I don't see it as massive, and AFAIK they're reported looking to partner with a manufacturer, not buy them. That's the smarter way to go don't you think? Now Google partnering with Tesla doesn't sound so outrageous.
It's certainly one of their most -- if not the most -- widely-advertised effort outside of search.
Who reported that they're looking to 'partner' rather than buy? Also, there is no unequivocal answer to which strategy is better. It depends.
Add: More to the point, they have a widely-advertised car project going, don't they? Why not answer the question, instead of focusing on the use of the word 'massive'?
Actually, Apple has so much cash that exceeds a maturity of one year that it is counted as "long term" under US GAAP.
Look at Apple's Long Term Investments (which is pretty much as good as cash, since it can be converted very quickly). And look at the latest number (Jan 2015).
An excess of cash is not a sound basis to do something. An ability to recoup and exceed the original investment, on the other hand, is.
Until they can overcome the problems inherent to electric cars, they won't achieve the extensive market they have with their mobile devices.
Some problems with electric cars:
1. Total mileage is very limited compared to fossil fuels. You need to be able to do 400 or 500 miles on a charge.
2. Charging takes ages. When you can charge in three minutes, it'll be comparable to gas.
3. The battery is extremely heavy and bulky. This means that boots are tiny.
4. The battery has to be replaced frequently at great expense and time. No such problem with gas.
5. Where do you charge your car? In the UK, at least, this is very limited. Forget charging at home. A large proportion of people live in apartments and leave their car on the street. To my mind, this is the biggest obstacle to electric cars—there is no infrastructure, nor any easy way to solve that problem. This is why charging times need to come down to five minutes or fewer.
6. Electric cars are much more expensive than normal ones. Total overall lifetime cost, as well as initial cost, is still much higher than for equivalent gas cars. There is virtually no market for them, save for small city cars, though they have become less visible in London in the past few years.
One would expect Apple to build the most attractive electric car that you could wish for. If anyone can make them popular, they surely can. However, transforming the infrastructure is a monumental undertaking that is out of their hands. The only way to solve the charge problem, to my mind, is to hugely reduce the charge time. It sounds, from the recent rumours, that Apple are concentrating on battery tech.
I'd love an electric Apple Car; I guess Cook and Ive like a challenge!
Benjamin! You are in desperate need of an Oatmeal.
Electric cars from Apple by 2020 ? 5 years time ? Skip the transition and go straight to Hydrogen, Apple.
The infrastructure will be there by then and so will the market and government who will finally have woken up and smelt the lack of advanced batteries technology, Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone and other such nasties.
Hydrogen answers almost all this issues and it doesn't pollute directly.
Both hydrogen and electric vehicle solutions require energy production prior to the consumer experience. There are existing and potential domwnsides to ALL alternatives. I'm still of the opinion that getting more people off the grid and downsizing power generation to home or neighborhood scale would be more efficient, however the actual scale should be determined by opening power generation to less regulation and far more competition.
Although I do think Apple is building a vehicle, you have to wonder how much money they make from these rumours. When their stock goes up 1%, it more than pays for all those buildings and the 1000 people working on this project. Perhaps controlled leaks are part of the business strategy to raise the stock price.
This is certainly not how Apple operates.
In order to profit from an increase in stock price, you would have to sell the stock. Apple is not issuing more common stock, they are repurchasing stock and paying dividends. If an iCar rumor makes people go out and buy iPhones, then Apple makes some additional cash but their cash holding is not directly linked to the stock price going up.
.... however the actual scale should be determined by opening power generation to less regulation and far more competition.
Generation is already quite competitive in the US. You can buy your power from multiple providers in most states in the US.
The problem is the aging distribution (grid), and in the US we have run into a Commons problem there since the power generators have got rid of them. No one wants to invest in it.
Micro-grids at the home level are far from efficient (or from reality).
It's certainly one of their most -- if not the most -- widely-advertised effort outside of search.
Who reported that they're looking to 'partner' rather than buy? Also, there is no unequivocal answer to which strategy is better. It depends.
Add: More to the point, they have a widely-advertised car project going, don't they? Why not answer the question, instead of focusing on the use of the word 'massive'?
Hydrogen answers almost all this issues and it doesn't pollute directly.
Except that there's a risk of explosions?
Hydrogen cars have a lot more complicated engineering. Below is a car I examined at the LA Auto Show. The photo doesn't really show how elaborate it is but it consists of three separate systems. The storage, and this case there are two storage tanks, then the fuel cell an finally the electric motor. I would suspect it is much more expensive to manufacture than a pure electric with battery. But that being said, Li+ is very volatile as well and can explode or ignite if accidentally struck by an object.
Apple has generally looked at partnering with an existing manufacturer as the better solution over doing it themselves and that's worked pretty good for them hasn't it?
As for "who reported that (Google) is looking to partner"...
Interesting -- indeed, they do say they have no interest in manufacturing. I had missed that. Thanks.
But we'll see.... with something like the current iCar rumor mill, things could change. Like, I am guessing, in the next few weeks, if the rumors persist.
In order to profit from an increase in stock price, you would have to sell the stock.
Not at all. You can borrow against it, or you can write (sell) options on it. Both are quite easy to do. All you need is an investor account.
I originally wrote that, but decided it was overly complicating the message, however Apple certainly doesn't need any additional collateral to borrow against.
And as @Ireland stated - That is not how Apple operates.
Hydrogen answers almost all this issues and it doesn't pollute directly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banyan Bruce
Electric cars from Apple by 2020 ? 5 years time ? Skip the transition and go straight to Hydrogen, Apple.
The infrastructure will be there by then and so will the market and government who will finally have woken up and smelt the lack of advanced batteries technology, Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone and other such nasties.
"Hydrogen is an excuse for automobile manufacturers to delay battery powered electric vehicles and promote the status quo." (source: autoblog)
What a crazy week. The more you think about it, the more you realise that Apple should shake up this old industry of petrol powered cars. Tesla is doing this already. We are at the advent of a Great Mobility revolution. It'd be a shame if Apple would miss out while sitting on their huge pile of cash ...
[SIZE=18px]"Hydrogen is an excuse for automobile manufacturers to delay battery powered electric vehicles and promote the status quo." (source: autoblog)[/SIZE]
What a crazy week. The more you think about it, the more you realise that Apple should shake up this old industry of petrol powered cars. Tesla is doing this already. We are at the advent of a Great Mobility revolution. It'd be a shame if Apple would miss out while sitting on their huge pile of cash ...
Electrics are not a panacea. There are downsides with every alternative.
Electrics are not a panacea. There are downsides with every alternative.
The biggest downside with IC is fossil fuels consumption and the resultant emissions. As India and China -- 2.5B people, not counting the ones that that will arrive in the next few decades -- grow their per-capita automobile ownership towards Western levels, all bets are off.
Comments
Why would it drive Samsung crazy? Samsung has no plans to build a car, plus Apple would probably use them for components.
I don't see it as massive, and AFAIK they're reported looking to partner with a manufacturer, not buy them. That's the smarter way to go don't you think? Now Google partnering with Tesla doesn't sound so outrageous.
It's certainly one of their most -- if not the most -- widely-advertised effort outside of search.
Who reported that they're looking to 'partner' rather than buy? Also, there is no unequivocal answer to which strategy is better. It depends.
Add: More to the point, they have a widely-advertised car project going, don't they? Why not answer the question, instead of focusing on the use of the word 'massive'?
An excess of cash is not a sound basis to do something. An ability to recoup and exceed the original investment, on the other hand, is.
An excess of cash is not a sound basis to do something. An ability to recoup and exceed the original investment, on the other hand, is.
Of course it's not. No one said it was. I was simply making a factual point.
I wish them well.
Until they can overcome the problems inherent to electric cars, they won't achieve the extensive market they have with their mobile devices.
Some problems with electric cars:
1. Total mileage is very limited compared to fossil fuels. You need to be able to do 400 or 500 miles on a charge.
2. Charging takes ages. When you can charge in three minutes, it'll be comparable to gas.
3. The battery is extremely heavy and bulky. This means that boots are tiny.
4. The battery has to be replaced frequently at great expense and time. No such problem with gas.
5. Where do you charge your car? In the UK, at least, this is very limited. Forget charging at home. A large proportion of people live in apartments and leave their car on the street. To my mind, this is the biggest obstacle to electric cars—there is no infrastructure, nor any easy way to solve that problem. This is why charging times need to come down to five minutes or fewer.
6. Electric cars are much more expensive than normal ones. Total overall lifetime cost, as well as initial cost, is still much higher than for equivalent gas cars. There is virtually no market for them, save for small city cars, though they have become less visible in London in the past few years.
One would expect Apple to build the most attractive electric car that you could wish for. If anyone can make them popular, they surely can. However, transforming the infrastructure is a monumental undertaking that is out of their hands. The only way to solve the charge problem, to my mind, is to hugely reduce the charge time. It sounds, from the recent rumours, that Apple are concentrating on battery tech.
I'd love an electric Apple Car; I guess Cook and Ive like a challenge!
Benjamin! You are in desperate need of an Oatmeal.
Electric cars from Apple by 2020 ? 5 years time ? Skip the transition and go straight to Hydrogen, Apple.
The infrastructure will be there by then and so will the market and government who will finally have woken up and smelt the lack of advanced batteries technology, Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone and other such nasties.
Hydrogen answers almost all this issues and it doesn't pollute directly.
Both hydrogen and electric vehicle solutions require energy production prior to the consumer experience. There are existing and potential domwnsides to ALL alternatives. I'm still of the opinion that getting more people off the grid and downsizing power generation to home or neighborhood scale would be more efficient, however the actual scale should be determined by opening power generation to less regulation and far more competition.
Although I do think Apple is building a vehicle, you have to wonder how much money they make from these rumours. When their stock goes up 1%, it more than pays for all those buildings and the 1000 people working on this project. Perhaps controlled leaks are part of the business strategy to raise the stock price.
This is certainly not how Apple operates.
In order to profit from an increase in stock price, you would have to sell the stock. Apple is not issuing more common stock, they are repurchasing stock and paying dividends. If an iCar rumor makes people go out and buy iPhones, then Apple makes some additional cash but their cash holding is not directly linked to the stock price going up.
Hydrogen answers almost all this issues and it doesn't pollute directly.
Except that there's a risk of explosions?
.... however the actual scale should be determined by opening power generation to less regulation and far more competition.
Generation is already quite competitive in the US. You can buy your power from multiple providers in most states in the US.
The problem is the aging distribution (grid), and in the US we have run into a Commons problem there since the power generators have got rid of them. No one wants to invest in it.
Micro-grids at the home level are far from efficient (or from reality).
In order to profit from an increase in stock price, you would have to sell the stock.
Not at all. You can borrow against it, or you can write (sell) options on it. Both are quite easy to do. All you need is an investor account.
Apple has generally looked at partnering with an existing manufacturer as the better solution over doing it themselves and that's worked pretty good for them hasn't it?
As for "who reported that (Google) is looking to partner"...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-seeks-partners-for-self-driving-car-1419026779
Hydrogen answers almost all this issues and it doesn't pollute directly.
Except that there's a risk of explosions?
Hydrogen cars have a lot more complicated engineering. Below is a car I examined at the LA Auto Show. The photo doesn't really show how elaborate it is but it consists of three separate systems. The storage, and this case there are two storage tanks, then the fuel cell an finally the electric motor. I would suspect it is much more expensive to manufacture than a pure electric with battery. But that being said, Li+ is very volatile as well and can explode or ignite if accidentally struck by an object.
Apple has generally looked at partnering with an existing manufacturer as the better solution over doing it themselves and that's worked pretty good for them hasn't it?
As for "who reported that (Google) is looking to partner"...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-seeks-partners-for-self-driving-car-1419026779
Interesting -- indeed, they do say they have no interest in manufacturing. I had missed that. Thanks.
But we'll see.... with something like the current iCar rumor mill, things could change. Like, I am guessing, in the next few weeks, if the rumors persist.
In order to profit from an increase in stock price, you would have to sell the stock.
Not at all. You can borrow against it, or you can write (sell) options on it. Both are quite easy to do. All you need is an investor account.
I originally wrote that, but decided it was overly complicating the message, however Apple certainly doesn't need any additional collateral to borrow against.
And as @Ireland stated - That is not how Apple operates.
Hydrogen answers almost all this issues and it doesn't pollute directly.
Electric cars from Apple by 2020 ? 5 years time ? Skip the transition and go straight to Hydrogen, Apple.
The infrastructure will be there by then and so will the market and government who will finally have woken up and smelt the lack of advanced batteries technology, Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone and other such nasties.
"Hydrogen is an excuse for automobile manufacturers to delay battery powered electric vehicles and promote the status quo." (source: autoblog)
What a crazy week. The more you think about it, the more you realise that Apple should shake up this old industry of petrol powered cars. Tesla is doing this already. We are at the advent of a Great Mobility revolution. It'd be a shame if Apple would miss out while sitting on their huge pile of cash ...
Electrics are not a panacea. There are downsides with every alternative.
Electrics are not a panacea. There are downsides with every alternative.
The biggest downside with IC is fossil fuels consumption and the resultant emissions. As India and China -- 2.5B people, not counting the ones that that will arrive in the next few decades -- grow their per-capita automobile ownership towards Western levels, all bets are off.