Apple will reap the rewards of the cancelled Apple Car project for decades

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    All Apple has to say is, "With our AI, no company is able to track your AI requests. Everything is done locally on your device." And I'll be sold.
    Alex_V
  • Reply 22 of 39
    Ha ha ha, Gene Munster 😁
  • Reply 23 of 39
    It’s typical that most of the posts on here are from the Apple worshipping side.  Frankly as a stock holder Apple should be liable to its share holders and a debacle like the EV apple car should result in a lawsuit that punishes apple for recklessly following a bad idea!  Thats money that could have been paid for dividends!  That’s money that could have been put back into the software which quite frankly stinks!  It’s important for people to realize that corporations are beholden to the stock holders.  Their focus must be based on profit for their share holders who have “loaned” apple the money to do what it is that they do.  In return those share holders should be compensated.  Apple doesn’t give shares but after this disgusting mess they should and Tim Cook should finally, and I mean finally be fired from his position.  When Apple moves from California which they will, Mr. Cook will have even more to defend for his enormous wasting of the Apple headquarters which is become more and more vacant!  I know that I ‘m ranting but as far as tech goes all were seeing is the result of giant monopolies that are hindering new technology and pirating patents from the small guy and only forced to pay when they have to, but only after much time and money spent on attorneys.  Apple: Ditch Cook, get real about development!  Look to see how creative people work.  Develop a pen to paper interface to capture the authenticity of real live creativity.  Use ingenuity to move the human spirit and stop miring down creativity with over emphasis on sexuality!  It simply doesn’t belong in the corporate culture.  Not one other company celebrates hetero day and I ‘m for everyone being treated equally and fairly but you’re letting it interfere with your production by not rewarding hard working people based on merit and it shows in your product.  ( Whew.  Now I can get down off my soap box.).  
    nubuswilliamlondon
  • Reply 24 of 39
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,869administrator
    drdeade said:
    It’s typical that most of the posts on here are from the Apple worshipping side.  Frankly as a stock holder Apple should be liable to its share holders and a debacle like the EV apple car should result in a lawsuit that punishes apple for recklessly following a bad idea!  Thats money that could have been paid for dividends!  That’s money that could have been put back into the software which quite frankly stinks!  It’s important for people to realize that corporations are beholden to the stock holders.  Their focus must be based on profit for their share holders who have “loaned” apple the money to do what it is that they do.  In return those share holders should be compensated.  Apple doesn’t give shares but after this disgusting mess they should and Tim Cook should finally, and I mean finally be fired from his position.  When Apple moves from California which they will, Mr. Cook will have even more to defend for his enormous wasting of the Apple headquarters which is become more and more vacant!  I know that I ‘m ranting but as far as tech goes all were seeing is the result of giant monopolies that are hindering new technology and pirating patents from the small guy and only forced to pay when they have to, but only after much time and money spent on attorneys.  Apple: Ditch Cook, get real about development!  Look to see how creative people work.  Develop a pen to paper interface to capture the authenticity of real live creativity.  Use ingenuity to move the human spirit and stop miring down creativity with over emphasis on sexuality!  It simply doesn’t belong in the corporate culture.  Not one other company celebrates hetero day and I ‘m for everyone being treated equally and fairly but you’re letting it interfere with your production by not rewarding hard working people based on merit and it shows in your product.  ( Whew.  Now I can get down off my soap box.).  
    You missed the entire point of the article in your rant. To start: Apple is never, ever going to move out of California. Apple Park is sufficient evidence of that.

    And in regards to your comment about "shareholder compensation," I have no idea where you get that. And even if all of the $10 billion Apple spent on it in 10 years was somehow returned to shareholders, and it wouldn't have been, that's about 0.4 percent of the $2.8 trillion Apple made in that period.

    To be clear, that's not 40 percent, or four percent. That's four-tenths of one percent, rounding generously in favor of the shareholders in this imaginary scenario. And, it's nearly all R&D on AI.

    As I said in another thread, getting rid of Cook would be insane, and a really stupid idea for investors.


    edited February 28 tmaymuthuk_vanalingambloggerblogradarthekatAlex_Vbadmonkroundaboutnowwilliamlondonfastasleep
  • Reply 25 of 39
    am8449am8449 Posts: 392member
    The parallel made in this article to Apple having been rumored to produce a TV set is apropos. 

    Many pundits thought it was a good idea and kept beating the drum and spreading rumors of its imminent launch. However, those with intimate knowledge of the Apple way knew that making a TV set ultimately didn’t make sense. And now, we have the Vision Pro, which revolutionizes the TV experience. 

    I suspect the fate of the Apple Car will be similar, meaning that it may be put on hold until a time when Apple can introduce a car that will be so advanced technologically that it will revolutionize the car experience. 

    IMO, these kinds of decisions to not release a product until it’s insanely great, is a testament that Tim Cook learned well the lesson from Steve Jobs about saying no in order to stay focused. 
    edited February 29 radarthekatfastasleep
  • Reply 26 of 39
    nubusnubus Posts: 419member
    am8449 said:
    The parallel made in this article to Apple having been rumored to produce a TV set is apropos. 
    Steve Jobs was quoted for having solved the TV in his biography. Not exactly a rumor when the CEO tells about it.
  • Reply 27 of 39
    nubusnubus Posts: 419member
    I don't get the "Apple will reap giant rewards". Apple spent +10 billion on this, 10 years, moved clever people away from other projects which likely could have improved AI, used management resources, and didn't deliver. Consumers spend big money on two items: cars and homes. Apple Car was the path towards selling services and financing. Amazon isn't only a bookstore, Microsoft is more than Windows and Word. Tesla is moving into homes. 

    This is an epic failure. You can't spend 10 billion and 10 years without delivering. To quote Jobs: Real artists ship. They had a lot of lofty ideas but couldn't make it into a product. There is no shortage on ideas - anyone can have ideas. But artists... those are the ones to hire. Why keep them? And this reflects directly back on Cook. He could have made Toyota, Ford, and VW look like Nokias. Instead Cook made Apple look like Xerox PARC: A lot of research without products.

    Now... Apple clearly delivered AVP, and so it is not all Xerox. This however isn't the only huge research project that Apple decided to ship without a clear raison d'être. The Apple, IBM, Motorola (AIM) alliance delivered PowerPC, but it also gave the world OpenDoc. At launch I got the chance to interview the head of the Apple Advanced Technology Group. I'm a bit worried that AVP was shipped in the same way as OpenDoc - someone got an idea and the company wasn't able to stop it. It took Jobs to kill OpenDoc. Cook is not a product zar, he got blinded by the design team (6 years of butterfly keyboards, the stupid Pro Trash design,...), and now Cook got blinded by science (to quote Thomas Dolby).

    I'm worried about how Apple is working with ideas and projects. Don't go Xerox on us.
    edited February 29 williamlondon
  • Reply 28 of 39
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,857moderator

    I've never been in favor of Apple making, selling and servicing cars.  It's too much liability risk from accidents, injuries and deaths.  At best Apple would have been smart to spin it off to shield the company from legal risk to its corporate treasure.  

    What I had hoped Apple would tackle was an end-to-end system that includes the app for ride hailing and scheduling, adding your personally-owned autonomous vehicle to the taxi fleet, dispatch of the combined fleet, and really good route optimization. 

    Rental companies like Hertz could schedule some of their inventory in and out of the fleet, as could dedicated taxi services, and individual vehicle owners.  The requirement would be that the vehicle have CarPlay; a future version that would collect information from each car, including estimated remaining range, GPS coordinates, and scheduled time left in service for that day.  With this information Apple could figure out which car to dispatch, ensuring the car has sufficient remaining range and scheduled service time to complete the ride and still be able to get to a charging station or depot, if needed. 

    Apple could become a master global dispatch service, interfacing between vehicle owners and customers.  The service could support both human-driven vehicles and autonomous vehicles, as long as the vehicle included an appropriate version of CarPlay.  This would alleviate Apple from liability as either the human driver or the car’s own autonomous system would be responsible for the actual driving.  Apple would only be sending it destination instructions and details about the passengers who hailed the ride, akin to “go to pier 39 to pick up Jane Doe, to drive her to the Presidio.”  Apple could take a small cut of each ride, never having build or bought a single vehicle and never having developed autonomous driving technology.  


  • Reply 29 of 39
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,769member
    Exactly. The RESEARCH part of R&D has tremendous value in itself. Technology doesn't evolve in a silo. It builds on itself in ways we can't imagine today.

    One piece leads to another, which leads to another. One problem leads to a solution, which helps to solve another problem, and so on.

    If that didn't happen, we'd all be using iOS and macOS Version 1.0, and they wouid be perfect and never need to change. 
    All research has value even though it may not always be of economic value. The value can be in knowing that certain ideas won't work or for example are too expensive to implement. 

    Plenty of research actually dies in siloes or doesn't go anywhere. 

    Pioneer had a ton of plasma research that got canned and then  basically died on the Panasonic vine while LCD took over the market.

    You have to hope that what research does lead to viable products can cover the costs of the research that bore no market fruits. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 30 of 39
    Honestly believe this is the best article about the end of the car project and what it means for Apple. 

    Imagine, beyond just AI software, we see an Apple processor that competes with Nvida’s H100.  That ten billion spent over the past ten years would come back in less than one.  
    williamlondon
  • Reply 31 of 39
    NYC362 said:
    Honestly believe this is the best article about the end of the car project and what it means for Apple. 

    Imagine, beyond just AI software, we see an Apple processor that competes with Nvida’s H100.  That ten billion spent over the past ten years would come back in less than one.  
    That’s what I’m thinking could happen.  Apple seems to be in the best position to deliver this.  They are focused on chips for consumer products, but what could they produce if they really flexed in the enterprise market?
  • Reply 32 of 39
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,426member
    drdeade said:
    It’s typical that most of the posts on here are from the Apple worshipping side.  Frankly as a stock holder Apple should be liable to its share holders and a debacle like the EV apple car should result in a lawsuit that punishes apple for recklessly following a bad idea!  Thats money that could have been paid for dividends!  That’s money that could have been put back into the software which quite frankly stinks!  It’s important for people to realize that corporations are beholden to the stock holders.  Their focus must be based on profit for their share holders who have “loaned” apple the money to do what it is that they do.  In return those share holders should be compensated.  Apple doesn’t give shares but after this disgusting mess they should and Tim Cook should finally, and I mean finally be fired from his position.  When Apple moves from California which they will, Mr. Cook will have even more to defend for his enormous wasting of the Apple headquarters which is become more and more vacant!  I know that I ‘m ranting but as far as tech goes all were seeing is the result of giant monopolies that are hindering new technology and pirating patents from the small guy and only forced to pay when they have to, but only after much time and money spent on attorneys.  Apple: Ditch Cook, get real about development!  Look to see how creative people work.  Develop a pen to paper interface to capture the authenticity of real live creativity.  Use ingenuity to move the human spirit and stop miring down creativity with over emphasis on sexuality!  It simply doesn’t belong in the corporate culture.  Not one other company celebrates hetero day and I ‘m for everyone being treated equally and fairly but you’re letting it interfere with your production by not rewarding hard working people based on merit and it shows in your product.  ( Whew.  Now I can get down off my soap box.).  
    Thank you, I thought I had already heard the most mind-numbingly stupid thing possible today but this is the winner, by far. I always like to have a clear winner before I go to bed.

    EDIT: Very close runner up:
    nubus said:
    I don't get the "Apple will reap giant rewards". Apple spent +10 billion on this, 10 years, moved clever people away from other projects which likely could have improved AI, used management resources, and didn't deliver. Consumers spend big money on two items: cars and homes. Apple Car was the path towards selling services and financing. Amazon isn't only a bookstore, Microsoft is more than Windows and Word. Tesla is moving into homes. 

    This is an epic failure. You can't spend 10 billion and 10 years without delivering. To quote Jobs: Real artists ship. They had a lot of lofty ideas but couldn't make it into a product. There is no shortage on ideas - anyone can have ideas. But artists... those are the ones to hire. Why keep them? And this reflects directly back on Cook. He could have made Toyota, Ford, and VW look like Nokias. Instead Cook made Apple look like Xerox PARC: A lot of research without products.

    Now... Apple clearly delivered AVP, and so it is not all Xerox. This however isn't the only huge research project that Apple decided to ship without a clear raison d'être. The Apple, IBM, Motorola (AIM) alliance delivered PowerPC, but it also gave the world OpenDoc. At launch I got the chance to interview the head of the Apple Advanced Technology Group. I'm a bit worried that AVP was shipped in the same way as OpenDoc - someone got an idea and the company wasn't able to stop it. It took Jobs to kill OpenDoc. Cook is not a product zar, he got blinded by the design team (6 years of butterfly keyboards, the stupid Pro Trash design,...), and now Cook got blinded by science (to quote Thomas Dolby).

    I'm worried about how Apple is working with ideas and projects. Don't go Xerox on us.

    edited March 1 williamlondon
  • Reply 33 of 39
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,956member
    So...apple spent $10b on a car but it wasn't wasted money because they can still use the tech in other areas. That's like saying the $100k I spent on a machine shop wasn't wasted because I can still use the drill press and have the rest of the space for storage. They're cutting their losses which is good but they still have losses to cut which it the main issue.

    Now, all of this is based on rumors. It is possible that Apple never intended to build a car and was simply using it as a technology development platform because that was the best method for their use. If that's the case then they spent $10b on R&D. That's not really consistent with what we've been hearing, though.
    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 34 of 39
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,869administrator
    MplsP said:
    So...apple spent $10b on a car but it wasn't wasted money because they can still use the tech in other areas. That's like saying the $100k I spent on a machine shop wasn't wasted because I can still use the drill press and have the rest of the space for storage. They're cutting their losses which is good but they still have losses to cut which it the main issue.

    Now, all of this is based on rumors. It is possible that Apple never intended to build a car and was simply using it as a technology development platform because that was the best method for their use. If that's the case then they spent $10b on R&D. That's not really consistent with what we've been hearing, though.
    How a car works on a fundamental level, including electric ones, is a solved problem. It doesn't require a pile of R&D.

    Making it self-driving is very clearly not a solved problem.

    More properly, repurposing your own analogy, the $100K you spent on a machine shop to make metal yo-yos isn't wasted when the yo-yo shop closes down, because you can still make gears, or other components from the tools, skills, and materials you got.
    edited March 1 williamlondon
  • Reply 35 of 39
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,956member
    MplsP said:
    So...apple spent $10b on a car but it wasn't wasted money because they can still use the tech in other areas. That's like saying the $100k I spent on a machine shop wasn't wasted because I can still use the drill press and have the rest of the space for storage. They're cutting their losses which is good but they still have losses to cut which it the main issue.

    Now, all of this is based on rumors. It is possible that Apple never intended to build a car and was simply using it as a technology development platform because that was the best method for their use. If that's the case then they spent $10b on R&D. That's not really consistent with what we've been hearing, though.
    How a car works on a fundamental level, including electric ones, is a solved problem. It doesn't require a pile of R&D.

    Making it self-driving is very clearly not a solved problem.

    More properly, repurposing your own analogy, the $100K you spent on a machine shop to make metal yo-yos isn't wasted when the yo-yo shop closes down, because you can still make gears, or other components from the tools, skills, and materials you got.
    that's exactly my point - if they were using the car as a vehicle (no pun intended) for their research it's one thing. If the research was made necessary by their desire to build a car then it's different. The yo-yo shop closed down and they are repurposing the equipment but they still wasted far more money than they would have had they built what they needed in the first place and skipped the yo-yo shop.
    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 36 of 39
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,869administrator
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    So...apple spent $10b on a car but it wasn't wasted money because they can still use the tech in other areas. That's like saying the $100k I spent on a machine shop wasn't wasted because I can still use the drill press and have the rest of the space for storage. They're cutting their losses which is good but they still have losses to cut which it the main issue.

    Now, all of this is based on rumors. It is possible that Apple never intended to build a car and was simply using it as a technology development platform because that was the best method for their use. If that's the case then they spent $10b on R&D. That's not really consistent with what we've been hearing, though.
    How a car works on a fundamental level, including electric ones, is a solved problem. It doesn't require a pile of R&D.

    Making it self-driving is very clearly not a solved problem.

    More properly, repurposing your own analogy, the $100K you spent on a machine shop to make metal yo-yos isn't wasted when the yo-yo shop closes down, because you can still make gears, or other components from the tools, skills, and materials you got.
    that's exactly my point - if they were using the car as a vehicle (no pun intended) for their research it's one thing. If the research was made necessary by their desire to build a car then it's different. The yo-yo shop closed down and they are repurposing the equipment but they still wasted far more money than they would have had they built what they needed in the first place and skipped the yo-yo shop.
    You moved the goalposts on your original analogy but okay.

    Using the drill press and none of the rest of the tools and using the shop for passive storage != using nearly all of the tools to keep manufacturing.

    The latter is what Apple is doing, the former is what you said initially.

    Is there some wasted money here? Sure, there always is with research and development, no matter who's doing it.

    What it isn't, is a $10 billion pile of money lit on fire or a colossal waste and injurious to Apple like folks want to claim it is. And it isn't certainly just repurposing just the drill press from the shop full of tools and using the rest of the shop for storage.
    edited March 1 williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 37 of 39
    All Apple has to say is, "With our AI, no company is able to track your AI requests. Everything is done locally on your device." And I'll be sold.
    Where's the fun in that?
  • Reply 38 of 39
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,956member
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    So...apple spent $10b on a car but it wasn't wasted money because they can still use the tech in other areas. That's like saying the $100k I spent on a machine shop wasn't wasted because I can still use the drill press and have the rest of the space for storage. They're cutting their losses which is good but they still have losses to cut which it the main issue.

    Now, all of this is based on rumors. It is possible that Apple never intended to build a car and was simply using it as a technology development platform because that was the best method for their use. If that's the case then they spent $10b on R&D. That's not really consistent with what we've been hearing, though.
    How a car works on a fundamental level, including electric ones, is a solved problem. It doesn't require a pile of R&D.

    Making it self-driving is very clearly not a solved problem.

    More properly, repurposing your own analogy, the $100K you spent on a machine shop to make metal yo-yos isn't wasted when the yo-yo shop closes down, because you can still make gears, or other components from the tools, skills, and materials you got.
    that's exactly my point - if they were using the car as a vehicle (no pun intended) for their research it's one thing. If the research was made necessary by their desire to build a car then it's different. The yo-yo shop closed down and they are repurposing the equipment but they still wasted far more money than they would have had they built what they needed in the first place and skipped the yo-yo shop.
    You moved the goalposts on your original analogy but okay.

    Using the drill press and none of the rest of the tools and using the shop for passive storage != using nearly all of the tools to keep manufacturing.

    The latter is what Apple is doing, the former is what you said initially.

    Is there some wasted money here? Sure, there always is with research and development, no matter who's doing it.

    What it isn't, is a $10 billion pile of money lit on fire or a colossal waste and injurious to Apple like folks want to claim it is. And it isn't certainly just repurposing just the drill press from the shop full of tools and using the rest of the shop for storage.
    Actually you were the one moving the goalposts, I just followed. 

    We don’t know how much value Apple will be able to salvage from this project but it seems pretty clear there was significant waste and losses. 

    Regardless, the point is that minimizing the losses from bad business decisions doesn’t negate the fact that they were bad decisions in the first place. It’s just trying to sugarcoat them. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 39 of 39
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,869administrator
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    So...apple spent $10b on a car but it wasn't wasted money because they can still use the tech in other areas. That's like saying the $100k I spent on a machine shop wasn't wasted because I can still use the drill press and have the rest of the space for storage. They're cutting their losses which is good but they still have losses to cut which it the main issue.

    Now, all of this is based on rumors. It is possible that Apple never intended to build a car and was simply using it as a technology development platform because that was the best method for their use. If that's the case then they spent $10b on R&D. That's not really consistent with what we've been hearing, though.
    How a car works on a fundamental level, including electric ones, is a solved problem. It doesn't require a pile of R&D.

    Making it self-driving is very clearly not a solved problem.

    More properly, repurposing your own analogy, the $100K you spent on a machine shop to make metal yo-yos isn't wasted when the yo-yo shop closes down, because you can still make gears, or other components from the tools, skills, and materials you got.
    that's exactly my point - if they were using the car as a vehicle (no pun intended) for their research it's one thing. If the research was made necessary by their desire to build a car then it's different. The yo-yo shop closed down and they are repurposing the equipment but they still wasted far more money than they would have had they built what they needed in the first place and skipped the yo-yo shop.
    You moved the goalposts on your original analogy but okay.

    Using the drill press and none of the rest of the tools and using the shop for passive storage != using nearly all of the tools to keep manufacturing.

    The latter is what Apple is doing, the former is what you said initially.

    Is there some wasted money here? Sure, there always is with research and development, no matter who's doing it.

    What it isn't, is a $10 billion pile of money lit on fire or a colossal waste and injurious to Apple like folks want to claim it is. And it isn't certainly just repurposing just the drill press from the shop full of tools and using the rest of the shop for storage.
    Actually you were the one moving the goalposts, I just followed. 

    We don’t know how much value Apple will be able to salvage from this project but it seems pretty clear there was significant waste and losses. 

    Regardless, the point is that minimizing the losses from bad business decisions doesn’t negate the fact that they were bad decisions in the first place. It’s just trying to sugarcoat them. 
    I guess I'm not sure how I moved the goalposts, but okay.
Sign In or Register to comment.