This reminds me when Apple asked Motorola to make a smartphone for them. Might be different, but still reminds me of it. Hyundai makes good reliable cars, which generally look good. They make them affordable also. But if there's someone in the middle, how will they be still affordable, and still both parties making enough money? Then there's the cannibalization question, and dealing with Apple is not the nicest relationship judging from past companies who dealt with them (large sapphire crystals from which to make iPhone screens)
I agree that a US location is key, and maybe Magna could be persuaded to build in the US. And Hyundai/Kia seem to have their hands full with the popularity of their cars now (new Sonata, Palisade, etc.), so they may not have the capacity. And the quote from the Hyundai exec tells me it won't happen. Both want total control. Hyundai are not a contract manufacturer.
So I wonder if Apple may buy or partner with an EV company such as Lucid or Rivian. IMO both companies have taken the time to develop their vehicles and have not made splashy marketing/tweet claims. In other words, a similar behavior to how Apple operate (and total opposite to Nikola and Musk's tweets). And both are located in the US.
Rivian isn't likely, as it has substantial investments from Ford and...Amazon. Lucid on the other hand just completed a US factory in Arizona for electric cars only, and they have had money issues in the past. Their car designs, although somewhat vaporware, are very innovative, but their tentative pricing is even more than "Apple-like" bordering on Maybach-Rolls Royce-like, in the range of $160,000.
Neither Rivian or Lucid is desperate for money now (https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1122459_lucid-motors-gets-real-as-saudi-funding-comes-through). Lucid's first edition all-options "Air" car will start at $160k, but subsequent models should start at similar pricing to the Model S (eventually). This "high end cars first" strategy is what Tesla used with the S and 3 and seemingly with Rivian.
No auto manufacturer wants to be the next Foxconn; they all value their interface with the consumer. Their motive is understandable, but it reminds me exactly of newspapers who don't want Apple's money in exchange for losing their direct connection with the consumer. The problem they all face is that some consumers don't want to interface with the company they buy products from. For example, I'm sick of getting emails from Honda. I feel that Honda doesn't respect me. I'm tempted to avoid Honda on my next car purchase just because of their invasion of my privacy. I truly believe that companies like Honda and NYT would rather lose business than lose their connections with their consumers. And that's their legal right. I defend their right to do bad business and fail.
Well, some auto manufacturers are definitely thinking about it and want to. It's insanity not to, and auto company CEOs with assembly plants who are not thinking about doing it are insane. It's also insane not to think of what they should be manufacturing too. They design, contract parts, and assemble cars. It's all changing to designing batteries, building batteries, designing chips, writing software. What was the capital driver in the past will not be the same in the future.
They may decide that they want the company to have their own identity, but they have to think about what the basis of competition is in the EV car world is and start adjusting now. The current market of relatively stable auto companies are not going to survive the transition to EVs. Palm, Windows, LG, Sony, Nokia, the titans of the feature phone era, did not survive the smartphone transition. Turned out what they were good at, assembling cell phones, gave them no advantage in the smartphone world. Foxconn? They are one of the most prosperous companies in the world.
The basis of competition is going to writing software, having good batteries, utilization of said batteries, designing electric motors, designing highly efficient electric systems. If Hyundai or Toyota or GM or VW think their assembly expertise will protect them from new EV car companies, I think they are in trouble. All these companies should be in full crisis mode right now.
It's perhaps an agonizing decision for Hyundai as they do not know what they want to be, but they have to know the status quo can mean death. Any traditional car company needs to change their company focus now. Being the next Foxconn would be a very very very good position to be in.
No auto manufacturer wants to be the next Foxconn; they all value their interface with the consumer. Their motive is understandable, but it reminds me exactly of newspapers who don't want Apple's money in exchange for losing their direct connection with the consumer. The problem they all face is that some consumers don't want to interface with the company they buy products from. For example, I'm sick of getting emails from Honda. I feel that Honda doesn't respect me. I'm tempted to avoid Honda on my next car purchase just because of their invasion of my privacy. I truly believe that companies like Honda and NYT would rather lose business than lose their connections with their consumers. And that's their legal right. I defend their right to do bad business and fail.
Well, some auto manufacturers are definitely thinking about it and want to. It's insanity not to, and auto company CEOs with assembly plants who are not thinking about doing it are insane. It's also insane not to think of what they should be manufacturing too. They design, contract parts, and assemble cars. It's all changing to designing batteries, building batteries, designing chips, writing software. What was the capital driver in the past will not be the same in the future.
They may decide that they want the company to have their own identity, but they have to think about what the basis of competition is in the EV car world is and start adjusting now. The current market of relatively stable auto companies are not going to survive the transition to EVs. Palm, Windows, LG, Sony, Nokia, the titans of the feature phone era, did not survive the smartphone transition. Turned out what they were good at, assembling cell phones, gave them no advantage in the smartphone world. Foxconn? They are one of the most prosperous companies in the world.
The basis of competition is going to writing software, having good batteries, utilization of said batteries, designing electric motors, designing highly efficient electric systems. If Hyundai or Toyota or GM or VW think their assembly expertise will protect them from new EV car companies, I think they are in trouble. All these companies should be in full crisis mode right now.
It's perhaps an agonizing decision for Hyundai as they do not know what they want to be, but they have to know the status quo can mean death. Any traditional car company needs to change their company focus now. Being the next Foxconn would be a very very very good position to be in.
Bud, what are you talking about? Hyundai, Toyota, GM, VW and all the other major automotive manufacturers already have EV's on the market or soon will. They all have EV roadmaps for the future as well. Your quote is dated in it's premise. None of the things you've written are relevant anymore. The auto industry saw the writing on the wall years ago and adjusted its focus accordingly. To be fair, some adjusted sooner than others, but they've all adjusted. Almost all of them have plug-in hybrids, BEV's, and other alternative fuels projects like hydrogen cell tech.
It's perhaps an agonizing decision for Hyundai as they do not know what they want to be, but they have to know the status quo can mean death. Any traditional car company needs to change their company focus now. Being the next Foxconn would be a very very very good position to be in.
No it wouldn't. First off, Foxconn is a white box manufacturer for a lot more companies than Apple. They also build Amazon Fire devices, Acer laptops, Cisco networking equipment, Dell laptops and PCs, Google devices (consumer ones, servers and networking equipment), HP computers, HMD Global/Nokia, Sony, Microsoft, Lenovo, Visio, Huawei, Xiaomi etc. In a lot of cases, Foxconn manufactures essentially identical devices with the only meaningful difference being the brand sticker. Foxconn could lose Apple's business entirely and still quite possibly be the #1 white box operation. Also, even Foxconn has been credibly accused of using equipment and facilities that were supposed to be reserved for Apple to fill orders for other companies in order to squeeze a bit more revenue. That is mighty revealing!
The landscape is littered with Apple suppliers who declared bankruptcy after Apple used them up and went elsewhere. There have even been Apple suppliers who went bankrupt because they tried to meet Apple's terms during the life of the contract! They would sign a contract to supply massive orders at low margins in return for the ability to charge higher margins from others down the line because being an Apple supplier is like having a gold star ... only for the economic circumstances to change and the low margins become negative margins. Guess what? Apple won't renegotiate to give you a higher margin AND you have to supply ALL the components that you contractually agreed to OR APPLE WILL SUE AND WIN. Either way you go bankrupt so it is best to just fill the order the best you can anyway. And when you go under, Apple just switches to your competitor, who hires your former workers and rents/buys your facilities in order to be able to fill the order.
Apple's relationships with their suppliers are one way streets: to benefit Apple only. They are not designed to benefit the suppliers. You should only supply Apple if you are A. a huge company and B. have no real competition so you are able to force Apple to pay your standard rate and C. have cash flow to survive if Apple decides to play hardball midstream and D. can afford the lawyers to sue if Apple decides to do C. In other words, only deal with Apple if you are a Samsung - no one else makes better screens or memory cards - or Qualcomm (no one can match their LTE and 5G modems). Samsung had the clout to negotiate a deal where Apple was forced to pay a penalty for not ordering a minimum of OLED screens, Qualcomm had the legal ability to get several countries to agree to ban iPhones and iPads from being imported if Apple didn't pay their licensing fees. Imagine if Samsung or Qualcomm were much smaller companies who lacked the clout and lawyers of both.
Do I blame Apple? Of course not. They are a business and it is their job to look out for themselves. But please know that companies who refuse to deal with Apple are just doing the same. If Hyundai decides not to deal with Apple, it is because they justifiably fear that the terms won't benefit them financially and may actually cost them money. As far as having to compete with the Apple Car down the line: Apple is only able to devastate immature markets with bad products like MP3 players and wearables that allowed Apple to define it, making everyone else look like a bad copycat. Apple's attempts to get into more mature markets with good competitors i.e. PCs (IBM was already there and the clones were seen as copying IBM, not Apple), smartphones and tablets (Android came along before it was too late), set top boxes, streaming services, smart speakers, routers, peripherals etc. were nothing like that. So people aren't going to stop buying Fords, BMWs or even Teslas because Apple enters the industry. Especially if these people are already among the 85% of the population that has an Android phone instead of an iPhone (BMW originally didn't want to accommodate Android Auto and even trashed it but were forced to because so many of their customers demanded it), the 65% who own an Android tablet instead of an iPad and the 93% of the population who buys Windows or ChromeOS PCs instead of Macs. For those, if the Apple Car is an "ecosystem device" that locks out everybody else - iTunes on Windows is what makes owning an iPod, iPhone and iPad practical for most people - then you will be looking at very expensive HomePods that are basically worthless to people who don't own other Apple tech and don't subscribe to Apple services. And no, such a car wouldn't be a threat to Hyundai.
No auto manufacturer wants to be the next Foxconn; they all value their interface with the consumer. Their motive is understandable, but it reminds me exactly of newspapers who don't want Apple's money in exchange for losing their direct connection with the consumer. The problem they all face is that some consumers don't want to interface with the company they buy products from. For example, I'm sick of getting emails from Honda. I feel that Honda doesn't respect me. I'm tempted to avoid Honda on my next car purchase just because of their invasion of my privacy. I truly believe that companies like Honda and NYT would rather lose business than lose their connections with their consumers. And that's their legal right. I defend their right to do bad business and fail.
Well, some auto manufacturers are definitely thinking about it and want to. It's insanity not to, and auto company CEOs with assembly plants who are not thinking about doing it are insane. It's also insane not to think of what they should be manufacturing too. They design, contract parts, and assemble cars. It's all changing to designing batteries, building batteries, designing chips, writing software. What was the capital driver in the past will not be the same in the future.
They may decide that they want the company to have their own identity, but they have to think about what the basis of competition is in the EV car world is and start adjusting now. The current market of relatively stable auto companies are not going to survive the transition to EVs. Palm, Windows, LG, Sony, Nokia, the titans of the feature phone era, did not survive the smartphone transition. Turned out what they were good at, assembling cell phones, gave them no advantage in the smartphone world. Foxconn? They are one of the most prosperous companies in the world.
The basis of competition is going to writing software, having good batteries, utilization of said batteries, designing electric motors, designing highly efficient electric systems. If Hyundai or Toyota or GM or VW think their assembly expertise will protect them from new EV car companies, I think they are in trouble. All these companies should be in full crisis mode right now.
It's perhaps an agonizing decision for Hyundai as they do not know what they want to be, but they have to know the status quo can mean death. Any traditional car company needs to change their company focus now. Being the next Foxconn would be a very very very good position to be in.
Bud, what are you talking about? Hyundai, Toyota, GM, VW and all the other major automotive manufacturers already have EV's on the market or soon will. They all have EV roadmaps for the future as well. Your quote is dated in it's premise. None of the things you've written are relevant anymore. The auto industry saw the writing on the wall years ago and adjusted its focus accordingly. To be fair, some adjusted sooner than others, but they've all adjusted. Almost all of them have plug-in hybrids, BEV's, and other alternative fuels projects like hydrogen cell tech.
I think all the traditional car companies are 5 years late at a minimum. What most of them have are compliance cars with their dealer networks having no interest in even selling them. The biggest thing is probably having a good supply chain on batteries, and none of them have good plans on that afaict. The second thing is probably having good software. I don't think any of them are geared up for that.
No auto manufacturer wants to be the next Foxconn; they all value their interface with the consumer. Their motive is understandable, but it reminds me exactly of newspapers who don't want Apple's money in exchange for losing their direct connection with the consumer. The problem they all face is that some consumers don't want to interface with the company they buy products from. For example, I'm sick of getting emails from Honda. I feel that Honda doesn't respect me. I'm tempted to avoid Honda on my next car purchase just because of their invasion of my privacy. I truly believe that companies like Honda and NYT would rather lose business than lose their connections with their consumers. And that's their legal right. I defend their right to do bad business and fail.
Well, some auto manufacturers are definitely thinking about it and want to. It's insanity not to, and auto company CEOs with assembly plants who are not thinking about doing it are insane. It's also insane not to think of what they should be manufacturing too. They design, contract parts, and assemble cars. It's all changing to designing batteries, building batteries, designing chips, writing software. What was the capital driver in the past will not be the same in the future.
They may decide that they want the company to have their own identity, but they have to think about what the basis of competition is in the EV car world is and start adjusting now. The current market of relatively stable auto companies are not going to survive the transition to EVs. Palm, Windows, LG, Sony, Nokia, the titans of the feature phone era, did not survive the smartphone transition. Turned out what they were good at, assembling cell phones, gave them no advantage in the smartphone world. Foxconn? They are one of the most prosperous companies in the world.
The basis of competition is going to writing software, having good batteries, utilization of said batteries, designing electric motors, designing highly efficient electric systems. If Hyundai or Toyota or GM or VW think their assembly expertise will protect them from new EV car companies, I think they are in trouble. All these companies should be in full crisis mode right now.
It's perhaps an agonizing decision for Hyundai as they do not know what they want to be, but they have to know the status quo can mean death. Any traditional car company needs to change their company focus now. Being the next Foxconn would be a very very very good position to be in.
Bud, what are you talking about? Hyundai, Toyota, GM, VW and all the other major automotive manufacturers already have EV's on the market or soon will. They all have EV roadmaps for the future as well. Your quote is dated in it's premise. None of the things you've written are relevant anymore. The auto industry saw the writing on the wall years ago and adjusted its focus accordingly. To be fair, some adjusted sooner than others, but they've all adjusted. Almost all of them have plug-in hybrids, BEV's, and other alternative fuels projects like hydrogen cell tech.
I think all the traditional car companies are 5 years late at a minimum. What most of them have are compliance cars with their dealer networks having no interest in even selling them. The biggest thing is probably having a good supply chain on batteries, and none of them have good plans on that afaict. The second thing is probably having good software. I don't think any of them are geared up for that.
Again, you're stating outdated rhetoric that has no basis in fact. It's almost like you formed your opinions 10 years ago and never bothered to change them. Regardless, everybody has opinions and they won't always agree. You hold yours, I'll hold mine, and we'll both be okay.
As long as it’s manufactured to Apple’s specifications and not just another Hyundai chassis with Apple’s logo and software on it I’m okay. It must be assembled in the U.S. and preferably with UAW plants and workers. That’s the only way, in my opinion, it could succeed with the general public.
Also interesting is that GM has announced they will be all electric by 2035.
The general public doesn't really care where the car is manufactured. I think you are old enough to know that Hondas and Toyotas were far more reliable and much better built cars when they were manufactured in Japan and imported to the US back in the 70s and 80s. You do know that 'American' cars are not manufactured in the US. Most are manufactured in Mexico and Canada. Hondas and Toyotas are now manufactured in US plants, for decades now, and their quality has gone downhill because of it.
Most importantly, no one will be able to afford an Apple Car, if one is ever produced.
Apple entering the auto market is a big mistake. It is like they are throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, and building a car is very expensive. An Apple Car would be ridiculously expensive that no one could afford. Who would service it? Reliability? There are enough bugs with iOS and macOS, would anyone trust an Apple Car? Look how limiting their products have been lately compared to similar products on the market. HomePods and AirPod Max products are severely limited in features, and overpriced. Apple would do something dumb like only allowing the car to make right turns because Apple thinks left turns are dangerous, so they won't let you do them. Apple somehow thinks that since there are a billion iPhone users, that everyone will run out and buy an Apple Car. So not the case.
Apple has a bazillion dollars...they can just build their own plant to build the cars. When it fails, they can convert the plant to build the products that do sell.
Look what happened when customers begged Apple to build a tower Mac Pro after the failed trash can. The Mac Pro with the G5 enclosure started at $2,499. So how does Apple respond? Hey everyone, here is our new Mac Pro and it starts at the low low price of $5,999. Massive groans from the crowd. People begged Apple to make an Apple-Branded display. Here is our $4,999 display with the optional $999 stand! Boos from the crowd. So you can imagine what they will do with a car. Look how many bugs are in the M1 Macs. Faulty cars can kill people. Huge liability for Apple to consider. It will probably be horribly ugly to look at too, and ugly pastel colors.
It's as ridiculous to think of Hyundai as "the boss" as it is to think the world's largest corporation would have chosen Hyundai in the first place. In my 26 years of living in Japan, I've yet to see a single Hyundai on the road. Reasons for that are largely irrelevant as it is a fact that will not suddenly change. Tesla cars too are scarce here, but I suspect price has a lot to do with that. Even so, I've seen a handful of Teslas here over the past year, compared to ZERO Hyundai vehicles. If Apple want's to sell its car in the world's 3rd largest economy with a population of 129 million, Apple really should choose a better manufacturing partner, especially one that actually wants to wholeheartedly work with Apple.
This reminds me when Apple asked Motorola to make a smartphone for them. Might be different, but still reminds me of it. Hyundai makes good reliable cars, which generally look good. They make them affordable also. But if there's someone in the middle, how will they be still affordable, and still both parties making enough money? Then there's the cannibalization question, and dealing with Apple is not the nicest relationship judging from past companies who dealt with them (large sapphire crystals from which to make iPhone screens)
Motorola was a pain to work with according to several engineers who worked at Apple. They said that the Motorola engineers were very rigid and difficult when they tried to explain how they think the ROKR should look and feel.
I think this time Apple is looking for a company that will give them feedback on designs before actually manufacturing them. Hyundai can get a boost out of this buy requiring Apple to exclusively license technology to Hyundai to help sell more Hyundai vehicles. Something like a very high end version of Carplay that also incorporates accessing car info and controls from your iPhone. It would be nice to have Apple technology in a car so you can start your car, adjust the temp of the interior and the seats and steering wheel, and also access all your gauges along with a camera system inside and outside of the car.
For this - they should only think about if it’s profitable over the long term.
they should leave the brand out of it.
It’s like they want there cake and eat it too.
that makes it cloudy
You cannot separate profitability from the product -- of which brand recognition and reputation is a part.
The U.S. has forgotten that the foundation of a business is making a great product cheaper, faster and more reliably. In my living room sits a GE television -- why can I not buy one of those today? Because GE can no longer compete in the global marketplace.
... Instead many Americans think its all about stock price. (GE abandoned their product and instead started selling long term care insurance -- which is now taking them down).
Foreign, especially Asian manufacturers, retain closer ties to their founders and founding principles, and run better organizations that are more focused on long term growth and viability of their product and organization than quarterly profits (and associated bonuses) and stock prices.
Apple recognizes that: So what are the chances of those tables being reversed? Such as: Apple prostituting themselves to work as a subcontractor for Tesla?
The truth is: neither company would go there because both are focused on growing their product (and its reputation) and their business.
Honestly I wouldn't want to partner with Apple on this at all. There are very few car manufactures that have any experience at all building for others. That is one point, but I'm not convinced that Apple has its crap together when it comes to mass producing complex products. When you think about it a Mac or iPhone is not a complex manufacturing endeavor compared to building a car. Beyond that there is a huge number of safety related issues that Apple has never had to address.
It is this production of a safe vehicle that likely has Hyundai executive so concerned. Will Apple be accepting all liability for their design or will they try to saddle Hyundai with producing a safe car. In any event there is enough idle production lines that Apple should have little problem buying up a production line and doing every thing themselves.
There is another aspect to it as well: Decades ago I worked for RCA as a cost accountant. They had a reputation of picking smaller, less powerful vendors so that they could dominate their business and use that as leverage to take advantage of them and force them into deals they would not otherwise accept. Basically, it was extortion.
Apple, reportedly, does much the same -- albeit with a higher level of ethics involved. But regardless, at a minimum, Apple subcontractors tend to lose their independence.
If Hyundai decides to Ditch Apple, and Apple doesn't find another car manufacturer ready to assemble their cars, it will become really tough for Apple. They will have to build their own factories which will further delay the project. Though I wonder why Magna didn't say yes to it. They are basically the Foxconn for car manufacturers. And I am sure Apple must have approached them earlier.
Like you, I think Apple contacted Magna early in the process. Probably one of the first companies Apple contacted. I think 2 things made Magna an unacceptable partner. 1. Location - I really think Apple desires a US assembly location. The infrastructure for manufacturing and assembling their general tech (phones, computers, tablets, etc) is concentrated in Asia. That's not the case for cars, and assembly in the US could even be cheaper. Magna has no N. American plants. It's rumored (again) they're looking to open a N. American plant, but that rumor has surfaced many times over the past couple of decades. 2. Capacity - I've no doubt Magna could handle Apple's initial assembly and volume. Apple's thinking long term. Scale and capacity would be Magna's issue. Magna doesn't have an advantage in ether of those factors that could compete with Hyundai's capacity. Hyundai/Kia has the ability scale their production to meet any capacity Apple may need. Magna doesn't have that ability. They already contract manufacture Jaguar's I-Pace and E-Pace, Toyota's Supra, BMW's 5-Series and Z4, and MB's G-Class.
When this story initially broke, I said Apple was looking for an OEM/contract manufacturer, not a brand partner. Some people are still incorrectly looking at this from a brand partner perspective. Not really sure why. Questions like, "why Hyundai and not BMW, MB, Porsche, or [insert luxury brand here]" still abound. None of those brands would ever consider being an OEM manufacturer. They would have the same concerns that Hyundai is expressing about brand erosion, 'cept their concerns would be magnified because their brands are waaaaaaay more valuable and influential than Hyundai's. That's not a knock on Hyundai. That's just reality.
I agree with you on the aspect of finding a manufacturing partner. I had mentioned the same thing when people were like "Hyundai sucks. Why not BMW?". If Apple has to build its own factories, it's going to make this project much more complex and time consuming, and delay it by a few more years. Though Apple might indirectly partner with Magna in a way they did with Sharp for manufacturing LCD displays. They can pump in half of the money (or more) in Magna required to make a N. American plant. A financial push from Apple, combined with the long term benefits might be enough for Magna to start building a plant in N. America.
I agree that a US location is key,....
Why?
The world's largest auto market is no longer the U.S.
Tesla, Ford and GM are all introducing their most modern, technologically advanced products in a country that shall remain nameless because right wing heads tend to explode at the mere mention of the name.
Comments
Hyundai makes good reliable cars, which generally look good. They make them affordable also. But if there's someone in the middle, how will they be still affordable, and still both parties making enough money? Then there's the cannibalization question, and dealing with Apple is not the nicest relationship judging from past companies who dealt with them (large sapphire crystals from which to make iPhone screens)
They may decide that they want the company to have their own identity, but they have to think about what the basis of competition is in the EV car world is and start adjusting now. The current market of relatively stable auto companies are not going to survive the transition to EVs. Palm, Windows, LG, Sony, Nokia, the titans of the feature phone era, did not survive the smartphone transition. Turned out what they were good at, assembling cell phones, gave them no advantage in the smartphone world. Foxconn? They are one of the most prosperous companies in the world.
The basis of competition is going to writing software, having good batteries, utilization of said batteries, designing electric motors, designing highly efficient electric systems. If Hyundai or Toyota or GM or VW think their assembly expertise will protect them from new EV car companies, I think they are in trouble. All these companies should be in full crisis mode right now.
It's perhaps an agonizing decision for Hyundai as they do not know what they want to be, but they have to know the status quo can mean death. Any traditional car company needs to change their company focus now. Being the next Foxconn would be a very very very good position to be in.
The landscape is littered with Apple suppliers who declared bankruptcy after Apple used them up and went elsewhere. There have even been Apple suppliers who went bankrupt because they tried to meet Apple's terms during the life of the contract! They would sign a contract to supply massive orders at low margins in return for the ability to charge higher margins from others down the line because being an Apple supplier is like having a gold star ... only for the economic circumstances to change and the low margins become negative margins. Guess what? Apple won't renegotiate to give you a higher margin AND you have to supply ALL the components that you contractually agreed to OR APPLE WILL SUE AND WIN. Either way you go bankrupt so it is best to just fill the order the best you can anyway. And when you go under, Apple just switches to your competitor, who hires your former workers and rents/buys your facilities in order to be able to fill the order.
Apple's relationships with their suppliers are one way streets: to benefit Apple only. They are not designed to benefit the suppliers. You should only supply Apple if you are A. a huge company and B. have no real competition so you are able to force Apple to pay your standard rate and C. have cash flow to survive if Apple decides to play hardball midstream and D. can afford the lawyers to sue if Apple decides to do C. In other words, only deal with Apple if you are a Samsung - no one else makes better screens or memory cards - or Qualcomm (no one can match their LTE and 5G modems). Samsung had the clout to negotiate a deal where Apple was forced to pay a penalty for not ordering a minimum of OLED screens, Qualcomm had the legal ability to get several countries to agree to ban iPhones and iPads from being imported if Apple didn't pay their licensing fees. Imagine if Samsung or Qualcomm were much smaller companies who lacked the clout and lawyers of both.
Do I blame Apple? Of course not. They are a business and it is their job to look out for themselves. But please know that companies who refuse to deal with Apple are just doing the same. If Hyundai decides not to deal with Apple, it is because they justifiably fear that the terms won't benefit them financially and may actually cost them money. As far as having to compete with the Apple Car down the line: Apple is only able to devastate immature markets with bad products like MP3 players and wearables that allowed Apple to define it, making everyone else look like a bad copycat. Apple's attempts to get into more mature markets with good competitors i.e. PCs (IBM was already there and the clones were seen as copying IBM, not Apple), smartphones and tablets (Android came along before it was too late), set top boxes, streaming services, smart speakers, routers, peripherals etc. were nothing like that. So people aren't going to stop buying Fords, BMWs or even Teslas because Apple enters the industry. Especially if these people are already among the 85% of the population that has an Android phone instead of an iPhone (BMW originally didn't want to accommodate Android Auto and even trashed it but were forced to because so many of their customers demanded it), the 65% who own an Android tablet instead of an iPad and the 93% of the population who buys Windows or ChromeOS PCs instead of Macs. For those, if the Apple Car is an "ecosystem device" that locks out everybody else - iTunes on Windows is what makes owning an iPod, iPhone and iPad practical for most people - then you will be looking at very expensive HomePods that are basically worthless to people who don't own other Apple tech and don't subscribe to Apple services. And no, such a car wouldn't be a threat to Hyundai.
Most importantly, no one will be able to afford an Apple Car, if one is ever produced.
Apple has a bazillion dollars...they can just build their own plant to build the cars. When it fails, they can convert the plant to build the products that do sell.
Look what happened when customers begged Apple to build a tower Mac Pro after the failed trash can. The Mac Pro with the G5 enclosure started at $2,499. So how does Apple respond? Hey everyone, here is our new Mac Pro and it starts at the low low price of $5,999. Massive groans from the crowd. People begged Apple to make an Apple-Branded display. Here is our $4,999 display with the optional $999 stand! Boos from the crowd. So you can imagine what they will do with a car. Look how many bugs are in the M1 Macs. Faulty cars can kill people. Huge liability for Apple to consider. It will probably be horribly ugly to look at too, and ugly pastel colors.
Can you name two such companies? Or is the landscape “littered” with that dubious sapphire company?