The self-driving technology is only one piece of the puzzle. Right now Tesla already has a great car on the road, but their competitive advantage is the giga factory and battery technology. Also, it could be a decade before self driving cars are legal in many parts of the world.
Apple lacks a competitive advantage... besides lots and lots of cash.
Tesla is likely to face financing issues as they continue to scale up production. At the right price (when Tesla gets desperate) Apple is likely to purchase part or the entirety of Tesla. Merging Apples and Teslas efforts, and giving it an Apple 'lookNfeel' should be fairly easy.
Apple building the entire vehicle never really made sense. They would have had to outsource production anyways... Did you really want a Chinese made vehicle?
Im not saying China won't make good vehicles eventually, but you make vehicles close to the customer, and automation at the factory (robotics) is more important that cheap labor costs. (Also, Chinese labor costs are going up)
This is good news for Apple. They needed more focus in their strategy, and reinventing the wheel was a wasted effort.
This car project of their's seems to be a mess. Everybody seems to be working on autonomous electric vehicles nowadays, with many of these companies way ahead of Apple. There's nothing Apple can offer over anybody else. They should just cut their losses and mothball this money pit of a project.
What features are they behind on? I've never met an insider so I'm curious.
The self-driving technology is only one piece of the puzzle. Right now Tesla already has a great car on the road, but their competitive advantage is the giga factory and battery technology. Also, it could be a decade before self driving cars are legal in many parts of the world.
Apple lacks a competitive advantage... besides lots and lots of cash. ...
On the contrary, Apple has several competitive advantages.
1. Apple Maps + Coherent navigation 2. Apple Beacons 3. Iris Engine and Iris Photo Engine. 4. Hollow Core Battery (Orange Power) 5. CarPlay + SIRI
Instead of designing and producing a full-fledged self-driving car, the company has shifted focus to work on backbone autonomous vehicle technology, the report said.
...
Underscoring Apple's new direction, the company earlier this year hired founder and former CEO of QNX Dan Dodge. Acquired by BlackBerry in 2010, QNX specializes in embedded operating systems, particularly those applied to in-car infotainment solutions. ...
This makes sense, Apple is good at OSes, communication (protocols) and the dedicated chips to implement it all. So the QNX hiring fits nicely in this picture. Apple isn't good at AI, and car tech in general, especially because other groups are already (trying) to define the field. So it's best to let others do that.
A "carOS" requires a car. Apple doesn't have great success licensing their OS to 3rd parties.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Probably because of patents. From a blank slate, you need 20 years to roll out a product in the US. If you can not license those patents, then you will be hobbled until you can patent something your competition can not. This is why the iPhone was successful and no other smartphone really edged out dumbphones (Microsoft was the leader in smartphone OS's before Blackberry started to produce PDA-like devices) until there had been 20 years of PDA's already (circa 1993 with the Newton or so.) Most of the patents involved with Smartphones now simply revolve around the modem and hardware-accelerated video/audio codecs. Anyone can produce one, but if they don't want to license a laundry list of things to save $150 off the Radio parts they have to release early-3G hardware (which patents go back to 1992) and can't use ARM-compatible hardware, which is pretty much the only thing going into smartphones now.
The automobile industry has an entire CENTURY of experience. Tesla got the first mover advantage in the electric car after nobody would fully commit to it. Toyota is still the market leader in hybrids because of that. For Apple to invent a car from scratch, and put it into production, just was not going to happen. You can't make them in China and bring them back here. You need to produce an entire automated factory to get any scale, and unlike the iPhone you can't just produce a billion dollars worth of goods and expect them to be sold out on day one. That is an investment that is not going to be recouped for 20 years.
Tesla isn't really selling cars, they are selling "carbon offsets", polluting industries buy the credits from Tesla, and Tesla puts green non-polluting cars on the road. Essentially a win-win as long as there are businesses willing to buy. Those "green" cars would likely have no reason to exist otherwise.
As far as automation goes, I think this is where Apple may still have some ambition. Apple could, and likely should, license out a "complete car" reference design much in the same way ARM would licence hardware and Microsoft would licence an OS, and companies like Porsche, BMW and Mercedes would licence the design and the software, make their own trim levels (eg leather or cloth interiors) but will not be permitted to "Fragment" the ecosystem by putting incompatible hardware or software in the car. Thus any Apple iCar or whatever they want to call it would be produced by any automobile manufacturer that commits to that reference platform. A BMW iCar and a Mercedes iCar would look like a BMW or Mercedes on the outside and inside, but behave identically when the automation systems are running.
I have always felt as if this car project was distracting Apple and monopolizing valuable intellectual energy that should have been channeled to developing more innovative and better designed practical products.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
They could be watching how Rimac Automobile has fared since being founded about 7 years ago. Rimac intended to build electric cars, but found that the way the auto industry develops vehicles to be wholly impractical and inefficient (expensive). Instead of buying the parts he required (couldn't afford them) Rimac developed his own, and is now very profitable selling these superior parts to established auto manufacturers desiring to get into the electric vehicle business.
By the way, Rimac manufacturers the world's fastest electric car, the Concept One.
I should have been more specific on the Concept One's speed.
In a head to head race with a Ferrari LaFerrari, which the Concept One won, top speed of 221mph was registered in a quarter mile race. Track top speed is much, much higher than that.
I said in the past that Apple wasn't just going to build a whole car. Everything on this topic has been rumours anyway. There is an l8tr that goes into building cars. Look at Tesla. They built a huge factory just to build battery's. Foxconn doesn't build cars. Other car manufactures building energetic cars have gone to outside sources for all the electric car parts for their cars like Ford and their focus.
There's no guarantee Tesla will even be around in 5-10 years. The company just sought out another 1/2 billion in new loans. They seem to be teetering on the edge of failure more often and if they miss their deliveries or sales goals too often, they're toast. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that Musk is working like a man possessed to make Tesla and SpaceX work, but he's rushing it because he has to rush it. He has almost no cushion.
No guarantee, yes. But I wouldn't bet against Tesla. He took out some new big loans but the company is far in the lead in the electric car market and that market is set to explode with the launch of the Model 3. All up side. They'll also be selling people home batteries and solar panels to charge their car and power their home. They are well positioned.
[Tesla] have built a large charging network across the world.
What a ridiculous, laughable assertion. Stopped reading right there.
What's ridiculous about it? There are 703 Supercharger stations with 4,343 Superchargers on 4 continents: North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It's not everywhere in the world, but it's across the world, in the same vein that Apple Stores across the world—only 486 of those and they had a much longer head start. You might as well say that McDonald's being world-wide is a laughable assertion because there isn't a restaurant on the summit of Everest (there is a Starbucks¡).
There's 10,000 Seven Eleven's in North America, not to count all the other gas stations, restaurants, fast food establishments, any of which are primed for EV charging stations.
Um, you do understand that this helps Tesla sell more cars, not hinders it. One the main reasons people who can afford and want a Tesla are still holding back is because gas stations are so commonplace right now. When that increases then interest in Tesla also increases.
Tesla could as easily end up as Saturn, which never made any money and was heavily subsidized by GM.
1) What did Saturn ever do to revolutionize the automobile's underlying technologies? Again, whether Tesla as a company grows into a juggernaut that can buy, say, GM, or whether they are eventually sold to, say, Ford, it makes no difference when your argument is that Tesla is a "ridiculous" and "pointless" company that has "done nothing" for the automotive industry.
2) It's a weird argument when your claim that Tesla sucks is because a) they have debt, and 2) they aren't the biggest. Perhaps you should stop looking at every company like its Apple, and maybe do a little research to see that the Big 3 in the US and Japan have had massive debts, been on the brink of bankruptcy, and many have taken bailouts. Additionally, you should look at what automobile brands have the largest mindshare that sell considerably fewer units than Tesla.
How does that relate to the story? Auto manufacturers have huge levels of assets, a barrier to entry that Tesla, Apple, and others have to penetrate, and most are used to operating on low margins for cars, or put better, they prefer to sell SUV's, Pickups and upscale models. At the time of GM's bankruptcy, there was some 40% of overcapacity in the industry. Tesla needs to prove that it can make money in the automotive business.
I find your comments immeasurably odd because we've seen this happen time and time again when market dynamics change. We've even seen in the car industry… within most of our lifetimes.
We've even seen in the car industry… within most of our lifetimes.
1. I’m leaving the entire chain so that we can eventually make it black, and also to highlight the sheer stupidity of allowing perpetually nested quotes. 2. When the subprime auto loan bubble pops, prepare to see the most chaos the industry has ever experienced.
I'm still amazed that people think it's better for Apple NOT to make the whole widget. When has that ever been successful for them in the past? Why would they just want to be a piece of technology in somebody else's consumer product?
I'm starting to wonder if Apple is paralyzed by their obsession with perfection. With all of their money and staff and the opportunities in connected home, wearables, VR, auto and beyond—how is it possible that all we've gotten is an OK watch? I'm not saying I want them to release any old junk, but there is a threshold after which perfection in detail simply doesn't matter as much as having a real product in hand. A lot of artists and creator-driven companies get caught in an echo chamber of high expectations and lose site of just how good what they've already created is. Release, iterate, perfect over time so I can have more Apple, sooner!
I'm confused by your comment. What do you mean by "all we've gotten." You know they just announced new iPhones this week with amazing new innovations, right? Or is this where you only think a company is innovating if it's a completely new product category, because Steve Jobs had a new one every year, right?¡ What decade did the Mac come out, and then how much time passed before the iPod first appeared, and then how much time before the iOS-based devices, and then the Apple Watch, which was just last year.
I didn't see anything at the keynote that I'd consider an "amazing innovation," that is Apple's executive hyperbole. Nice upgrades? Sure. Not amazing. I also didn't use the word innovation to describe anything in my comment. I simply said I would like to see Apple branch out into new categories. I call b.s. on the tired comparison to the pace of product release in Jobs' time at the company -- Apple today is massively bigger, why is all of that extra staff and their hoards of money not adding up to a faster pace of product release? As I stated, I'm not looking for revolutionary new categories like the iPhone (that's an impossibly rare thing), I'm looking for some well done, enjoyable products that make life better.
(1) laid few (dozen) off from the mix of 1000 is far from "shut down" - unless those are key personnel. not position, but tech skill. Did I miss something? I would need more info than the article provided to assessing the conclusion those authors. (2) there are many competitors in the field that ahead in product development. it is not valid concern: ipod days, there were many mp3 players, but no ipod. Personally, i believe the key issue for self driving car is not resolved - you got optical (camera), IR, radar, ultrasound, approximity sensor of various kind. so much data need to process, what are critical - what are noise - in relation to the navigation and safety are not yet even remotely defined (not like the insect eye - only detect the moving predator). so far, the array of sensor still facing challenges for basic weather elements. (3) I do like apple making design of car - hopefully, it would be beautiful (matter of fact, I do like Mac-Pro - love the efficiency of thermal management, space allocation and classic industry look), hardware software integrated with seamless (not like many enfosys, you know it was after thought). an x-bow type light weight plus reliable gps controlled car may be good enough for me to hand in my drivers license - wait... do I still need it to vote for president ? (4) yes, look like few key pieces for self driving car are still missing, semi-self like half baked cake. a lot need to be done, more needed as integration. it is always hard to bring different field together, hardware/software/AI/mechanical.... a lot need to be learned from NASA how to integrate team. (5) self drive car tech is not mature, the fault may causes life lost possibility (a bit less in term of risk factor than airplane - you can not afford to re-set, re-boot, stalled in mid air). Better be good, not just good enough. Sammy's boom battery , regardless design/mfg fault should be counted at risk mitigation review for car...hopefully, apple car not use too much Li - just not enough out there in the world. Looking forward to see what come out from apple car - icar?
I'm starting to wonder if Apple is paralyzed by their obsession with perfection. With all of their money and staff and the opportunities in connected home, wearables, VR, auto and beyond—how is it possible that all we've gotten is an OK watch? I'm not saying I want them to release any old junk, but there is a threshold after which perfection in detail simply doesn't matter as much as having a real product in hand. A lot of artists and creator-driven companies get caught in an echo chamber of high expectations and lose site of just how good what they've already created is. Release, iterate, perfect over time so I can have more Apple, sooner!
wait so which is it -- is it that apple has "only" released a merely OK watch, or is it that they not releasing un-finished products early enough? you seem to be making contradictory claims.
I didn't say they should release unfinished products, I said they should be careful not to over-finish products or become paralyzed by the belief that a product must be absolute perfection. I'd actually love to see more OK releases in a wider range of categories.
I'm starting to wonder if Apple is paralyzed by their obsession with perfection. With all of their money and staff and the opportunities in connected home, wearables, VR, auto and beyond—how is it possible that all we've gotten is an OK watch? I'm not saying I want them to release any old junk, but there is a threshold after which perfection in detail simply doesn't matter as much as having a real product in hand. A lot of artists and creator-driven companies get caught in an echo chamber of high expectations and lose site of just how good what they've already created is. Release, iterate, perfect over time so I can have more Apple, sooner!
I'm confused by your comment. What do you mean by "all we've gotten." You know they just announced new iPhones this week with amazing new innovations, right? Or is this where you only think a company is innovating if it's a completely new product category, because Steve Jobs had a new one every year, right?¡ What decade did the Mac come out, and then how much time passed before the iPod first appeared, and then how much time before the iOS-based devices, and then the Apple Watch, which was just last year.
I didn't see anything at the keynote that I'd consider an "amazing innovation," […] As I stated, I'm not looking for revolutionary new categories like the iPhone (that's an impossibly rare thing), I'm looking for some well done, enjoyable products that make life better.
1) Then you didn't watch the event. You may think you watched it, but if you don't think the key innovations they did to bring this year's new features to a mass produced phone, smartwatch, etc., but then you either didn't pay attention or you lack the capacity to see.
2) Why are you calling it a keynote when it's a single event, not the start of a conference?
I'm starting to wonder if Apple is paralyzed by their obsession with perfection. With all of their money and staff and the opportunities in connected home, wearables, VR, auto and beyond—how is it possible that all we've gotten is an OK watch? I'm not saying I want them to release any old junk, but there is a threshold after which perfection in detail simply doesn't matter as much as having a real product in hand. A lot of artists and creator-driven companies get caught in an echo chamber of high expectations and lose site of just how good what they've already created is. Release, iterate, perfect over time so I can have more Apple, sooner!
I think that is pretty well a summation of what is happening with the Watch. I have been playing with the first generation, and although it looks very slick the usability can be much approved.
Exactly, they were so precious about the design that the real-world experience got lost. It's a forest for the trees problem, very easy to run into that as a creative when you are obsessing over perfection. All the more reason to aim for great instead of perfect and release it to get feedback and iterate.
Comments
Apple lacks a competitive advantage... besides lots and lots of cash.
Tesla is likely to face financing issues as they continue to scale up production. At the right price (when Tesla gets desperate) Apple is likely to purchase part or the entirety of Tesla. Merging Apples and Teslas efforts, and giving it an Apple 'lookNfeel' should be fairly easy.
Apple building the entire vehicle never really made sense. They would have had to outsource production anyways... Did you really want a Chinese made vehicle?
Im not saying China won't make good vehicles eventually, but you make vehicles close to the customer, and automation at the factory (robotics) is more important that cheap labor costs. (Also, Chinese labor costs are going up)
This is good news for Apple. They needed more focus in their strategy, and reinventing the wheel was a wasted effort.
1. Apple Maps + Coherent navigation
2. Apple Beacons
3. Iris Engine and Iris Photo Engine.
4. Hollow Core Battery (Orange Power)
5. CarPlay + SIRI
The automobile industry has an entire CENTURY of experience. Tesla got the first mover advantage in the electric car after nobody would fully commit to it. Toyota is still the market leader in hybrids because of that. For Apple to invent a car from scratch, and put it into production, just was not going to happen. You can't make them in China and bring them back here. You need to produce an entire automated factory to get any scale, and unlike the iPhone you can't just produce a billion dollars worth of goods and expect them to be sold out on day one. That is an investment that is not going to be recouped for 20 years.
Tesla isn't really selling cars, they are selling "carbon offsets", polluting industries buy the credits from Tesla, and Tesla puts green non-polluting cars on the road. Essentially a win-win as long as there are businesses willing to buy. Those "green" cars would likely have no reason to exist otherwise.
As far as automation goes, I think this is where Apple may still have some ambition. Apple could, and likely should, license out a "complete car" reference design much in the same way ARM would licence hardware and Microsoft would licence an OS, and companies like Porsche, BMW and Mercedes would licence the design and the software, make their own trim levels (eg leather or cloth interiors) but will not be permitted to "Fragment" the ecosystem by putting incompatible hardware or software in the car. Thus any Apple iCar or whatever they want to call it would be produced by any automobile manufacturer that commits to that reference platform. A BMW iCar and a Mercedes iCar would look like a BMW or Mercedes on the outside and inside, but behave identically when the automation systems are running.
By the way, Rimac manufacturers the world's fastest electric car, the Concept One.
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/rimac-concept_one/ke3929.html
0 - 62.5mph (100kmh) in 2.8 seconds. Top speed 221mph.
Rica is profitable supplying the big boys. Could this be the new direction on Apple's rumored and unannounced project? It's as good a rumor as any.
In a head to head race with a Ferrari LaFerrari, which the Concept One won, top speed of 221mph was registered in a quarter mile race. Track top speed is much, much higher than that.
2. When the subprime auto loan bubble pops, prepare to see the most chaos the industry has ever experienced.
(2) there are many competitors in the field that ahead in product development. it is not valid concern: ipod days, there were many mp3 players, but no ipod. Personally, i believe the key issue for self driving car is not resolved - you got optical (camera), IR, radar, ultrasound, approximity sensor of various kind. so much data need to process, what are critical - what are noise - in relation to the navigation and safety are not yet even remotely defined (not like the insect eye - only detect the moving predator). so far, the array of sensor still facing challenges for basic weather elements.
(3) I do like apple making design of car - hopefully, it would be beautiful (matter of fact, I do like Mac-Pro - love the efficiency of thermal management, space allocation and classic industry look), hardware software integrated with seamless (not like many enfosys, you know it was after thought). an x-bow type light weight plus reliable gps controlled car may be good enough for me to hand in my drivers license - wait... do I still need it to vote for president ?
(4) yes, look like few key pieces for self driving car are still missing, semi-self like half baked cake. a lot need to be done, more needed as integration. it is always hard to bring different field together, hardware/software/AI/mechanical.... a lot need to be learned from NASA how to integrate team.
(5) self drive car tech is not mature, the fault may causes life lost possibility (a bit less in term of risk factor than airplane - you can not afford to re-set, re-boot, stalled in mid air). Better be good, not just good enough. Sammy's boom battery , regardless design/mfg fault should be counted at risk mitigation review for car...hopefully, apple car not use too much Li - just not enough out there in the world.
Looking forward to see what come out from apple car - icar?
2) Why are you calling it a keynote when it's a single event, not the start of a conference?