as well a trusted brand, that will be Apple's draw card.
    tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 54
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,825member
    mattinoz said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Beats said:
    JWSC said:

    I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off.  News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly.  But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can?   Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?

    Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI.  You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation.  Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology.  Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance.  Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.

    It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car.  I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI.  But cool design is not enough.  I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it.  But it may be time to sunset this project.  Just get me my Mac Studio.  We’ll still love you Apple.


    So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?

    please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone. 
    An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms. 

    They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.

    The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.

    How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions. 
    No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software. 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/27/rim_thought_apple_was_lying_about_original_iphone_in_2007

    RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"

    ...they were wrong. 

    Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.

    So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
    I suppose that is your very own shot at reality distortion coupled with not even bothering to fully read what I wrote. 

    I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars. 

    I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort. 

    Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps. 

    What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?

    Why not actually finish reading what I actually said? 




    Quite a disingenuous argument on your part, given that it is in fact the levels of integration that Apple brings to its various market niches that are also recognized disruptions. Your desire to separate out a hardware BOM without Apple's levels of integration is just more weak sauce in your argument.

    I haven't a clue what Apple plans to bring to the Automotive market, but Apple evidently believes that it can bring some kind of innovation to the market. I am also certain that you will deny Apple's silicon innovations of late will not be disruptive if applied to the automotive market.

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.



    You seem to have lost track of what a was replying to. 

    I doubt very much that Apple intends to bring any disruption to this market. 

    It's more likely a case of revenue streams.


    You once stated that you don't even own a car, yet here you are assuming that there are no more disruptions to be made. Meh.

    How would Apple even be able to enter the automotive market without some sort of disruption? Do you think that Apple "fans" are going to line up and buy anything from Apple?
    What does not owning a car have to do with anything? 

    I travel in them constantly. Is the difference between driving one and driving in one relevant in this context?

    Apple could enter the market without disrupting it. Why are you connecting those two dots together?

    There will be a plethora of companies offering similar solutions - just like there are now. Apple could easily end up being just another one.

    That is the more reasonable view. 
    Again, my POV is that Apple won't enter the market if there is no disruption possible.

    The Automotive industry has very low margins and requires massive investments in production processes. 

    Why would Apple just accept "ending up as just another one"? That isn't a reasonable view.
    Disruption is not only possible it's coming ready or not removing the driver changes the fundaments of the physical product but leaves the emotional product exposed. If the Existing industry can't see it or want to hang on the the die embers of what they had then sure they should do that.

    Same true of iPhone, once all that overhead of the phone was stripped bare the personal connections shown through.

    There will be 2 types of autonomous "cars" ones owned by consumers as mini-extensions to their house and safe space (much like current cars are anyway but no overhead of some people needing to know how to drive) and those owned by companies. 

    Apples branding, ecosystem and indeed privacy stand and trust give them appeal in the first group. that group will give them appeal in the second group same as BYODevice has driven business integration of Mac,iPad and iPhones. Would you trust a car to run your kids to school if you don't trust it with Grandmas phone number.

    Which Car makers have as well a trusted brand, that will be Apple's draw card.
    Apple could add innovation via leading edge, solid state batteries, that most Automotive companies would consider too expensive for this, or even the next, generation of EV's. That in itself is reason enough to continue to delay a vehicle until it is fully "baked", and also is in alignment with Toyota's long term EV plan as well. 

    There seems to be this meme that Apple has to deliver a vehicle, and soon, or they will miss the market. History has shown that isn't an accurate way to assess Apple.
    mattinozwatto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 54
    robabarobaba Posts: 226member
    I don’t need or want a self-driving car.  I don’t need or want an Apple branded car.  I both need and want a dirt-simple, dependable medium range (<200mi) Small, 2door BEV pickup.  Like a pickup version of Rams electric Promaster van or slightly smaller.  First one to that gets my money.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 54
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,218member

    If Apple Car is really about selling self-driving AI and so on to automakers... 
    They're not.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.