We don’t know where Apple is with their car. They did just patent a steering mechanism, so it looks as though they’re moving forward.
Rivan has gotten some excellent reviews of their vehicles. They are expected to produce between 25,000 to 28,000 this year. Nevertheless their stock has been pounded, as some investors aren’t happy with the numbers. Some think that Rivan will run out of money. It would be an interesting move if Apple invested in the company, or even bought it outright. I would be for that. Unlike a number of other possible competitors who have produced one or two cars, but nothing else, Rivan is actually producing. It’s easy to forget how many years it took Tesla to get to 40,000 cars a year - a lot longer than it’s taking Rivan to ramp up. With Apple’s money, the doubts about the company’s survival would end.
Apple could, and no doubt would, revamp the designs and add their own work. This might be the best solution Apple has.
I think it would be a good idea for Apple to buy them. I don't see Apple doing this alone without some sort of partner.
I don't see them buying a "brand" with an established design language for such a crucial endeavor (they bought Beats, but more for the streaming than the hardware). A manufacturing partner better suits Apple's "control wishes" over everything. Buying a car manufacturer such as Rivian an then firing half of their design and software team to replace them with Apple's own, seems a bit too much. I think the culture clash in such a purchase could be massive. Apple better do it on their own. Also Rivian still needs to scale manufacturing. I think Apple is looking for a manufacturer which can produce at scale already. Or ramp it up themselves, but in that case the challenge is so massive it might take them a decade to do, and the adventure will be a money pit until they reach quantity. Rivian, for all the good press, is still niche and not profitable. Tesla needed a decade to become profitable. And now, all established manufacturers are getting on board with EV so the market becomes more and more crowded.
I also think Apple is looking outside of China to do the car. (Korea, India, Japan, Europe, US, they have choice).
I really wonder how many people who drive a pickup truck actually need a pickup truck.
What does it matter?
And it depends where you look. If you're at a construction site, probably everyone who is driving a pickup truck probably needs it. If you go to a country music festival, maybe not as many. If you visit a high school student parking lot in an upscale bedroom community maybe nobody needs it.
For sure, for some pickup truck ownership is a status symbol, just like a Rolex wristwatch, $2500 Italian loafers, or fake breasts.
Remember that want, need and have are three different things.
yes, it matters. status symbols are created, they are not naturally occurring. some marketing people convinced people that they need an (fake) off-road vehicle in the city or that they should drive through a forrest instead of hiking through it. I would argue that for 90% of the privately owned pickup trucks a Honda e or a Golf would be enough for the daily usage. And for commercial vehicles, I'm not really sure if this is a suitable car, compared to the versatility of a Sprinter those pickup trucks look very static and inflexible.
I really wonder how many people who drive a pickup truck actually need a pickup truck.
What does it matter?
And it depends where you look. If you're at a construction site, probably everyone who is driving a pickup truck probably needs it. If you go to a country music festival, maybe not as many. If you visit a high school student parking lot in an upscale bedroom community maybe nobody needs it.
For sure, for some pickup truck ownership is a status symbol, just like a Rolex wristwatch, $2500 Italian loafers, or fake breasts.
Remember that want, need and have are three different things.
How? Rolex wristwatch doesn't cost alot of energy to run, nor the loafers, as a status symbol. When 90% of Intel MacBooks energy consumption comes from it's operation through it's lifetime, I guess it would be even more for a pickup truck EV.
I really wonder how many people who drive a pickup truck actually need a pickup truck.
What does it matter?
And it depends where you look. If you're at a construction site, probably everyone who is driving a pickup truck probably needs it. If you go to a country music festival, maybe not as many. If you visit a high school student parking lot in an upscale bedroom community maybe nobody needs it.
For sure, for some pickup truck ownership is a status symbol, just like a Rolex wristwatch, $2500 Italian loafers, or fake breasts.
Remember that want, need and have are three different things.
yes, it matters. status symbols are created, they are not naturally occurring. some marketing people convinced people that they need an (fake) off-road vehicle in the city or that they should drive through a forrest instead of hiking through it. I would argue that for 90% of the privately owned pickup trucks a Honda e or a Golf would be enough for the daily usage. And for commercial vehicles, I'm not really sure if this is a suitable car, compared to the versatility of a Sprinter those pickup trucks look very static and inflexible.
Of note, many people prefer trucks and SUV's over cars as these vehicles provide better visibly for the driver, almost certainly due to the driver's seating position being comparatively high. The benefits of four wheel drive or all wheel drive, and the cargo carrying capacity, plus the ease of entry and exit into these vehicles, makes it is easy to understand why these two niches dominate the industry in the U.S.
RAV 4 hybrids and pluggable (Prime) are extremely popular, and living in the West, I would always prefer a pluggable hybrid over an electric vehicle, if I only had a single choice that I could make, albeit even its 42 mile range on battery would be better doubled.
I think it would be a good idea for Apple to buy them. I don't see Apple doing this alone without some sort of partner.
Not likely unless they buy out the Ford investment in Rivian, rumored to be in excess of a billion dollars. Creative minds might be able to work something out.
I really wonder how many people who drive a pickup truck actually need a pickup truck.
What does it matter?
And it depends where you look. If you're at a construction site, probably everyone who is driving a pickup truck probably needs it. If you go to a country music festival, maybe not as many. If you visit a high school student parking lot in an upscale bedroom community maybe nobody needs it.
For sure, for some pickup truck ownership is a status symbol, just like a Rolex wristwatch, $2500 Italian loafers, or fake breasts.
Remember that want, need and have are three different things.
How? Rolex wristwatch doesn't cost alot of energy to run, nor the loafers, as a status symbol. When 90% of Intel MacBooks energy consumption comes from it's operation through it's lifetime, I guess it would be even more for a pickup truck EV.
There is some utility from a pickup truck. You can't haul a six-foot couch in a Honda Fit. But you can rent a pickup by the hour to haul that couch. Or you could pay someone else to transport it.
A Rolex is a wristwatch and basically only tells the time. My Seiko automatic Divers Watch performs the same function at a 97% cost savings over the Rolex but it doesn't convey the same amount of status. Do I care? No. Do others care? Some do.
For sure motor vehicles have a slew of other expenses associated with ownership: fuel, tires, maintenance, insurance, smog tests, registration fees, etc.
Anyhow circling back to the original topic, Tim Cook isn't the flashy type. He would buy a Rivian if it represented a certain combination of utility, quality, and value. That's the underlying philosophy behind today's Apple.
I'm sure he and other members of the executive team frequently make these assessments on other companies' products and services. We all do and not just with technology products. You are doing the same thing when you go to the grocery store to buy a bag of snack.
Rivian is pretty new and not widely distributed so it might be his first time riding in one. For sure Tim Cook has been in a Tesla and likely many of the other mainstream EVs.
As an actual truck, with towing capability, EV based pickups aren't ready for prime time. I've read two different real world reports recently that make this abundantly clear. One with an F150 electric version and one with a Rivian.
The F150 had a trailer and got about 85 miles on a charge. This was in Colorado so maybe in the flat Midwest they could have coaxed 120 mile range?as a guess based on my limited experience with my PHEV in EV mode on hilly vs flat terrain). They didn't even get to their test target city but had to turn around when it became clear they weren't going to make it and didn't want to be stranded.
The other was a couple that used their Rivian to tow a car trailer with car from the Midwest to Cali. Average of 100 miles per charge. They went 2000 miles with 20 charging stops and then another 700 requiring another 7 charging stops.
If you drive a truck as a car or just use it in town to take your Costco or Home Depot purchases home, they'll probably be great (I've been guilty of this in the past, having owned 2 trucks that mostly were used as cars and in town delivery/hauling to FedEx or from Home Depot).
Finally saw one of these in person (the Rivian truck, not the Tim Apple), and it's true what they say that it doesn't look as bad as in photos. I thought the headlights looked ridiculous, but not bad in real life.
Apple should build a Robot Driver, it would make more sense, and can be purchased for every car, Petroleum or Electric. No discrimination. And you can purchase an app that will make the Robot drunk or a women...
We don’t know where Apple is with their car. They did just patent a steering mechanism, so it looks as though they’re moving forward.
Rivan has gotten some excellent reviews of their vehicles. They are expected to produce between 25,000 to 28,000 this year. Nevertheless their stock has been pounded, as some investors aren’t happy with the numbers. Some think that Rivan will run out of money. It would be an interesting move if Apple invested in the company, or even bought it outright. I would be for that. Unlike a number of other possible competitors who have produced one or two cars, but nothing else, Rivan is actually producing. It’s easy to forget how many years it took Tesla to get to 40,000 cars a year - a lot longer than it’s taking Rivan to ramp up. With Apple’s money, the doubts about the company’s survival would end.
Apple could, and no doubt would, revamp the designs and add their own work. This might be the best solution Apple has.
I think it would be a good idea for Apple to buy them. I don't see Apple doing this alone without some sort of partner.
I don't see them buying a "brand" with an established design language for such a crucial endeavor (they bought Beats, but more for the streaming than the hardware). A manufacturing partner better suits Apple's "control wishes" over everything. Buying a car manufacturer such as Rivian an then firing half of their design and software team to replace them with Apple's own, seems a bit too much. I think the culture clash in such a purchase could be massive. Apple better do it on their own. Also Rivian still needs to scale manufacturing. I think Apple is looking for a manufacturer which can produce at scale already. Or ramp it up themselves, but in that case the challenge is so massive it might take them a decade to do, and the adventure will be a money pit until they reach quantity. Rivian, for all the good press, is still niche and not profitable. Tesla needed a decade to become profitable. And now, all established manufacturers are getting on board with EV so the market becomes more and more crowded.
I also think Apple is looking outside of China to do the car. (Korea, India, Japan, Europe, US, they have choice).
Despite negotiating with a number of manufacturers, none have mived forward. It would have to be a car company though. But the problem as the CEO either BMW or Mercedes said (I don’t remember which), they don’t want to become known as the “Apple Car manufacturer.”
What is the purpose of buying an EV pickup truck that costs $90,000 and beyond?
What part of that do you have a problem with?
Purpose.
OK, so what purpose do you take umbrage with? That there's no customer that intersects with an EV and pickup truck, or intersects with a pickup truck owner and having $90k to spend on an automobile, or something else?
I'm someone who can afford an automobile in that price range, who has the periodic need for a short bed of a pickup truck, and would like an EV. I had previously put a downpayment on the 3-motor CyberTruck because it was a stated 500 mile range. The Rivian looks great to me except for the 300 mile range which I worry about for driving into the mountains to camp. Same goes for the GMC EV Hummer and Ford F-150 Lightning. Outside of that, the range would be more than adequate per charge.
What is the purpose of buying an EV pickup truck that costs $90,000 and beyond?
What part of that do you have a problem with?
Purpose.
OK, so what purpose do you take umbrage with? That there's no customer that intersects with an EV and pickup truck, or intersects with a pickup truck owner and having $90k to spend on an automobile, or something else?
I'm someone who can afford an automobile in that price range, who has the periodic need for a short bed of a pickup truck, and would like an EV. I had previously put a downpayment on the 3-motor CyberTruck because it was a stated 500 mile range. The Rivian looks great to me except for the 300 mile range which I worry about for driving into the mountains to camp. Same goes for the GMC EV Hummer and Ford F-150 Lightning. Outside of that, the range would be more than adequate per charge.
There's a lot of rationales for a pickup truck outside of the people who actually need a truck, Tmay lists out a few in a post up thread, but I really think in the end, it's for the same reason people buy a $90k luxury sedan. People just want what they perceive to be a high class vehicle to commute with. For large swaths of the USA, that's a pickup truck, not a sedan, and for those who could afford it, will pay a lot of money for a nicely outfitted truck.
You can price out an F150 to 80k. I would guess the average cost of an F150 is between 50k to 60k. That isn't cheap. Then, there are those who do go for the top-end trims at 80k, then do aftermarket mods, like lifting their truck for 10k. So, there is definitely a class of buyers who are paying $80k to $100k for their trucks.
Rivian's offering isn't exactly down the middle of the Texas pick-up buyer. It seems more like an offering for the camping and outdoors in the USA west type of buyer, who are leading edge buyers for the next gen of automobile tech. 90% of the market really will be getting EVs in a few years. Once solar PV on vehicles and vehicle-to-load are common or standard on vehicles, it's just a no-brainer to do so. Auto companies who can get in front of this have some big advantages. So, nice to finally see some pickup truck EV options now.
As for Time Cook, if he wanted to buy Rivian, he should have done 3 years ago when Apple could have gotten a majority stake in Rivian for something like $5b. Or put some money into Lucid Motors, who like Rivian, has a decent shot at becoming a successful car maker. It could be that Cook is simply waiting for Foxconn to get their merchant auto factories working before he presses the go button on an Apple vehicle. This news story of him test driving a Rivian sounds like a version of a company CEO showing off their product to other CEOs. That's about it.
There isn't anything information there to squeeze out about Apple's product intentions.
What is the purpose of buying an EV pickup truck that costs $90,000 and beyond?
What part of that do you have a problem with?
Purpose.
OK, so what purpose do you take umbrage with? That there's no customer that intersects with an EV and pickup truck, or intersects with a pickup truck owner and having $90k to spend on an automobile, or something else?
I'm someone who can afford an automobile in that price range, who has the periodic need for a short bed of a pickup truck, and would like an EV. I had previously put a downpayment on the 3-motor CyberTruck because it was a stated 500 mile range. The Rivian looks great to me except for the 300 mile range which I worry about for driving into the mountains to camp. Same goes for the GMC EV Hummer and Ford F-150 Lightning. Outside of that, the range would be more than adequate per charge.
This is not a disruptive technology that Apple needed.
As for Time Cook, if he wanted to buy Rivian, he should have done 3 years ago when Apple could have gotten a majority stake in Rivian for something like $5b. Or put some money into Lucid Motors, who like Rivian, has a decent shot at becoming a successful car maker. It could be that Cook is simply waiting for Foxconn to get their merchant auto factories working before he presses the go button on an Apple vehicle. This news story of him test driving a Rivian sounds like a version of a company CEO showing off their product to other CEOs. That's about it.
There isn't anything information there to squeeze out about Apple's product intentions.
No, no, no. You're doing it all wrong.
Your response is too sensible and level-headed for the AppleInsider Q&A forum. You're supposed to dive off the deep end and concoct highly implausible assumptions about Tim Cook's intentions.
Back to the topic, it makes sense for the Rivian CEO to take this opportunity to show off his company's products. All of these people have motor vehicles and some of them live in states where a certain percentage of EV sales are mandated in a staggered timeline in the not too distant future.
Comments
I also think Apple is looking outside of China to do the car. (Korea, India, Japan, Europe, US, they have choice).
RAV 4 hybrids and pluggable (Prime) are extremely popular, and living in the West, I would always prefer a pluggable hybrid over an electric vehicle, if I only had a single choice that I could make, albeit even its 42 mile range on battery would be better doubled.
A Rolex is a wristwatch and basically only tells the time. My Seiko automatic Divers Watch performs the same function at a 97% cost savings over the Rolex but it doesn't convey the same amount of status. Do I care? No. Do others care? Some do.
For sure motor vehicles have a slew of other expenses associated with ownership: fuel, tires, maintenance, insurance, smog tests, registration fees, etc.
Anyhow circling back to the original topic, Tim Cook isn't the flashy type. He would buy a Rivian if it represented a certain combination of utility, quality, and value. That's the underlying philosophy behind today's Apple.
I'm sure he and other members of the executive team frequently make these assessments on other companies' products and services. We all do and not just with technology products. You are doing the same thing when you go to the grocery store to buy a bag of snack.
Rivian is pretty new and not widely distributed so it might be his first time riding in one. For sure Tim Cook has been in a Tesla and likely many of the other mainstream EVs.
The F150 had a trailer and got about 85 miles on a charge. This was in Colorado so maybe in the flat Midwest they could have coaxed 120 mile range?as a guess based on my limited experience with my PHEV in EV mode on hilly vs flat terrain). They didn't even get to their test target city but had to turn around when it became clear they weren't going to make it and didn't want to be stranded.
The other was a couple that used their Rivian to tow a car trailer with car from the Midwest to Cali. Average of 100 miles per charge. They went 2000 miles with 20 charging stops and then another 700 requiring another 7 charging stops.
If you drive a truck as a car or just use it in town to take your Costco or Home Depot purchases home, they'll probably be great (I've been guilty of this in the past, having owned 2 trucks that mostly were used as cars and in town delivery/hauling to FedEx or from Home Depot).
So, where's the money to be made. Would Apple be able to use Foxconn to build their EV car?
I'm someone who can afford an automobile in that price range, who has the periodic need for a short bed of a pickup truck, and would like an EV. I had previously put a downpayment on the 3-motor CyberTruck because it was a stated 500 mile range. The Rivian looks great to me except for the 300 mile range which I worry about for driving into the mountains to camp. Same goes for the GMC EV Hummer and Ford F-150 Lightning. Outside of that, the range would be more than adequate per charge.
You can price out an F150 to 80k. I would guess the average cost of an F150 is between 50k to 60k. That isn't cheap. Then, there are those who do go for the top-end trims at 80k, then do aftermarket mods, like lifting their truck for 10k. So, there is definitely a class of buyers who are paying $80k to $100k for their trucks.
Rivian's offering isn't exactly down the middle of the Texas pick-up buyer. It seems more like an offering for the camping and outdoors in the USA west type of buyer, who are leading edge buyers for the next gen of automobile tech. 90% of the market really will be getting EVs in a few years. Once solar PV on vehicles and vehicle-to-load are common or standard on vehicles, it's just a no-brainer to do so. Auto companies who can get in front of this have some big advantages. So, nice to finally see some pickup truck EV options now.
As for Time Cook, if he wanted to buy Rivian, he should have done 3 years ago when Apple could have gotten a majority stake in Rivian for something like $5b. Or put some money into Lucid Motors, who like Rivian, has a decent shot at becoming a successful car maker. It could be that Cook is simply waiting for Foxconn to get their merchant auto factories working before he presses the go button on an Apple vehicle. This news story of him test driving a Rivian sounds like a version of a company CEO showing off their product to other CEOs. That's about it.
There isn't anything information there to squeeze out about Apple's product intentions.
Your response is too sensible and level-headed for the AppleInsider Q&A forum. You're supposed to dive off the deep end and concoct highly implausible assumptions about Tim Cook's intentions.
Back to the topic, it makes sense for the Rivian CEO to take this opportunity to show off his company's products. All of these people have motor vehicles and some of them live in states where a certain percentage of EV sales are mandated in a staggered timeline in the not too distant future.