So much for going to the Apple website and clicking on the AppleCar product section. I'm sure Elon Musk is laughing harder now than when he became the richest man on the planet. It's already game over for Apple when it comes to EV sales. I can understand why Wall Street is going to put most of its money into Tesla rather than Apple. Big investors are far more excited over EVs than smartphones because share gains will be much higher for Tesla than Apple. EVs have replaced cloud storage as the low-hanging fruit for making unlimited revenue. Apple has now missed out on both. For every Tesla Model S Plaid Plus sold, Apple will have to sell 100 iPhone 13 Pro Max units. Apple shareholders are not going to be happy with that thought. Tesla has now secured the necessary investor mindshare to permanently have a P/E of 1400. Apple will struggle to hold a P/E of 40. Musk wins again as the CEO with the Midas Touch.
There is just one little problem with your claim. EV vehicles are about 1% of the market. Assuming that these allegedly wonderful EV vehicles ever go mass market, there is plenty of room for market share by many others and not just Tesla or Apple. Will be interesting long term if EV vehicles are really great for environment and live up to the hype
It's not "IF".... That's been firmly settled....
Depends how we are generating the electricity to charge these things.
How would you like if your premium car say a bmw uses a Honda chassis and framework? Lol this was the gist of the leak... wrap it, paint it, skin it, add leather, carbon fiber and so on - it’s still a Honda...
An iphone is an iPhone is an iPhone 100% apple.
Except when something goes wrong, then it’s the Foxconn-assembled iPhone, or the Sony-provided camera sensor, etc.
Part of me thinks this entire thing has been a media/analyst creation. Apple has confirmed or denied nothing. Said nothing, hinted at nothing, has spent the past couple of weeks as though nothing was going on.
I’d bet Apple cut ties after the leaks were revealed and accidentally confirmed. Apple isn’t a fan of companies that break NDA’s. Just speculating - but probably not far off the mark.
Reportedly it was Hyundai who rejected Apple.
How do you know the details ? Did Hyundai top management made official statement ? NO, than no one knows other than top management on both side what happened. But, in a nut shell the lesson is Apple does not want it's employees,supply chain or partners talked prematurely about future products.
Certainly nice to see the zero tolerance of the news leak by their chosen partners... regardless whom they choose to use moving forward i would def wish they do like Tesla and do it all themselves even if it means further delays. This way the whole product is truly apple as in an apple car. Just how I see it.
It's taken how long before Apple designed it's own CPU rather than rely on Intel, Motorola, or IBM? Prior to the latest Macs, Apple has always built on someone else's "chassis."
Certainly nice to see the zero tolerance of the news leak by their chosen partners... regardless whom they choose to use moving forward i would def wish they do like Tesla and do it all themselves even if it means further delays. This way the whole product is truly apple as in an apple car. Just how I see it.
Apple owns their own factories for iPhones?
Phones and cars are totally different. Sure they surely know how to source oem and focus on design but with a car entry possibly, the fact they would use a pre-designed platform from the likes of any car manufacturer breaks the norm 100%. It’s not an original car when you use a platform chassis - call it half Kia and half apple is more accurate. With iPhone it’s all apple. If you read the previous posts apple was going with a predefined platform - not too apple like...
what do you do with almost 2-3 trillion liquid? Nothing... at least do it 100% apple not borrow some bs platform from some garbage car maker...
Come on. You understand that market cap (just over 2 trillion dollars) isn't the same as liquid assets (around 100 billion dollars), right? And again, almost every tech Apple has ever made has been an amalgam of "borrowed" tech. How did Apple get great glass for the screens for the iPhone? Steve went to Corning and proposed that they develop what they ultimately branded Gorilla Glass. Apple didn't build a glass factory. In fact, show me any Apple factory anywhere.
So much for going to the Apple website and clicking on the AppleCar product section. I'm sure Elon Musk is laughing harder now than when he became the richest man on the planet. It's already game over for Apple when it comes to EV sales. I can understand why Wall Street is going to put most of its money into Tesla rather than Apple. Big investors are far more excited over EVs than smartphones because share gains will be much higher for Tesla than Apple. EVs have replaced cloud storage as the low-hanging fruit for making unlimited revenue. Apple has now missed out on both. For every Tesla Model S Plaid Plus sold, Apple will have to sell 100 iPhone 13 Pro Max units. Apple shareholders are not going to be happy with that thought. Tesla has now secured the necessary investor mindshare to permanently have a P/E of 1400. Apple will struggle to hold a P/E of 40. Musk wins again as the CEO with the Midas Touch.
Your name is showing. There is no gravy train for making money; it's hard work and entails wins and losses. This may be a setback for Apple (or not; they could announce a deal with someone else--who is more discreet--next month for all we know). To say that Apple has "missed out" on the EV market is hyperbole. As everyone else here has said, it's very early. As to your ratio of phones to Telsas, doesn't Apple already sell 100 phones for every Telsa? Are there 10 million Telsas on the road today?
Finally, permanent price to earnings ratio of 1400? That is completely nonsensical. So if Telsa settles into being the dominate car maker in the world, somehow making 100 million cars a year with a profit of $10,000 per car (net revenue of 1 trillion dollars a year!) Telsa would have a market cap of 1.4 quadrillion dollars? Yeah, that sounds about right.
How would you like if your premium car say a bmw uses a Honda chassis and framework? Lol this was the gist of the leak... wrap it, paint it, skin it, add leather, carbon fiber and so on - it’s still a Honda...
Entrenched Hyundai management fears the future. Studebaker invented the Automatic transmission in the 50s and every competitor wanted to license it immediately but Sales refused so the the other companies hired Borg-Warner to re-engineer the device to avoid the patents. Studebaker was gone by the end of 1963. That is why it is called disruptive. The weak and shortsighted fall by the wayside.
Entrenched Hyundai management fears the future. Studebaker invented the Automatic transmission in the 50s and every competitor wanted to license it immediately but Sales refused so the the other companies hired Borg-Warner to re-engineer the device to avoid the patents. Studebaker was gone by the end of 1963. That is why it is called disruptive. The weak and shortsighted fall by the wayside.
Good story, but not the real story.The first compressed air trans was invented in the 1920s. In the 1930s GM invented the first hydraulic fluid trans, refined in the 1940s as the Hydra-Matic, transmission, which continued as the Turbo Hydra-Matic into the 1960s, 70s, and 80s before being replaced.
So much for going to the Apple website and clicking on the AppleCar product section. I'm sure Elon Musk is laughing harder now than when he became the richest man on the planet. It's already game over for Apple when it comes to EV sales. I can understand why Wall Street is going to put most of its money into Tesla rather than Apple. Big investors are far more excited over EVs than smartphones because share gains will be much higher for Tesla than Apple. EVs have replaced cloud storage as the low-hanging fruit for making unlimited revenue. Apple has now missed out on both. For every Tesla Model S Plaid Plus sold, Apple will have to sell 100 iPhone 13 Pro Max units. Apple shareholders are not going to be happy with that thought. Tesla has now secured the necessary investor mindshare to permanently have a P/E of 1400. Apple will struggle to hold a P/E of 40. Musk wins again as the CEO with the Midas Touch.
I’d bet Apple cut ties after the leaks were revealed and accidentally confirmed. Apple isn’t a fan of companies that break NDA’s. Just speculating - but probably not far off the mark.
I’d bet Apple cut ties after the leaks were revealed and accidentally confirmed. Apple isn’t a fan of companies that break NDA’s. Just speculating - but probably not far off the mark.
Reportedly it was Hyundai who rejected Apple.
How do you know the details ? Did Hyundai top management made official statement ? NO, than no one knows other than top management on both side what happened. But, in a nut shell the lesson is Apple does not want it's employees,supply chain or partners talked prematurely about future products.
True... Maybe that's why Hyundai gave them the boot -- they don't want to be bossed around. They were looking for an equal partnership but Apple won't do that.
It's taken how long before Apple designed it's own CPU rather than rely on Intel, Motorola, or IBM? Prior to the latest Macs, Apple has always built on someone else's "chassis."
Wrong. Proof of this: Motorola and IBM didn't make PC CPUs for anyone else. Similar to the Samsung-provided CPUs on the original iPhone, the IBM and Motorola CPUs were co-designed by Apple. People had no problem pointing this out in the past. They are only denying it now in order to claim: "Wow, Apple beat Intel with their first ever PC CPU design! Imagine how good their CPUs will be when they get some real experience!" nonsense.
As I have mentioned before, Apple is not going to find a car company willing to be their [insert offensive term here] the way that they get component suppliers to be. Watch Ford vs Ferrari: a lot of auto manufacturers have institutional and even national pride that simply does not exist in electronics, which has always been a global industry of privateers. Note how Sony - for example - is practically ignoring their former home Japanese market for the PlayStation: that wouldn't happen in the automobile industry. Also, no established profitable company of any kind is going to accept Apple's "extremely high volumes at very low margins that will have a 50/50 chance of your declaring bankruptcy" that they are able to impose on their lesser suppliers, and that includes car companies.
Apple can certainly get a car made, but they are going to have to work with lesser known names as opposed to the Hyundais and Toyotas of the world, and even then they are going to have to be willing to accept terms that will allow the manufacturers to make a real profit.
See above. Toyota wouldn't agree to these terms either. The auto industry is not the electronics industry. To put it another way: a lot of the suppliers that Apple deals with for the iPhone and iPad need Apple's business to survive, and a lot of them wind up going out of business even with Apple's money. You aren't going to see any established manufacturer agree to make Apple's car that will:
A. provide them tiny margins for manufacturing them B. provide them no PR/marketing benefits for manufacturing them C. compete with their own cars
Toyota is not going to make less money making cars for Apple than they would get for getting people to buy a Camry. Were Apple to:
A. pay Toyota as much money for making an Apple Car as they would get for making a Camry B. allow Toyota to let everyone know that they are Apple's manufacturing partner in their advertising campaigns so that at the very least everyone who doesn't buy an Apple Car will be more likely to buy a Camry than a Ford, Volkswagen, Honda or Nissan
then they would probably sign up. You folks need to take the idea "being an Apple partner automatically benefits the partner so anyone and everyone who Apple wants to partner with should just drop everything else and agree to whatever terms Apple requests" and flush it from your heads. Because it isn't true. At all.
Neither would it benefit Apple to go "bargain basement" until they find someone willing to meet their demands. Why? Because you don't get the best work that way. When Apple was in the middle of their little temper tantrums against Samsung, Google, Qualcomm etc. they tried to go elsewhere. It didn't work because LG, Intel, their in-house services etc. weren't nearly as good so they were forced to go back to the best in order to get the best components and services for their products. By the same token, Apple shouldn't seek the services of "we build terrible cars for cheap" outfits lest they get the equivalent of Intel 5G modems, LG screens and their own services before they went all in on AWS and Google to provide the backbones (i.e. back when they couldn't even produce a competitive navigation app).
Instead, pay Hyundai, Toyota or whoever else the money that it takes to build a good car. Including a company that is able to contribute their own pre-existing expertise to the product. Samsung, for example, was able to contribute some designs from some appliance-type devices (ARM-based but running firmware and hence not smart devices) to the original iPhone CPU. That is the sort of thing that they will need to get from their car-manufacturing partner if they actually want the car to be good.
It's taken how long before Apple designed it's own CPU rather than rely on Intel, Motorola, or IBM? Prior to the latest Macs, Apple has always built on someone else's "chassis."
Wrong. Proof of this: Motorola and IBM didn't make PC CPUs for anyone else.
You are wrong. Motorola & IBM mad CPU's for plenty of others. Motorola specifically in the automotive industry & printer market. IBM for their own servers & workstations (and still do). Both made PowerPC CPUs for companies other than Apple...
It's taken how long before Apple designed it's own CPU rather than rely on Intel, Motorola, or IBM? Prior to the latest Macs, Apple has always built on someone else's "chassis."
Wrong. Proof of this: Motorola and IBM didn't make PC CPUs for anyone else.
You are wrong. Motorola & IBM mad CPU's for plenty of others. Motorola specifically in the automotive industry & printer market. IBM for their own servers & workstations (and still do). Both made PowerPC CPUs for companies other than Apple…
Thank goodness! That means talk with Japanese automakers must be bearing better fruit.
Toyota is probably to arrogant and controlling to partner with Apple. Nissan might be a better bet. But I have heard here in Japan they are also in talks with Mitsubishi, which is a tad frightening. They have a decent enough name outside Japan, but they rank about 8th on the list of Japanese automakers and have a reputation here for rather lackluster customer support versus the bigger brands like Toyota.
It's taken how long before Apple designed it's own CPU rather than rely on Intel, Motorola, or IBM? Prior to the latest Macs, Apple has always built on someone else's "chassis."
Wrong. Proof of this: Motorola and IBM didn't make PC CPUs for anyone else. Similar to the Samsung-provided CPUs on the original iPhone, the IBM and Motorola CPUs were co-designed by Apple. People had no problem pointing this out in the past. They are only denying it now in order to claim: "Wow, Apple beat Intel with their first ever PC CPU design! Imagine how good their CPUs will be when they get some real experience!" nonsense.
Your reply supports my argument. How is this situation (reported/canceled) Hyundai option any different from the CPU example? The first Macs included a 68000 CPU from Motorola. Decades later, Apple transitioned to the Power PC which they co-developed.
In this case in anyone misses the obvious parallel, Hyundai would be the Motorola in this example and their EV platform would be the 68000.
Comments
How do you know the details ? Did Hyundai top management made official statement ? NO, than no one knows other than top management on both side what happened. But, in a nut shell the lesson is Apple does not want it's employees,supply chain or partners talked prematurely about future products.
Come on. You understand that market cap (just over 2 trillion dollars) isn't the same as liquid assets (around 100 billion dollars), right? And again, almost every tech Apple has ever made has been an amalgam of "borrowed" tech. How did Apple get great glass for the screens for the iPhone? Steve went to Corning and proposed that they develop what they ultimately branded Gorilla Glass. Apple didn't build a glass factory. In fact, show me any Apple factory anywhere.
Your name is showing. There is no gravy train for making money; it's hard work and entails wins and losses. This may be a setback for Apple (or not; they could announce a deal with someone else--who is more discreet--next month for all we know). To say that Apple has "missed out" on the EV market is hyperbole. As everyone else here has said, it's very early. As to your ratio of phones to Telsas, doesn't Apple already sell 100 phones for every Telsa? Are there 10 million Telsas on the road today?
Finally, permanent price to earnings ratio of 1400? That is completely nonsensical. So if Telsa settles into being the dominate car maker in the world, somehow making 100 million cars a year with a profit of $10,000 per car (net revenue of 1 trillion dollars a year!) Telsa would have a market cap of 1.4 quadrillion dollars? Yeah, that sounds about right.
Actually, I think I would call that an Acura.
Quality, no.
Good story, but not the real story.The first compressed air trans was invented in the 1920s. In the 1930s GM invented the first hydraulic fluid trans, refined in the 1940s as the Hydra-Matic, transmission, which continued as the Turbo Hydra-Matic into the 1960s, 70s, and 80s before being replaced.
Reportedly you nor anyone else has any idea.
True... Maybe that's why Hyundai gave them the boot -- they don't want to be bossed around. They were looking for an equal partnership but Apple won't do that.
As I have mentioned before, Apple is not going to find a car company willing to be their [insert offensive term here] the way that they get component suppliers to be. Watch Ford vs Ferrari: a lot of auto manufacturers have institutional and even national pride that simply does not exist in electronics, which has always been a global industry of privateers. Note how Sony - for example - is practically ignoring their former home Japanese market for the PlayStation: that wouldn't happen in the automobile industry. Also, no established profitable company of any kind is going to accept Apple's "extremely high volumes at very low margins that will have a 50/50 chance of your declaring bankruptcy" that they are able to impose on their lesser suppliers, and that includes car companies.
Apple can certainly get a car made, but they are going to have to work with lesser known names as opposed to the Hyundais and Toyotas of the world, and even then they are going to have to be willing to accept terms that will allow the manufacturers to make a real profit.
A. provide them tiny margins for manufacturing them
B. provide them no PR/marketing benefits for manufacturing them
C. compete with their own cars
Toyota is not going to make less money making cars for Apple than they would get for getting people to buy a Camry. Were Apple to:
A. pay Toyota as much money for making an Apple Car as they would get for making a Camry
B. allow Toyota to let everyone know that they are Apple's manufacturing partner in their advertising campaigns so that at the very least everyone who doesn't buy an Apple Car will be more likely to buy a Camry than a Ford, Volkswagen, Honda or Nissan
then they would probably sign up. You folks need to take the idea "being an Apple partner automatically benefits the partner so anyone and everyone who Apple wants to partner with should just drop everything else and agree to whatever terms Apple requests" and flush it from your heads. Because it isn't true. At all.
Neither would it benefit Apple to go "bargain basement" until they find someone willing to meet their demands. Why? Because you don't get the best work that way. When Apple was in the middle of their little temper tantrums against Samsung, Google, Qualcomm etc. they tried to go elsewhere. It didn't work because LG, Intel, their in-house services etc. weren't nearly as good so they were forced to go back to the best in order to get the best components and services for their products. By the same token, Apple shouldn't seek the services of "we build terrible cars for cheap" outfits lest they get the equivalent of Intel 5G modems, LG screens and their own services before they went all in on AWS and Google to provide the backbones (i.e. back when they couldn't even produce a competitive navigation app).
Instead, pay Hyundai, Toyota or whoever else the money that it takes to build a good car. Including a company that is able to contribute their own pre-existing expertise to the product. Samsung, for example, was able to contribute some designs from some appliance-type devices (ARM-based but running firmware and hence not smart devices) to the original iPhone CPU. That is the sort of thing that they will need to get from their car-manufacturing partner if they actually want the car to be good.
Toyota is probably to arrogant and controlling to partner with Apple. Nissan might be a better bet. But I have heard here in Japan they are also in talks with Mitsubishi, which is a tad frightening. They have a decent enough name outside Japan, but they rank about 8th on the list of Japanese automakers and have a reputation here for rather lackluster customer support versus the bigger brands like Toyota.
In this case in anyone misses the obvious parallel, Hyundai would be the Motorola in this example and their EV platform would be the 68000.