I think you are right, we are seeing things differently.
You are right, comparing something like Moores law to vehicles, or anything else for that matter is out of place. As advanced as agriculture, medicine, new ways to extract energy from the ground, sun, wind, hydro, or other applied sciences have become, they cannot compete with something like Moores law. Moores law can only be applied to a chip with transistors on it. But even Moores law starts to break down as we reach atomic scales. Or find new materials or methods of computing.
All I can say is I have owned well over a dozen vehicles, both cars and trucks, in just the last 20 years and there is an appreciable increase every single year in quality, efficiency, ride, handling, reliability, safety, incorporation of technology etc.
That being said I have never owned a Prius, have only driven the same one from time to time. So I have no take on how they have or have not changed over the years. So you would know far better than me for that particular model.
So shake hands and agree to disagree?
I'm not saying there's no appreciable difference. I'm just saying the scales are completely different and nearly impossible to measure in the first place. Do you get 2x horsepower every year? Does your ride get 2x better every year? Do you get 2x more MPG every year? You cannot tell me this is true for cars without lying but I can tell you this is true for phones and many consumer electronics and you would have to agree. This slow rate of improvement will not change in the auto industry unless there is a disruption and even then, there are certain limitations of physics that cannot be overcome. But the auto industry has had plenty of time to do this. It's time to give the tech industry a shot at it.
This reminds me of ballmer laughing at original iPhone. This reminds me of blackberry laughing at original iPhone. This reminds me of swatch laughing at Apple Watch. Apple will come in and dominate a market. They're no laughing matter and taking them seriously and being honest about it would be better for musk and tesla than laughing.
Nah, he's making expensive toys for the wealthy elites in California that want to feel good about themselves by driving electric. His affordable EV won't even be available until 2018-2019. We might even have an Apple car by then.
And Apple doesn't know anything about building "real hardware"? Give me a break. Musk's background wasn't in the automotive industry. Tim Cook is a master of manufacturing and supply chain. Apple has the money and can hire the talent to build an EV if they want to. Many Apple employees working on this project have automotive experience and Apple's CFO came from GM.
Aren't these the same arguments you're making against the Swiss mechanical watchmakers not being able to compete with the ?Watch, which you're predicting will drive them out of business?
Perhaps Tesla has nothing to worry about with respect to Apple but that doesn't mean they have nothing to worry about in general. The stock was just downgraded today over model X concerns.
Why? What is it that Tesla has that Apple couldn't replicate?
You mean just like Apple stock being down for the last month? Yeah, you can tell so much about the long term performance of a company by the current state of its stock. /s but please do keep gracing us all with your insight and balanced unbiased commentary. You're on fire today! The only thing you haven't done is post misleading photos to prove a subjective point that isn't otherwise true.
This doesn't change my view of Musk at all. What did you expect him to do when asked such a question? Crap his pants? Genuflect to Cupertino and offer to retire? Anyone who didn't talk smack about their competitors when asked this kind of questions is bound to get an unpleasant call from a board of directors.
Of course, Apple's got enough cash to fill some really DEEP money pits, and unlike Tesla, they're turning a significant profit, so all his talk may all just be whistling past said "graveyard."
I think you are right, we are seeing things differently.
You are right, comparing something like Moores law to vehicles, or anything else for that matter is out of place. As advanced as agriculture, medicine, new ways to extract energy from the ground, sun, wind, hydro, or other applied sciences have become, they cannot compete with something like Moores law. Moores law can only be applied to a chip with transistors on it. But even Moores law starts to break down as we reach atomic scales. Or find new materials or methods of computing.
All I can say is I have owned well over a dozen vehicles, both cars and trucks, in just the last 20 years and there is an appreciable increase every single year in quality, efficiency, ride, handling, reliability, safety, incorporation of technology etc.
That being said I have never owned a Prius, have only driven the same one from time to time. So I have no take on how they have or have not changed over the years. So you would know far better than me for that particular model.
So shake hands and agree to disagree?
I'm not saying there's no appreciable difference. I'm just saying the scales are completely different and nearly impossible to measure in the first place. Do you get 2x horsepower every year? Does your ride get 2x better every year? Do you get 2x more MPG every year? You cannot tell me this is true for cars without lying but I can tell you this is true for phones and many consumer electronics and you would have to agree. This slow rate of improvement will not change in the auto industry unless there is a disruption and even then, there are certain limitations of physics that cannot be overcome. But the auto industry has had plenty of time to do this. It's time to give the tech industry a shot at it.
I think you missed the point and main thrust of my post:
Moores law can only be applied to a chip with transistors on it.
If you think that the tech industry can step in and double the everything in a car every year or even every 5 years, I would love to see it. But in the real world that is impossible and it ain't happening.
The tech industry can build great cars as evidenced by Tesla. Those are really nice, have incredibly great performance, are safe, have tons of neat technology, etc. The only problem is unless all of our electricity coming from totally clean sources the "miles per gallon" and pollution is simply being kicked somewhere else.
Also for example, all of that lithium for all those batteries needs to come from somewhere. Unless we find more of it, we are in the same position as running out of fossil fuel. So portable energy storage technology will have to make some serious leaps and bounds as well.
The entire global system is incredibly complex and there is no free lunch, at least not yet.
My bet is that hydrogen is the future. Its burns (converts into energy) clean and be produced from one the most abundant molecules on the planet which is water. We just need to figure out how to tap it cheaply, safely and efficiently.
I just stated the facts, as I know them, Apple has no proven track record in this respect , Elon Musk has.
your argument is broken because Musk himself was a website operator when he began his career, and extended that with PayPal, another web company. he had no experience in cars. therefore, it can be concluded that one needn't to have experience in cars to build successful cars. Tesla exec management is living proof.
This doesn't change my view of Musk at all. What did you expect him to do when asked such a question? Crap his pants? Genuflect to Cupertino and offer to retire? Anyone who didn't talk smack about their competitors when asked this kind of questions is bound to get an unpleasant call from a board of directors.
Of course, Apple's got enough cash to fill some really DEEP money pits, and unlike Tesla, they're turning a significant profit, so all his talk may all just be whistling past said "graveyard."
Yes, we all seem to forget Steve Jobs talking about the competitions mini tablets needing sandpaper to make your fingertips small enough to effectively use it ... And now we have the iPad mini. These guys talk trash about the competition all the time, including Jobs.
Yes, we all seem to forget Steve Jobs talking about the competitions mini tablets needing sandpaper to make your fingertips small enough to effectively use it ... And now we have the iPad mini. These guys talk trash about the competition all the time, including Jobs.
when did Jobs ever trash ex employees and companies that aren't even competitiors, based on rumors alone?
Right, because wiki's are THE official source of information. If you knew anything about Musk and ever watched his interviews or read the numerous articles about him you'd know he's VERY involved on the technical side of the companies he creates.
Musk ONLY co-created Paypal, is ONLY the chairman of SolarCity, ONLY created SpaceX that builds rockets better than NASA at a tenth of the cost, and ONLY started the first successful new car company in the last 100 years in the US. The Model S is ONLY the best product ever made in any category, according to Consumer Reports.
again -- you've not indicated how he's an engineer. doesn't have an EE degree. resume is web. money guy for SpaceX.
I don't see where he's engineering things personally as you claim. back it up with fact or suck eggs.
Wonder if he jumps around like a monkey at company meetings too, twisting his ankle while he's at it I ..... Love ...... This ...... Company ..... YEAAAAHHH!!
Yes, we all seem to forget Steve Jobs talking about the competitions mini tablets needing sandpaper to make your fingertips small enough to effectively use it ... And now we have the iPad mini. These guys talk trash about the competition all the time, including Jobs.
I wasn't aware Apple is selling cars or batteries. Apple may be competiton in the future but it's not now. And I feel the same way when Apple throws shade. Go look at my comments when Tim Cook went after Google (without mentioning them by name) alledging they were doing nefarious things with your photos. Of course Apple is no where near close to matching Google in machine learning so of course Cook is going to change the subject to privacy. Doesn't mean I agree with it,
He is risking a TON on Tesla. He has personal guarantees on many of the loans. If things go south he could lose billions of his personal money.
Keeping this in mind Musk is probabily pissed off that some of his best employees are leaving for greener pastures. He probably feels a level of betrayal. He probably felt these employees would be more loyal and stick it out.
But I can't blame the employees. They have families to feed. And when you see a company is losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year you gotta feel uneasy. For Musk this is his life. For his employees its just a paycheck to get through life.
This is all a bit fascinating considering earlier this year we had that story about Musk and Jony Ive being deep in conversation at an exclusive Vanity Fair Oscars party. I believe it was an exclusive scoop on this site. Now Musk is throwing shade at ?Watch, and ?Pencil.
You win the award for most dilusional post of the year.
1. PayPal essentially created online banking. He sold if years ago so Paypal's current state has nothing to do with Musk.
2. SpaceX is the only rocket company that actually builds their technology from scratch. I think you have SpaceX confused with Boeing and the other dinosaurs.
3. Tesla makes about 30% margin on their cars. They reinvest their money into R&D and the GigaFactory.
Please do a little research before spewing your fake analysis.
Take out the gas engine, install a magneto and electric motor, and you've taken 90% of the hassle out of gas car. The ONLY big issue is batteries and massaging their storage versus bursting into flames by pushing the load capacity.
Bingo. Billions upon billions of dollars were and are spent to generate incremental improvements in fuel economy and emissions control. Outside of the ICE, there is little institutional proprietary knowledge that goes into the rest of the automobile. Apple can hire the talent and know-how needed for suspension systems, chassis design, car interiors, etc. Just like what Tesla did.
All that knowledge on ICEs that Toyota, Porsche, Ford etc. have amassed, they will suddenly become virtually worthless. At least commercially.
When electric motors finally supplant the ICE, it will be like quartz movements muscling out mechanical movements in watches (and now silicon kicking out quartz.) Nothing beats the thrill and romance of cylinders growling underneath your hood though so I wouldn't be surprised if ICE cars go the way of very high end watches, unless governments kill them through legislation.
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in the thread.
The tech industry is amazing no doubt, but cars are definitely a whole other level versus consumer electronics. They use a lot of the tech that found inside inside consumer electronics in addition to engineering a ton of moving parts.
With every year that passes vehicles consistently get better mileage with more power and fewer emissions (unless you drive a VW diesel), better ride, better handling, better crash protection, more tech features, etc. The list is nearly endless with how much better vehicles get every year.
They are more reliable than they have ever been, easily run 10,000 miles between oil changes, and will easily run for a quarter million miles with nominal maintenance.
Also there is a reason many vehicles look similar these days and that is because of air friction. Much like how most planes or high speed trains look similar. Wind tunnel testing shows that to achieve an efficient drag coefficient design means the body of the vehicle can only venture so far from one another. As far as vehicles like trucks and commercial vehicles go, there are certain levels of capacity and utility that needs to be maintained, so they too will all look similar.
Better milage, fewer emissions, 10,000 miles between oil changes . . . All these are internal combustion engine issues. They are immaterial to the discussion. The other technologies, Apple can easily acquire them by hiring knowledgeable engineers, just like Tesla did.
Musk sounds like Michael Dell when the latter made the comment about selling off Apple and returning the money back to its stockholders back in the late 90's when Steve a Jobs rejoined Apple.
your argument is broken because Musk himself was a website operator when he began his career, and extended that with PayPal, another web company. he had no experience in cars. therefore, it can be concluded that one needn't to have experience in cars to build successful cars. Tesla exec management is living proof.
oops.
I was talking about the facts.
Never said that Apple couldn't do it in principle, I only doubt they can do it in practice, that's why I stated that they have to prove themselves and Musk already has.
Concluding that one IT person is successful building cars (which I agree with) doesn't make it a law.
Musk success comes from a very special insight in this kind of technology, similar, I think to Steve Jobs insight in the future of some consumer appliances.
Currently I haven't seen such insight from anyone at Apple.
Comments
I think you are right, we are seeing things differently.
You are right, comparing something like Moores law to vehicles, or anything else for that matter is out of place. As advanced as agriculture, medicine, new ways to extract energy from the ground, sun, wind, hydro, or other applied sciences have become, they cannot compete with something like Moores law. Moores law can only be applied to a chip with transistors on it. But even Moores law starts to break down as we reach atomic scales. Or find new materials or methods of computing.
All I can say is I have owned well over a dozen vehicles, both cars and trucks, in just the last 20 years and there is an appreciable increase every single year in quality, efficiency, ride, handling, reliability, safety, incorporation of technology etc.
That being said I have never owned a Prius, have only driven the same one from time to time. So I have no take on how they have or have not changed over the years. So you would know far better than me for that particular model.
So shake hands and agree to disagree?
I'm not saying there's no appreciable difference. I'm just saying the scales are completely different and nearly impossible to measure in the first place. Do you get 2x horsepower every year? Does your ride get 2x better every year? Do you get 2x more MPG every year? You cannot tell me this is true for cars without lying but I can tell you this is true for phones and many consumer electronics and you would have to agree. This slow rate of improvement will not change in the auto industry unless there is a disruption and even then, there are certain limitations of physics that cannot be overcome. But the auto industry has had plenty of time to do this. It's time to give the tech industry a shot at it.
You're right, Tesla probably won't race out to co-brand a car with Hermes to include a custom leather interior, with Hermes name on the hood.
you are such a hypocrite. Now who's the snob?
Aren't these the same arguments you're making against the Swiss mechanical watchmakers not being able to compete with the ?Watch, which you're predicting will drive them out of business?
You mean just like Apple stock being down for the last month? Yeah, you can tell so much about the long term performance of a company by the current state of its stock. /s but please do keep gracing us all with your insight and balanced unbiased commentary. You're on fire today! The only thing you haven't done is post misleading photos to prove a subjective point that isn't otherwise true.
Wow.
Rubbishing ex-employees in public.
Classy.
Of course, Apple's got enough cash to fill some really DEEP money pits, and unlike Tesla, they're turning a significant profit, so all his talk may all just be whistling past said "graveyard."
what nonsense is this? Apple is the poster child of a company not guided by profits alone. listen to their earnings calls sometime.
I think you are right, we are seeing things differently.
You are right, comparing something like Moores law to vehicles, or anything else for that matter is out of place. As advanced as agriculture, medicine, new ways to extract energy from the ground, sun, wind, hydro, or other applied sciences have become, they cannot compete with something like Moores law. Moores law can only be applied to a chip with transistors on it. But even Moores law starts to break down as we reach atomic scales. Or find new materials or methods of computing.
All I can say is I have owned well over a dozen vehicles, both cars and trucks, in just the last 20 years and there is an appreciable increase every single year in quality, efficiency, ride, handling, reliability, safety, incorporation of technology etc.
That being said I have never owned a Prius, have only driven the same one from time to time. So I have no take on how they have or have not changed over the years. So you would know far better than me for that particular model.
So shake hands and agree to disagree?
I'm not saying there's no appreciable difference. I'm just saying the scales are completely different and nearly impossible to measure in the first place. Do you get 2x horsepower every year? Does your ride get 2x better every year? Do you get 2x more MPG every year? You cannot tell me this is true for cars without lying but I can tell you this is true for phones and many consumer electronics and you would have to agree. This slow rate of improvement will not change in the auto industry unless there is a disruption and even then, there are certain limitations of physics that cannot be overcome. But the auto industry has had plenty of time to do this. It's time to give the tech industry a shot at it.
I think you missed the point and main thrust of my post:
Moores law can only be applied to a chip with transistors on it.
If you think that the tech industry can step in and double the everything in a car every year or even every 5 years, I would love to see it. But in the real world that is impossible and it ain't happening.
The tech industry can build great cars as evidenced by Tesla. Those are really nice, have incredibly great performance, are safe, have tons of neat technology, etc. The only problem is unless all of our electricity coming from totally clean sources the "miles per gallon" and pollution is simply being kicked somewhere else.
Also for example, all of that lithium for all those batteries needs to come from somewhere. Unless we find more of it, we are in the same position as running out of fossil fuel. So portable energy storage technology will have to make some serious leaps and bounds as well.
The entire global system is incredibly complex and there is no free lunch, at least not yet.
My bet is that hydrogen is the future. Its burns (converts into energy) clean and be produced from one the most abundant molecules on the planet which is water. We just need to figure out how to tap it cheaply, safely and efficiently.
your argument is broken because Musk himself was a website operator when he began his career, and extended that with PayPal, another web company. he had no experience in cars. therefore, it can be concluded that one needn't to have experience in cars to build successful cars. Tesla exec management is living proof.
oops.
Yes, we all seem to forget Steve Jobs talking about the competitions mini tablets needing sandpaper to make your fingertips small enough to effectively use it ... And now we have the iPad mini. These guys talk trash about the competition all the time, including Jobs.
when did Jobs ever trash ex employees and companies that aren't even competitiors, based on rumors alone?
again -- you've not indicated how he's an engineer. doesn't have an EE degree. resume is web. money guy for SpaceX.
I don't see where he's engineering things personally as you claim. back it up with fact or suck eggs.
Wonder if he jumps around like a monkey at company meetings too, twisting his ankle while he's at it
I ..... Love ...... This ...... Company ..... YEAAAAHHH!!
Oh, I miss Ballmer sometimes...
I wasn't aware Apple is selling cars or batteries. Apple may be competiton in the future but it's not now. And I feel the same way when Apple throws shade. Go look at my comments when Tim Cook went after Google (without mentioning them by name) alledging they were doing nefarious things with your photos. Of course Apple is no where near close to matching Google in machine learning so of course Cook is going to change the subject to privacy. Doesn't mean I agree with it,
This is all a bit fascinating considering earlier this year we had that story about Musk and Jony Ive being deep in conversation at an exclusive Vanity Fair Oscars party. I believe it was an exclusive scoop on this site. Now Musk is throwing shade at ?Watch, and ?Pencil.
So true.
That's why I said sog has no clue.
If Apple can do that. They have no track record when it comes to car. (I know they didn't for phone either but this is the whole 'nother level.)
I'm not so sure that this is a whole 'nother level.
Take out the gas engine, install a magneto and electric motor, and you've taken 90% of the hassle out of gas car. The ONLY big issue is batteries and massaging their storage versus bursting into flames by pushing the load capacity.
Bingo. Billions upon billions of dollars were and are spent to generate incremental improvements in fuel economy and emissions control. Outside of the ICE, there is little institutional proprietary knowledge that goes into the rest of the automobile. Apple can hire the talent and know-how needed for suspension systems, chassis design, car interiors, etc. Just like what Tesla did.
All that knowledge on ICEs that Toyota, Porsche, Ford etc. have amassed, they will suddenly become virtually worthless. At least commercially.
When electric motors finally supplant the ICE, it will be like quartz movements muscling out mechanical movements in watches (and now silicon kicking out quartz.) Nothing beats the thrill and romance of cylinders growling underneath your hood though so I wouldn't be surprised if ICE cars go the way of very high end watches, unless governments kill them through legislation.
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in the thread.
The tech industry is amazing no doubt, but cars are definitely a whole other level versus consumer electronics. They use a lot of the tech that found inside inside consumer electronics in addition to engineering a ton of moving parts.
With every year that passes vehicles consistently get better mileage with more power and fewer emissions (unless you drive a VW diesel), better ride, better handling, better crash protection, more tech features, etc. The list is nearly endless with how much better vehicles get every year.
They are more reliable than they have ever been, easily run 10,000 miles between oil changes, and will easily run for a quarter million miles with nominal maintenance.
Also there is a reason many vehicles look similar these days and that is because of air friction. Much like how most planes or high speed trains look similar. Wind tunnel testing shows that to achieve an efficient drag coefficient design means the body of the vehicle can only venture so far from one another. As far as vehicles like trucks and commercial vehicles go, there are certain levels of capacity and utility that needs to be maintained, so they too will all look similar.
Better milage, fewer emissions, 10,000 miles between oil changes . . . All these are internal combustion engine issues. They are immaterial to the discussion. The other technologies, Apple can easily acquire them by hiring knowledgeable engineers, just like Tesla did.
I was talking about the facts.
Never said that Apple couldn't do it in principle, I only doubt they can do it in practice, that's why I stated that they have to prove themselves and Musk already has.
Concluding that one IT person is successful building cars (which I agree with) doesn't make it a law.
Musk success comes from a very special insight in this kind of technology, similar, I think to Steve Jobs insight in the future of some consumer appliances.
Currently I haven't seen such insight from anyone at Apple.