No it's not. If Apple acquire Tesla, they may change not to license the patents anymore. If Tesla technologies are not patented, then everyone can still use them regardless who acquires Tesla.
Apple is not buying Tesla, and if they do any prior agreements have to be honored.
You do know that Tesla isn't patenting anything? Every breakthrough they make will be used immediately by the competition.
I understand that - they would be buying experience and infrastructure. I'll say it again: buying Tesla makes sense if Apple is determined to build a car. If that is not in their plans then it would make no sense.
I understand that - they would be buying experience and infrastructure. I'll say it again: buying Tesla makes sense if Apple is determined to build a car. If that is not in their plans then it would make no sense.
Not to my knowledge but that doesn't mean that they might not be amenable to the right offer. Their market cap is around $30B so it would probably cost about $40B (a better than 30% premium) to buy them. Apple wouldn't do a hostile takeover but if $40B were offered Musk would need to at least consider a deal.
Well, it's my opinion is that your opinion stinks.
Did Apple have experience in the mobile telephone industry? Nope. Look where the Apple iPhone 6/6+ are now.
Experience is highly overrated. Look what "experience" did and is still doing for Detroit! Ghost town. American made IC engine cars suck. The old dealership business model is stacking up un-sold cars all over the planet.
But now there's a new American car company, Tesla, that doesn't suck. Its cars are awesome and are selling as fast as they can be made.
I think all your glorious experience can remain where it belongs, in the irrelevant past.
I don't see why an Apple acquisition of Tesla wouldn't make sense. Their products are already very nice. But I think Sir Jony could add those magical touches inside and out which could make electric cars really shine, and consequently put the US back in the automotive business, and all the while materially effect a significant slow-down of global pollution.
The mobile space is still related to computers. Although they did not have experience in cell phones they did in laptops and computers. So your response is irrelevant.
So what's the end result of open sourced, or licensed patents?
The singular end result? What sort of question is that? There isn't one.
In terms of differences from not having any patents though, there are significant differences.
1, Tesla implicitly indemnifies licensees of those patents from patent trolls.
2, Tesla could revoke licensing, which would not be unlikely after a takeover.
3, By owning patents on widely used technologies (assuming they become widely used), Tesla are formally recognised as the inventor, and the established expertise in the industry.
Probably more, but it's early, and I have election hangover.
Not to my knowledge but that doesn't mean that they might not be amenable to the right offer. Their market cap is around $30B so it would probably cost about $40B (a better than 30% premium) to buy them. Apple wouldn't do a hostile takeover but if $40B were offered Musk would need to at least consider a deal.
It might not be that much. If investors don't feel Tesla has a chance of returning significant profits, they might sell up at the current rates. It's still making huge losses and these losses are paid for by investors:
Some investors bought shares in 2012 and they are nearly 10x higher just now. The investors with significant amounts might not be able to sell up large amounts at the current price. Elon Musk himself owns about 1/4 of the shares, his brother Kimbal Musk has a small amount but is a major individual shareholder.
Apple doesn't have to offer cash, they can translate them to shares in Apple. Apple has bought back tens of billions in Apple shares and just retired them. They could just as easily exchange them with Tesla shares. A lot of the institutional investors in each are the same:
Apple shares would probably go up in value if they announced they were buying Tesla. The Apple brand doesn't fit well with cars just as it doesn't with headphones. Maybe they'd use Titan as a car brand but Tesla is a good brand and they get all their engineers back. They'd be able to turn it profitable much faster than Tesla because of the scale of their operation and they can design the battery replacement mechanism better. Not necessarily the following as they have to consider structural strength but the general idea:
Then they'd be able to have mini stations with service people just switching the batteries out onto a trolley for a small fee. As battery tech progresses over the years, people will either visit the stations less and less as the capacities will be much larger or they'll reduce the batteries to the point that the driver can carry them into any local store like WalMart and switch them out. Look at what happened to hard drive storage where they went from megabytes in capacity to terabytes in the same size. For batteries, it only needs to be 1,000x increase (10x in each axis) to become handheld.
An advance like this would change computers too. No portable device would need a charging port because the battery would last over 5 years so you'd just get it replaced when it ran out or more likely buy a new device.
This sort of thing would change home power too because rather than relying on the grid, you'd be able to buy more packs and just switch them the way you'd buy groceries. They don't have to shut off the grid immediately but it can act as backup power and a lot of electrical cabling and pylons could be removed. It would mean that developing countries can use electrical appliances. One breakthrough in battery tech will change all transportation. Even planes can use them so instant fuelling, possibly lighter, quieter and no explosion risk.
It might not be that much. If investors don't feel Tesla has a chance of returning significant profits, they might sell up at the current rates. It's still making huge losses and these losses are paid for by investors:
Some investors bought shares in 2012 and they are nearly 10x higher just now. The investors with significant amounts might not be able to sell up large amounts at the current price. Elon Musk himself owns about 1/4 of the shares, his brother Kimbal Musk has a small amount but is a major individual shareholder.
Apple doesn't have to offer cash, they can translate them to shares in Apple. Apple has bought back tens of billions in Apple shares and just retired them. They could just as easily exchange them with Tesla shares. A lot of the institutional investors in each are the same:
Apple shares would probably go up in value if they announced they were buying Tesla. The Apple brand doesn't fit well with cars just as it doesn't with headphones. Maybe they'd use Titan as a car brand but Tesla is a good brand and they get all their engineers back. They'd be able to turn it profitable much faster than Tesla because of the scale of their operation and they can design the battery replacement mechanism better. Not necessarily the following as they have to consider structural strength but the general idea:
Then they'd be able to have mini stations with service people just switching the batteries out onto a trolley for a small fee. As battery tech progresses over the years, people will either visit the stations less and less as the capacities will be much larger or they'll reduce the batteries to the point that the driver can carry them into any local store like WalMart and switch them out. Look at what happened to hard drive storage where they went from megabytes in capacity to terabytes in the same size. For batteries, it only needs to be 1,000x increase (10x in each axis) to become handheld.
An advance like this would change computers too. No portable device would need a charging port because the battery would last over 5 years so you'd just get it replaced when it ran out or more likely buy a new device.
This sort of thing would change home power too because rather than relying on the grid, you'd be able to buy more packs and just switch them the way you'd buy groceries. They don't have to shut off the grid immediately but it can act as backup power and a lot of electrical cabling and pylons could be removed. It would mean that developing countries can use electrical appliances. One breakthrough in battery tech will change all transportation. Even planes can use them so instant fuelling, possibly lighter, quieter and no explosion risk.
I I read the first rumors about Apple developing a car I thought it was crazy talk. But once I started thinking about the challenges they'd face I thought "why not just buy Tesla?" I'd still prefer that Apple not develop a car but, if that is really part of their plan, buying Tesla provides a lot of up-side.
This feels like 2005, and someone supporting the ROKR deal...
A car is quickly becoming a consumer electronic. As has been noted, current cars feel a lot like pre-iPhone smartphones. This is truly skating to where the puck is going.
Not even close. No matter how much tech is crammed into a car, automobile manufacturing is still a heavy industry. Unlike every business Apple is in, it is (and will alway be) a highly capital intensive, high-risk, low-margin business. This is why Tesla remains an unprofitable company.
Apple, instead, built their company on entering industries in which they had “no experience whatsoever”, as you put it. They knew little about the music industry, cell phones, consumer financial transactions, watches, etc. But this sure didn’t stop them from succeeding and transforming those industries. In fact, “lack of experience” actually benefits Apple by encouraging competitors and everyone else to under-estimate and dismiss them instead of formulating a battle plan. Remember Ballmer’s and others’ reactions to the iPhone? Lack of experience makes it so much easier for Apple to march unopposed into “non-core” industries and disrupt them.
No, not really. You are conflating industries with technology and these are not necessarily the same things. Yes, Apple ventured into new industries, but every new product you mention leveraged their core technological expertise in designing and building consumer electronics. Manufacturing cars provides almost no opportunity to leverage what Apple already knows how to do and would genuinely place them for the first time in an industry that is completely foreign to their competencies. It seems that whenever Apple releases a new product some go right into pipe-dream mode, thinking up successively more implausible ideas of what Apple will do next. Most of them have no basis is practical realities, which is why they don't happen.
No, not really. You are conflating industries with technology and these are not necessarily the same things. Yes, Apple ventured into new industries, but every new product you mention leveraged their core technological expertise in designing and building consumer electronics. Manufacturing cars provides almost no opportunity to leverage what Apple already knows how to do and would genuinely place them for the first time in an industry that is completely foreign to their competencies. It seems that whenever Apple releases a new product some go right into pipe-dream mode, thinking up successively more implausible ideas of what Apple will do next. Most of them have no basis is practical realities, which is why they don't happen.
Disagree. Cars are so much more computer than drivetrain these days. At least that's what car customers care about. The average customer no longer asks the 0-60 or top speed but rather "Does it have bluetooth and Wi-Fi?" and "Can I merge my smartphone contacts into the dashboard?" Car customers want:
1. Car that looks good (nobody comes close to Apple design)
2. Car that is reliable (Apple products are all known as some of most reliable)
3. Car that is fuel efficient (Apple products are among best on battery life)
4. Car with good warranty and service (Applecare is one of the best services available)
I can't think of any company (car or tech) that matches these customer needs better than Apple.
Disagree. Cars are so much more computer than drivetrain these days. At least that's what car customers care about. The average customer no longer asks the 0-60 or top speed but rather "Does it have bluetooth and Wi-Fi?" and "Can I merge my smartphone contacts into the dashboard?" Car customers want:
1. Car that looks good (nobody comes close to Apple design)
2. Car that is reliable (Apple products are all known as some of most reliable)
3. Car that is fuel efficient (Apple products are among best on battery life)
4. Car with good warranty and service (Applecare is one of the best services available)
I can't think of any company (car or tech) that matches these customer needs better than Apple.
The driver rarely interfaces with a car's computer.
1. You don't think that there are any beautifully designed cars? There is not one singular car design that fits everyone's needs.
2. The are a plethora of reliable cars in various price ranges.
3. Apple products are best in battery life not because they have better tech but because the software is more efficient. That point is null and void with a car.
4. Cars routinely come with 10 year warranties. Beating Apple's by a long shot, and last I checked App stores don't have repair garages.
Disagree. Cars are so much more computer than drivetrain these days. At least that's what car customers care about. The average customer no longer asks the 0-60 or top speed but rather "Does it have bluetooth and Wi-Fi?" and "Can I merge my smartphone contacts into the dashboard?" Car customers want:
1. Car that looks good (nobody comes close to Apple design)
2. Car that is reliable (Apple products are all known as some of most reliable)
3. Car that is fuel efficient (Apple products are among best on battery life)
4. Car with good warranty and service (Applecare is one of the best services available)
I can't think of any company (car or tech) that matches these customer needs better than Apple.
You could do search for "car" in your bullet points and replace it with any imagined consumer product. After all, if this argument works for cars, why would it not work for.... everything? (A rhetorical question: it would not.)
Even if you limit your argument to electric vehicles, cars are still far more computers. What some consumers might think notwithstanding, they still require drive trains, suspensions, braking systems (including hydraulics), steering, aerodynamic design, safety design, seating and interior design, welding, bolting, steel forming, latches, hinges, tires, wheels, lighting, motors, glass, and batteries. Just to name a few of the requirements of building cars in which Apple has little to absolutely no experience.
The driver rarely interfaces with a car's computer.
1. You don't think that there are any beautifully designed cars? There is not one singular car design that fits everyone's needs.
2. The are a plethora of reliable cars in various price ranges.
3. Apple products are best in battery life not because they have better tech but because the software is more efficient. That point is null and void with a car.
4. Cars routinely come with 10 year warranties. Beating Apple's by a long shot, and last I checked App stores don't have repair garages.
Cars are controlled by computers. Brakes, acceleration, steering, airbags, etc. And then there's the direct interface on dashboard which me and my iPhone are constantly interfacing with. Not sure what you're talking about.
My points were not excluding other brands. I was simply listing what car consumers look for in a purchase. Apple doesn't currently make or sell cars but they understand better than most (including car makers) how to truly connect with a customer on an emotional level. That experience isn't relegated to phones you stick into your pockets. It also works with watches which Apple designers love. Apple designers also love cars.
Apple software is more efficient because they also make the hardware. That is why their electric vehicle will be more efficient than other carmakers electric vehicles. Why is Tesla's EV so efficient? They design all their own hardware except for steering column.
I think it's safe to assume that Apple would modify Apple Car Care warranties differently from an iPhone warranty. No one is talking about an Apple car like it's an afterthought. It will take years and billions to develop and when they release it, they will design entire retail experiences around it just like they modified / built /changed over 400 retail stores to sell their Apple Watch.
You could do search for "car" in your bullet points and replace it with any imagined consumer product. After all, if this argument works for cars, why would it not work for.... everything? (A rhetorical question: it would not.)
Even if you limit your argument to electric vehicles, cars are still far more computers. What some consumers might think notwithstanding, they still require drive trains, suspensions, braking systems (including hydraulics), steering, aerodynamic design, safety design, seating and interior design, welding, bolting, steel forming, latches, hinges, tires, wheels, lighting, motors, glass, and batteries. Just to name a few of the requirements of building cars in which Apple has little to absolutely no experience.
I could go on and on but I'll just say...Tesla.
According to you, there are far many details and technologies that a young upstart car company cannot handle and must consider to enter the car market. Tesla is growing fast but I bet 5 years ago most people would have said the same thing you are still saying.
Now multiply Tesla x 1000 and you have Apple. Apple is all about materials. They design and build machines and factories to make their own devices. I think the manufacturing and details involved with cars is actually the least of their problems.
According to you, there are far many details and technologies that a young upstart car company cannot handle and must consider to enter the car market. Tesla is growing fast but I bet 5 years ago most people would have said the same thing you are still saying.
Now multiply Tesla x 1000 and you have Apple. Apple is all about materials. They design and build machines and factories to make their own devices. I think the manufacturing and details involved with cars is actually the least of their problems.
I could go on and, but I'll just say... unprofitable.
The automobile industry has not been reinvented by Tesla just because Elon Musk says so. He is hardly the first person to make that claim. The last person who can say he actually did it was Henry Ford. Historically, that is the rated difficulty of the dive. It's an 11 on a scale of one to 10.
I could go on and, but I'll just say... unprofitable.
The automobile industry has not been reinvented by Tesla just because Elon Musk says so. He is hardly the first person to make that claim. The last person who can say he actually did it was Henry Ford. Historically, that is the rated difficulty of the dive. It's an 11 on a scale of one to 10.
Unprofitable? That depends on whom you ask. The big 3 or 4 or whatever it is now might have great marketshare but not great profits but neither do Android phonemakers.
Ask the high end car makers if they're hurting. Apple doesn't have to sell everyone in the world a car in order to make billions and also change the industry. They've done with several products already.
Who said Tesla changed the car industry? I bring up Tesla because you said new carmakers to the industry couldn't get a foothold.
Carmakers have no secret sauce. Virtually none of them make their own parts. They just combine pre-made chassis and parts from 3rd party manufacturers like legos until they get a car they like. Tesla and high-end car makers are the few exceptions.
Do you really think Apple has any interest in creating a low cost, me too car?
If Apple thinks it can go into the car-building business, from where would it derive the confidence, not to say arrogance, to imagine that it could do so?
I've already suggested one possible source: Tesla. If Elon can do it, we can do it, and in fact we have a few ideas how we could do it better.
Here's another: retail stores. When we had the idea to build a retail store network, we didn't know a damned thing about how to do it. Now we have the best retail system in the world, we've won every award, we've saved iconic buildings and neighborhoods, we've become the one of the world's experts in using architectural glass, and so on. And we're making money, more per square foot etc., etc.
Here:s another: when we started building our data centers, we didn't know anything about renewable energy. Now we're the world's leading etc., etc.
Another: our first real workspace designed for our new global design and manufacturing firm is going to redefine how people work together in a building that doesn't seem like a building, thanks to what we've learned about curved glass in our retail stores. ("We have reinvented architecture.")
They could also argue that they invented the integrated, globally sourced microtechnology corporation, starting with the little hard drive they glommed onto for the first iPod.
Then there's the unspoken principle that drives them: design and care in manufacture with the user in mind conquers anything.
Comments
Apple is not buying Tesla, and if they do any prior agreements have to be honored.
You do know that Tesla isn't patenting anything? Every breakthrough they make will be used immediately by the competition.
I understand that - they would be buying experience and infrastructure. I'll say it again: buying Tesla makes sense if Apple is determined to build a car. If that is not in their plans then it would make no sense.
Is Tesla even up for sale?
Is Tesla even up for sale?
Not to my knowledge but that doesn't mean that they might not be amenable to the right offer. Their market cap is around $30B so it would probably cost about $40B (a better than 30% premium) to buy them. Apple wouldn't do a hostile takeover but if $40B were offered Musk would need to at least consider a deal.
So what's the end result of open sourced, or licensed patents?
The mobile space is still related to computers. Although they did not have experience in cell phones they did in laptops and computers. So your response is irrelevant.
So what's the end result of open sourced, or licensed patents?
The singular end result? What sort of question is that? There isn't one.
In terms of differences from not having any patents though, there are significant differences.
1, Tesla implicitly indemnifies licensees of those patents from patent trolls.
2, Tesla could revoke licensing, which would not be unlikely after a takeover.
3, By owning patents on widely used technologies (assuming they become widely used), Tesla are formally recognised as the inventor, and the established expertise in the industry.
Probably more, but it's early, and I have election hangover.
It might not be that much. If investors don't feel Tesla has a chance of returning significant profits, they might sell up at the current rates. It's still making huge losses and these losses are paid for by investors:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-q1-2015-report/
Some investors bought shares in 2012 and they are nearly 10x higher just now. The investors with significant amounts might not be able to sell up large amounts at the current price. Elon Musk himself owns about 1/4 of the shares, his brother Kimbal Musk has a small amount but is a major individual shareholder.
Apple doesn't have to offer cash, they can translate them to shares in Apple. Apple has bought back tens of billions in Apple shares and just retired them. They could just as easily exchange them with Tesla shares. A lot of the institutional investors in each are the same:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=TSLA+Major+Holders
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=AAPL+Major+Holders
Apple shares would probably go up in value if they announced they were buying Tesla. The Apple brand doesn't fit well with cars just as it doesn't with headphones. Maybe they'd use Titan as a car brand but Tesla is a good brand and they get all their engineers back. They'd be able to turn it profitable much faster than Tesla because of the scale of their operation and they can design the battery replacement mechanism better. Not necessarily the following as they have to consider structural strength but the general idea:
Then they'd be able to have mini stations with service people just switching the batteries out onto a trolley for a small fee. As battery tech progresses over the years, people will either visit the stations less and less as the capacities will be much larger or they'll reduce the batteries to the point that the driver can carry them into any local store like WalMart and switch them out. Look at what happened to hard drive storage where they went from megabytes in capacity to terabytes in the same size. For batteries, it only needs to be 1,000x increase (10x in each axis) to become handheld.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153614-new-lithium-ion-battery-design-thats-2000-times-more-powerful-recharges-1000-times-faster
An advance like this would change computers too. No portable device would need a charging port because the battery would last over 5 years so you'd just get it replaced when it ran out or more likely buy a new device.
This sort of thing would change home power too because rather than relying on the grid, you'd be able to buy more packs and just switch them the way you'd buy groceries. They don't have to shut off the grid immediately but it can act as backup power and a lot of electrical cabling and pylons could be removed. It would mean that developing countries can use electrical appliances. One breakthrough in battery tech will change all transportation. Even planes can use them so instant fuelling, possibly lighter, quieter and no explosion risk.
It might not be that much. If investors don't feel Tesla has a chance of returning significant profits, they might sell up at the current rates. It's still making huge losses and these losses are paid for by investors:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-q1-2015-report/
Some investors bought shares in 2012 and they are nearly 10x higher just now. The investors with significant amounts might not be able to sell up large amounts at the current price. Elon Musk himself owns about 1/4 of the shares, his brother Kimbal Musk has a small amount but is a major individual shareholder.
Apple doesn't have to offer cash, they can translate them to shares in Apple. Apple has bought back tens of billions in Apple shares and just retired them. They could just as easily exchange them with Tesla shares. A lot of the institutional investors in each are the same:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=TSLA+Major+Holders
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=AAPL+Major+Holders
Apple shares would probably go up in value if they announced they were buying Tesla. The Apple brand doesn't fit well with cars just as it doesn't with headphones. Maybe they'd use Titan as a car brand but Tesla is a good brand and they get all their engineers back. They'd be able to turn it profitable much faster than Tesla because of the scale of their operation and they can design the battery replacement mechanism better. Not necessarily the following as they have to consider structural strength but the general idea:
Then they'd be able to have mini stations with service people just switching the batteries out onto a trolley for a small fee. As battery tech progresses over the years, people will either visit the stations less and less as the capacities will be much larger or they'll reduce the batteries to the point that the driver can carry them into any local store like WalMart and switch them out. Look at what happened to hard drive storage where they went from megabytes in capacity to terabytes in the same size. For batteries, it only needs to be 1,000x increase (10x in each axis) to become handheld.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153614-new-lithium-ion-battery-design-thats-2000-times-more-powerful-recharges-1000-times-faster
An advance like this would change computers too. No portable device would need a charging port because the battery would last over 5 years so you'd just get it replaced when it ran out or more likely buy a new device.
This sort of thing would change home power too because rather than relying on the grid, you'd be able to buy more packs and just switch them the way you'd buy groceries. They don't have to shut off the grid immediately but it can act as backup power and a lot of electrical cabling and pylons could be removed. It would mean that developing countries can use electrical appliances. One breakthrough in battery tech will change all transportation. Even planes can use them so instant fuelling, possibly lighter, quieter and no explosion risk.
I I read the first rumors about Apple developing a car I thought it was crazy talk. But once I started thinking about the challenges they'd face I thought "why not just buy Tesla?" I'd still prefer that Apple not develop a car but, if that is really part of their plan, buying Tesla provides a lot of up-side.
This feels like 2005, and someone supporting the ROKR deal...
A car is quickly becoming a consumer electronic. As has been noted, current cars feel a lot like pre-iPhone smartphones. This is truly skating to where the puck is going.
Not even close. No matter how much tech is crammed into a car, automobile manufacturing is still a heavy industry. Unlike every business Apple is in, it is (and will alway be) a highly capital intensive, high-risk, low-margin business. This is why Tesla remains an unprofitable company.
Apple, instead, built their company on entering industries in which they had “no experience whatsoever”, as you put it. They knew little about the music industry, cell phones, consumer financial transactions, watches, etc. But this sure didn’t stop them from succeeding and transforming those industries. In fact, “lack of experience” actually benefits Apple by encouraging competitors and everyone else to under-estimate and dismiss them instead of formulating a battle plan. Remember Ballmer’s and others’ reactions to the iPhone? Lack of experience makes it so much easier for Apple to march unopposed into “non-core” industries and disrupt them.
No, not really. You are conflating industries with technology and these are not necessarily the same things. Yes, Apple ventured into new industries, but every new product you mention leveraged their core technological expertise in designing and building consumer electronics. Manufacturing cars provides almost no opportunity to leverage what Apple already knows how to do and would genuinely place them for the first time in an industry that is completely foreign to their competencies. It seems that whenever Apple releases a new product some go right into pipe-dream mode, thinking up successively more implausible ideas of what Apple will do next. Most of them have no basis is practical realities, which is why they don't happen.
No, not really. You are conflating industries with technology and these are not necessarily the same things. Yes, Apple ventured into new industries, but every new product you mention leveraged their core technological expertise in designing and building consumer electronics. Manufacturing cars provides almost no opportunity to leverage what Apple already knows how to do and would genuinely place them for the first time in an industry that is completely foreign to their competencies. It seems that whenever Apple releases a new product some go right into pipe-dream mode, thinking up successively more implausible ideas of what Apple will do next. Most of them have no basis is practical realities, which is why they don't happen.
Disagree. Cars are so much more computer than drivetrain these days. At least that's what car customers care about. The average customer no longer asks the 0-60 or top speed but rather "Does it have bluetooth and Wi-Fi?" and "Can I merge my smartphone contacts into the dashboard?" Car customers want:
1. Car that looks good (nobody comes close to Apple design)
2. Car that is reliable (Apple products are all known as some of most reliable)
3. Car that is fuel efficient (Apple products are among best on battery life)
4. Car with good warranty and service (Applecare is one of the best services available)
I can't think of any company (car or tech) that matches these customer needs better than Apple.
The driver rarely interfaces with a car's computer.
1. You don't think that there are any beautifully designed cars? There is not one singular car design that fits everyone's needs.
2. The are a plethora of reliable cars in various price ranges.
3. Apple products are best in battery life not because they have better tech but because the software is more efficient. That point is null and void with a car.
4. Cars routinely come with 10 year warranties. Beating Apple's by a long shot, and last I checked App stores don't have repair garages.
Disagree. Cars are so much more computer than drivetrain these days. At least that's what car customers care about. The average customer no longer asks the 0-60 or top speed but rather "Does it have bluetooth and Wi-Fi?" and "Can I merge my smartphone contacts into the dashboard?" Car customers want:
1. Car that looks good (nobody comes close to Apple design)
2. Car that is reliable (Apple products are all known as some of most reliable)
3. Car that is fuel efficient (Apple products are among best on battery life)
4. Car with good warranty and service (Applecare is one of the best services available)
I can't think of any company (car or tech) that matches these customer needs better than Apple.
You could do search for "car" in your bullet points and replace it with any imagined consumer product. After all, if this argument works for cars, why would it not work for.... everything? (A rhetorical question: it would not.)
Even if you limit your argument to electric vehicles, cars are still far more computers. What some consumers might think notwithstanding, they still require drive trains, suspensions, braking systems (including hydraulics), steering, aerodynamic design, safety design, seating and interior design, welding, bolting, steel forming, latches, hinges, tires, wheels, lighting, motors, glass, and batteries. Just to name a few of the requirements of building cars in which Apple has little to absolutely no experience.
The driver rarely interfaces with a car's computer.
1. You don't think that there are any beautifully designed cars? There is not one singular car design that fits everyone's needs.
2. The are a plethora of reliable cars in various price ranges.
3. Apple products are best in battery life not because they have better tech but because the software is more efficient. That point is null and void with a car.
4. Cars routinely come with 10 year warranties. Beating Apple's by a long shot, and last I checked App stores don't have repair garages.
Cars are controlled by computers. Brakes, acceleration, steering, airbags, etc. And then there's the direct interface on dashboard which me and my iPhone are constantly interfacing with. Not sure what you're talking about.
My points were not excluding other brands. I was simply listing what car consumers look for in a purchase. Apple doesn't currently make or sell cars but they understand better than most (including car makers) how to truly connect with a customer on an emotional level. That experience isn't relegated to phones you stick into your pockets. It also works with watches which Apple designers love. Apple designers also love cars.
Apple software is more efficient because they also make the hardware. That is why their electric vehicle will be more efficient than other carmakers electric vehicles. Why is Tesla's EV so efficient? They design all their own hardware except for steering column.
I think it's safe to assume that Apple would modify Apple Car Care warranties differently from an iPhone warranty. No one is talking about an Apple car like it's an afterthought. It will take years and billions to develop and when they release it, they will design entire retail experiences around it just like they modified / built /changed over 400 retail stores to sell their Apple Watch.
You could do search for "car" in your bullet points and replace it with any imagined consumer product. After all, if this argument works for cars, why would it not work for.... everything? (A rhetorical question: it would not.)
Even if you limit your argument to electric vehicles, cars are still far more computers. What some consumers might think notwithstanding, they still require drive trains, suspensions, braking systems (including hydraulics), steering, aerodynamic design, safety design, seating and interior design, welding, bolting, steel forming, latches, hinges, tires, wheels, lighting, motors, glass, and batteries. Just to name a few of the requirements of building cars in which Apple has little to absolutely no experience.
I could go on and on but I'll just say...Tesla.
According to you, there are far many details and technologies that a young upstart car company cannot handle and must consider to enter the car market. Tesla is growing fast but I bet 5 years ago most people would have said the same thing you are still saying.
Now multiply Tesla x 1000 and you have Apple. Apple is all about materials. They design and build machines and factories to make their own devices. I think the manufacturing and details involved with cars is actually the least of their problems.
I could go on and on but I'll just say...Tesla.
According to you, there are far many details and technologies that a young upstart car company cannot handle and must consider to enter the car market. Tesla is growing fast but I bet 5 years ago most people would have said the same thing you are still saying.
Now multiply Tesla x 1000 and you have Apple. Apple is all about materials. They design and build machines and factories to make their own devices. I think the manufacturing and details involved with cars is actually the least of their problems.
I could go on and, but I'll just say... unprofitable.
The automobile industry has not been reinvented by Tesla just because Elon Musk says so. He is hardly the first person to make that claim. The last person who can say he actually did it was Henry Ford. Historically, that is the rated difficulty of the dive. It's an 11 on a scale of one to 10.
I could go on and, but I'll just say... unprofitable.
The automobile industry has not been reinvented by Tesla just because Elon Musk says so. He is hardly the first person to make that claim. The last person who can say he actually did it was Henry Ford. Historically, that is the rated difficulty of the dive. It's an 11 on a scale of one to 10.
Unprofitable? That depends on whom you ask. The big 3 or 4 or whatever it is now might have great marketshare but not great profits but neither do Android phonemakers.
Ask the high end car makers if they're hurting. Apple doesn't have to sell everyone in the world a car in order to make billions and also change the industry. They've done with several products already.
Who said Tesla changed the car industry? I bring up Tesla because you said new carmakers to the industry couldn't get a foothold.
Carmakers have no secret sauce. Virtually none of them make their own parts. They just combine pre-made chassis and parts from 3rd party manufacturers like legos until they get a car they like. Tesla and high-end car makers are the few exceptions.
Do you really think Apple has any interest in creating a low cost, me too car?
I've already suggested one possible source: Tesla. If Elon can do it, we can do it, and in fact we have a few ideas how we could do it better.
Here's another: retail stores. When we had the idea to build a retail store network, we didn't know a damned thing about how to do it. Now we have the best retail system in the world, we've won every award, we've saved iconic buildings and neighborhoods, we've become the one of the world's experts in using architectural glass, and so on. And we're making money, more per square foot etc., etc.
Here:s another: when we started building our data centers, we didn't know anything about renewable energy. Now we're the world's leading etc., etc.
Another: our first real workspace designed for our new global design and manufacturing firm is going to redefine how people work together in a building that doesn't seem like a building, thanks to what we've learned about curved glass in our retail stores. ("We have reinvented architecture.")
They could also argue that they invented the integrated, globally sourced microtechnology corporation, starting with the little hard drive they glommed onto for the first iPod.
Then there's the unspoken principle that drives them: design and care in manufacture with the user in mind conquers anything.
There is a cooling/heating system for the main battery to keep it in its optimum operating temperature range.
I believe battery coolant is in the sealed system. That means there's no change ever. So, no mechanic is needed for that task either.