Apple Car is a matter of 'when, not if' claims analyst

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited June 2023

Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives asserts that an Apple Car is coming, and predicts that it will be by 2026.

(Credit: AppleInsider)
(Credit: AppleInsider)



Apple has yet to even acknowledge the rumors that it is developing an Apple Car. Yet it's an open secret since the company has applied for at least hundreds of related patents, down to a recent one concerning seatbelts.

The company has also been recently linked to a self-driving test facility in Arizona. Plus there have been periodic reports of major staff changes on the project, such as losing managers, engineers, or even a shakeup of the whole team.

Speaking to CNBC on Friday morning, Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives says the only question over the Apple Car is "when, not if."

Ives has actually said that exact phrase before. Back in 2021, he wrote in a note to investors that it was a matter of "when not if" Apple would enter the electric vehicle market.

Wedbush's Ives was responding to reports at the time of Apple's various discussions with potential car partners, such as Hyundai, or separately Nissan.

The analyst described these discussions as a "dating game." He said then -- February 2021 -- that there was at least an 85% chance of Apple formally announcing a strategic car partnership within the following three to six months.

That obviously didn't happen, but now Ives predicts an Apple Car launch by 2026. That backs up some previous reports by Ming-Chi Kuo that said a projected 2025 launch date had fallen behind.

Even in 2021, though, Apple had reportedly been working on a car for many years. It's possible that it started in 2014, which would mean before the first Apple Watch was released, though there could now easily be a decade of work put into the still unannounced Apple Car.

Read on AppleInsider

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,097member
    It does not matter how long they have been working on it and how much R&D dollars they have sunk into it.   They will not launch it if they are not 100% all-in.    

    Launching it just because they’ve worked on it for long time would be against Apple’s DNA 
    jeffharrisOfertmaywilliamhFileMakerFellerAlex_VravnorodomCluntBaby92blastdoorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 33
    iOS_Guy80iOS_Guy80 Posts: 849member
    I’m ready to pre-order.
    Alex_Vravnorodomwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 33
    jeffharrisjeffharris Posts: 801member
    Does the world REALLY need another car? Apple or otherwise.

    danielchowOferwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 33
    danielchowdanielchow Posts: 142member
    Does the world REALLY need another car? Apple or otherwise.

    nope, we do not need another car. what we need are more walkable and bikeable passages.

    if we must continue building roads and highways for multi-passenger vehicles that usually transport one person per vehicle, then there should be as many continuous millions of miles of walkable and bikeable passages as there are roads and highways built; and all parking lots should have at least 25 percent soft scape with trees and solar panels to provide shade to help reduce the heat island effect. apple's corporate office is an example (not the only one) of how all developers from small to large should think when they "develop". we can do better, but is anyone else willing to think and do outside of the box?
    edited June 2023 Graeme000mknelsonOfertmayFileMakerFelleraccsmobitokyojimuStrangeDays
  • Reply 5 of 33
    jdiamondjdiamond Posts: 129member
    Guys, no one is implying Apple will make a physical car.  It's like AppleTV - initially, everyone hoped for an amazing Apple TV that was transparent and thin.  But it ended up just being a little box you hook up to a normal TV.  There's no reason to think this wouldn't be similar in concept to car play.  Apple would just be helping car companies that need to play catch up on things like self driving features, etc.  And they could go to town integrating the infotainment/entertainment systems with their own stuff.
    dave2012OferAnilu_777ravnorodomwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 33
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,679member
    Personally I don't think Apple is making cars to buy, but rather designing and building self-driving electric vehicles for a ride sharing service.
    tmayravnorodomwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 33
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,073member
    jdiamond said:
    Guys, no one is implying Apple will make a physical car.  It's like AppleTV - initially, everyone hoped for an amazing Apple TV that was transparent and thin.  But it ended up just being a little box you hook up to a normal TV.  There's no reason to think this wouldn't be similar in concept to car play.  Apple would just be helping car companies that need to play catch up on things like self driving features, etc.  And they could go to town integrating the infotainment/entertainment systems with their own stuff.
    Apple is already publicly moving forward with enhancements to CarPlay. That's not the Apple Car. CarPlay is simply a dumb terminal in your car that displays a customized interface with your iPhone.

    Also, AppleTV didn't end up being the whole TV because Apple couldn't get all of the other content providers to agree to integrate into an AppleTV standard. If they were going to be the TV, it was going to be a device that seamlessly provided you with content from your cable provider, from streamers like Netflix and HULU, from things like YouTube, for purchased content, and on-air TV. For the user, it would all just work. Without that, they made a box that's better than the other boxes and dongles, but it doesn't require everyone else to play ball for it to be usable. You'll note that on your ATV box, HULU and Amazon integrate into the Apple search and 'Up Next' feed, but Netflix refuses. Xfinity only made their cable content available in an app a few months ago. When HBO became "max," their app dropped Apple's API and went with their own crappier one. Apple wasn't going to be the seamlessly integrated TV device unless they could do it all the way, all their way. None of this is analogous to their situation in developing a car.

    Why wouldn't Apple produce an entire car? Apple has thirteen times the market capitalization of Toyota, the largest "established" automaker, and 55 times the market cap of GM. There are many new EV companies coming on line, and they don't have Apple's resources. See Fisker, Rivian, Lucid, and even DeLorean is apparently resurfacing as an EV company.

    It seems entirely likely that Apple may contract with another company to manufacture their car, just like they do for production of iPhones and iPads, but they will not launch a new initiative as Apple Car and simply have it be CarPlay on steroids, living as an insert inside other companies' cars. That would subject Apple's reputation to the whims of other companies' design and manufacturing decisions. That's not how they do business. 
    edited June 2023 williamhlolliverAnilu_777FileMakerFellerbadmonkCluntBaby92watto_cobraStrangeDays
  • Reply 8 of 33
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,073member
    mjtomlin said:
    Personally I don't think Apple is making cars to buy, but rather designing and building self-driving electric vehicles for a ride sharing service.
    It seems unlikely that Apple would want to operate a ride sharing service. It also seems unlikely that Apple would want to attach its brand to some other company that is operating a ride sharing service. I can't really think of any examples of other Apple businesses where they produce a device that isn't for sale directly to consumers. Can you?
    lolliverAnilu_777Alex_Vwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 33
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,073member
    Does the world REALLY need another car? Apple or otherwise.

    nope, we do not need another car. what we need are more walkable and bikeable passages.

    if we must continue building roads and highways for multi-passenger vehicles that usually transport one person per vehicle, then there should be as many continuous millions of miles of walkable and bikeable passages as there are roads and highways built; and all parking lots should have at least 25 percent soft scape with trees and solar panels to provide shade to help reduce the heat island effect. apple's corporate office is an example (not the only one) of how all developers from small to large should think when they "develop". we can do better, but is anyone else willing to think and do outside of the box?
    Outside of 'the last mile,' passenger cars are the least efficient way to travel. Unfortunately, in places like the US, most governments are not  prioritizing and investing in public transportation the way they should. Other companies are already making EVs and self-driving cars. What could Apple do differently? For one thing, they could attack that efficiency problem. Everybody else's self-driving cars are focused on being the best "driver": focused, alert, and experienced. That's great, but it's still setting a route and then just reacting to the immediate environment in order to drive that route. What if your car did a lot more to gather and respond to information beyond your immediate space, and what if all the Apple cars in the area shared data so that each one is better able to respond to circumstances along the entire route?

    Such interconnected vehicles could actually improve traffic efficiency. For instance, if there were enough connected cars mixed into a given section of highway traffic, they could actually serve to clear traffic jams by making subtle adjustments to speed that would intuitively cue other drivers as well, and safely erase the stop-and-go effect that lingers on the highway long after an obstruction has been cleared. Interconnected cars could respond with greater agility to choose detours and alternate routes that not only improve travel time for the individual, but for the whole of traffic flow as well. It's not necessary to control all of the cars on the road to do this. This is just one imagined way an Apple Car could be Apple-like, by entering an existing product category with a new paradigm. You'd buy an Apple Car not just because it's an Apple-branded thing, but because it would actually do the job of getting you from point A to point B more efficiently.
    williamhAnilu_777FileMakerFellertokyojimuwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 33
    If Apple does produce a car then hopefully they'll use the engines-in-the-wheels approach of the NEVS Emily GT. It really makes a lot of sense in a number of ways and is actually one of the earliest engine ideas for vehicles. The guy that eventually founded Porsche made an engines-in-the-wheels vehicle around 1900. 

    Video below:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1VAkXNTR1Y
    edited June 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 33
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,679member
    AppleZulu said:
    mjtomlin said:
    Personally I don't think Apple is making cars to buy, but rather designing and building self-driving electric vehicles for a ride sharing service.
    It seems unlikely that Apple would want to operate a ride sharing service. It also seems unlikely that Apple would want to attach its brand to some other company that is operating a ride sharing service. I can't really think of any examples of other Apple businesses where they produce a device that isn't for sale directly to consumers. Can you?

    It would be their own service, not a 3rd party.

    Apple did invest $1 billion in "Didi Chuxing", a Chinese ride sharing service in 2016. They also operate their own corporate service in and around their headquarters in Cupertino. So it is a market they're currently interested in.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 33
    thttht Posts: 5,530member
    Ives predicts an Apple Car launch by 2026
    Clock is ticking. If Apple is going to ship in 2026, they will need to announce this year. Even if Apple gets Hyundai or some other car OEM to fab for them, one with existing assembly plants, it will take 2 to 3 years to retool the plants and get the supply chain in order. So, I suppose Ives can just keep kicking the prediction down the road, on a year by year basis.

    I basically have two requirements for a new EV: bidirectional charging (V2G) and price at about 50k. There is one major feature I would like, but could maybe live without: solar PV on all the appropriate surfaces (hood, roof, trunk and dash). If Apple offers this, I'm all in.
    FileMakerFellertokyojimuwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 33
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,903member
    Does the world REALLY need another car? Apple or otherwise.

    nope, we do not need another car. what we need are more walkable and bikeable passages.

    if we must continue building roads and highways for multi-passenger vehicles that usually transport one person per vehicle, then there should be as many continuous millions of miles of walkable and bikeable passages as there are roads and highways built; and all parking lots should have at least 25 percent soft scape with trees and solar panels to provide shade to help reduce the heat island effect. apple's corporate office is an example (not the only one) of how all developers from small to large should think when they "develop". we can do better, but is anyone else willing to think and do outside of the box?

    That would be great, but new roads/pavement for both cars, bikes and people need to be made from materials that produce less carbon during manufacturing and installation. Cement is one of the highest CO2 producing building materials. Oddly, asphalt - partcularly if it is made with recycled old asphalt, reused aggregates and even recycled cement, has a much lower CO2 output. Solutions are there, but we haven't yet begun using them effectively.
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 33
    thttht Posts: 5,530member
    welshdog said:
    Does the world REALLY need another car? Apple or otherwise.

    nope, we do not need another car. what we need are more walkable and bikeable passages.

    if we must continue building roads and highways for multi-passenger vehicles that usually transport one person per vehicle, then there should be as many continuous millions of miles of walkable and bikeable passages as there are roads and highways built; and all parking lots should have at least 25 percent soft scape with trees and solar panels to provide shade to help reduce the heat island effect. apple's corporate office is an example (not the only one) of how all developers from small to large should think when they "develop". we can do better, but is anyone else willing to think and do outside of the box?
    That would be great, but new roads/pavement for both cars, bikes and people need to be made from materials that produce less carbon during manufacturing and installation. Cement is one of the highest CO2 producing building materials. Oddly, asphalt - partcularly if it is made with recycled old asphalt, reused aggregates and even recycled cement, has a much lower CO2 output. Solutions are there, but we haven't yet begun using them effectively.
    And the asphalt (all all roofs without solar PV) should be required to by colored white or similarly high albedo color. All the solutions are available to get to carbon negative. It's now a matter of accelerating the transition, and getting economies of scale to do its thing. We could have started 2 decades earlier, but the time is always "now" for a a war-time like mobilization. The time is always "now" until CO2 ppm is <300 ppm.

    One thing I would say regarding walking and biking is that it isn't feasible in the US south. You aren't going to be biking or walking a few miles in 100 °F summer climates. For the past 3 weeks in my locale, wet-bulb temperatures have been in the 92, 93 °F range for 2 to 3 hours in the afternoon. That's wet-bulb temperature. It's only going to get worse.

    I'm thinking of proto-domed cities in hot climates. There won't be a gigantic dome, but like a reverse "Silo", more and more buildings will have indoor parks, indoor gardens, indoor chicken farms, just sticking up into the sky instead of into the ground. In dense urban areas with these types of buildings, they will gradually be interconnected by air conditioned trains, bike and walking tunnels, etc. So, proto-indoor living 24x7.

    But anyways, an EV with maximally sized PV and V2G would be awesome for people with houses. The vehicle will depreciate in value, but it is also saving the owner money on electricity while providing power backup for the rolling grid issues in the future. Come on, Apple.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 33
    An EV seems like the next logical consumer product category for them, but there are already many players in the EV space that make good products.  If they do happen to find an opening, I don’t see a product ready until the 2030s.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 33
    dutchlorddutchlord Posts: 232member
    No need for Apple Car. A new 27 inch M3 iMac is what we need
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 33
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,073member
    mjtomlin said:
    AppleZulu said:
    mjtomlin said:
    Personally I don't think Apple is making cars to buy, but rather designing and building self-driving electric vehicles for a ride sharing service.
    It seems unlikely that Apple would want to operate a ride sharing service. It also seems unlikely that Apple would want to attach its brand to some other company that is operating a ride sharing service. I can't really think of any examples of other Apple businesses where they produce a device that isn't for sale directly to consumers. Can you?

    It would be their own service, not a 3rd party.

    Apple did invest $1 billion in "Didi Chuxing", a Chinese ride sharing service in 2016. They also operate their own corporate service in and around their headquarters in Cupertino. So it is a market they're currently interested in.
    Didi Chuxing turned out to be a really bad investment, losing most of that $1B before Apple's rep quietly resigned from DiDi's board. Not sure the lesson learned there is going to be "hey, let's do that!" Also, investing in another company that does ride sharing is not "attaching their brand to some other company" the way building a fleet of Apple cars exclusively for another company to operate a ride sharing company with them.

    As for Apple's corporate ride service in Cupertino, Disney operates their own monorail in Florida, but I don't think that means they're interested in getting into the public transit business. The services that Apple operates all function as reasons to buy Apple hardware. Apple Music and AppleTV+ have apps that run on other brand devices, but even that is simply done as a way to draw new customers into the Apple ecosystem to get them to buy Apple devices. An Apple-operated ride share service would do none of that. Nothing is impossible, but the probability of Apple operating a ride share service is extremely low.
    FileMakerFellerAlex_Vmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 33
    In case anyone is an idiot like me and doesn't know what the hell wet bulb temperature means, here's some relevant info from Wikipedia:

    "The wet-bulb temperature is the lowest temperature that can be reached under current ambient conditions by the evaporation of water only.

    Even heat-adapted people cannot carry out normal outdoor activities past a wet-bulb temperature of 32 °C (90 °F), equivalent to a heat index of 55 °C (130 °F). The theoretical limit to human survival for more than a few hours in the shade, even with unlimited water, is a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C (95 °F) – equivalent to a heat index of 70 °C (160 °F)."


    FileMakerFellerAlex_Vwatto_cobraStrangeDays
  • Reply 19 of 33
    CarmBCarmB Posts: 83member
    What needs to be kept in mind is that when Apple works on a product, even if that product ends up not being produced, the innovation that results from working on said product becomes an asset to Apple that can be applied to other projects. As a result, putting resources into doing something like the car is not that risky. Maybe a car results from it but regardless, solutions are found and that’s a resource Apple can tap into when developing seemingly unrelated products. 


    FileMakerFellertmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 33
    thttht Posts: 5,530member
    In case anyone is an idiot like me and doesn't know what the hell wet bulb temperature means, here's some relevant info from Wikipedia:

    "The wet-bulb temperature is the lowest temperature that can be reached under current ambient conditions by the evaporation of water only.

    Even heat-adapted people cannot carry out normal outdoor activities past a wet-bulb temperature of 32 °C (90 °F), equivalent to a heat index of 55 °C (130 °F). The theoretical limit to human survival for more than a few hours in the shade, even with unlimited water, is a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C (95 °F) – equivalent to a heat index of 70 °C (160 °F)."
    IOW, wet bulb temperature is really used as a measure of when sweat doesn’t evaporate off your body anymore. Your body sweats to keep its internal temperature down. If that sweat doesn’t evaporate, your body doesn’t keep cool, and heat illness will start pretty quick. 

    94 to 95 °F is a critical wet bulb temperature as that’s when sweat won’t evaporate anymore. We were at 90 to 92 °F wet bulb temperatures everyday for 1 to 3 hours everyday for about 10 straight days. 
    FileMakerFellerAlex_Vwatto_cobraStrangeDays
Sign In or Register to comment.