CarmB

It's likely that Apple is exploring an assortment of scenarios, including setting up its own production. Right now, all we're seeing is both Apple and Hyundai drawing attention at no cost, which is not a bad thing for either company.

There are many ways this could go. Apple could establish production itself, considering its deep pockets, far deeper than any of the other companies contemplating entering the BEV fray. Apple could farm out production to a start-up established specifically to build Apple's vehicles or Apple could cut a deal with an established manufacturer. It only makes sense that Apple would be exploring all its options. What is significant, if it is true that Apple has been talking to manufacturers, is that Apple appears to be seriously moving towards launching a car. My guess is that it hasn't launched a car yet in order to wait for the technology to make it possible to deliver what it wants. Mainly, it's about battery technolgy that needs to provide excellent range at a price point that makes switching to BEVs attractive. If BEVs are ballpark to ICEs (internal combustion engines) in initial cost and have a range approaching 500 miles, the migration to BEVs will be dramatic considering the lower maintenance, including cost of fuel. It is likely, too, that as gasoline consumption declines, the cost per gallon will rise, making it easier still for BEVs to make more sense. A 500-mile range combined with a $3000 to $5000 premium to purchase would basically mean game over for the ICE.

Long-term, BEVs might well be simpler and less costly to build than ICEs due to offering less complex powertrains. ICEs are rather messy, requiring a cooling system, an ignition system, a transmission, an exhaust system, not to mention frequent engine maintenance. Comparatively speaking, less goes into a BEV making it better suited to regular consumer use. It's just that until recently not enough had been done to bring battery tech along, rendering BEVs impractical with not enough range and at a high cost. We appear to be nearing the point where range and cost will be such that BEVs make more sense for average consumer use. That's the point at which I could see Apple jumping into the mix.

It has never been about Apple being the first to launch into a given segment. It's more a case of good timing, entering the fray when a product could be launched that immediately makes sense for the end user. Launch a product when it's ready for prime time and not before. Until battery tech has caught up to what consumers want and/or need, hang back, keep refining, and strike when it makes sense. If this is Apple's strategy regarding launching a car, no one should be surprised. That's classic Apple. 

Apple will not agree to let a manufacturing partner call the shots in any appreciable regard, especially in terms of what characteristics the finished product will possess. There wouldn't be much point in doing a vehicle that lacked Apple's distinct design approach and I have to think Apple intends to market and service the vehicle as a distinctly Apple endeavour. Any partners would, I would think, have to be prepared to fade into the background, content to make money on the production side but not be putting its branding on the end result. Apple might be fine with Hyundai assembling its vehicles but it would not be interested in Hyundai then bringing those vehicles to market as Hyundais, Kias, whatever. The product, from a consumer's perspective, would an Apple endeaver all the way. The manufacturer would just be the company Apple contracted to do the actual assembly, which is how most of Apple's product is brought to market. 

It wouldn't even be farfetched for a manufacturing intiative to be conjured up to meet Apple's needs, with a third party investing in the manufacturing capability to build Apple's car, cashing in on Apple's substantial brand recognition. It would make more sense, really, than conjuring up a start-up to produce a BEV with no established brand recognition, hoping to build the brand as Tesla has done. Musk was able to build up Tesla from nothing bcause mainstream automakers were not doing BEVS. That's changing. Volkswagen in particular is puursuing BEV development aggressively. GM is pursuing BEV development significantly as well. Startups like Tesla will have a harder time going forward. Apple would have the advantage of being a high-profile brand with a long history of segment-defining innovation. 

My M1 Mac Mini is working reasonably well with a magic keyboard and magic trackpad. I am finding that often there is a delay from when I input on the keyboard or trackpad to try to awaken the computer. It sometimes takes about five seconds or so for the computer to respond. Once it does awaken, though, the connection is solid, certainly no different from how bluetooth worked on the 2011 mini this new machine has replaced. My guess is that location could matter. 

Seems to me that you work with what you have and switch over when something better comes along. If we’re talking about launching a product in about four year, it’s reasonable to surmise that if a superior technology comes along in time, Apple can easily switch over to said technology. The thing is, you can’t conjure up an entire vehicle on a moment’s notice in response to a battery technology emerging to make for a viable product. As such you need to do the heavy lifting of proceeding with a design as if the necessary battery tech is good to go. 

It could be that Apple is satisfied that even with currently available battery tech it can develop a viable product and there is only gain to be had from future developments. The major drawback to EVs as of now are not enough range and too much initial outlay. It’s getting better but the sweet spot, so to speak, would be a product costing not much more than a comparable internal combustion engine product yet sporting a range similar to a tankful of gas. In other words, if a comparable ICE product cost let’s say $39,000 with a tankful range of 500 miles (800 kilometres), the EV would need to cost around $44,000 and match the 500-mile range. Lower fuel and maintenance costs over the life of the car would more than offset the initial $5,000 extra cost of purchase. Concerns regarding the use of Lithium are overdone in so much as it’s highly likely that using lithium is a stopgap measure. It might even be obsolete by the time Apple’s product comes to market. 

Battery technology is going to evolve so even if something better comes along, Apple, or any other automaker for that matter, is not locked in to any specific battery technology. It’s a matter of starting off in a viable state and taking it further with each successive generation. It’s also not just about the power source but also how efficiently that power is used by a complex web of systems that go into today’s cars. Major strides are needed in the fundamental technology, certainly, but it’s also valuable to sweat the details. Make enough incremental enhancements and the cumulative impact can be substantial. 

Based on past behaviour, Apple will release a product when it is confident that said product will produce a sufficiently pleasing user experience. It’s one reason why Apple has tended to arrive later on in a product segment yet winds up with a strong, segment-defining entry. It’s never about being the first to market. Rather it’s about delivering a product that pleases consumers and causes a strong following. For instance, tablets were not invented by Apple but tablets took off when Apple launched the first tablet that made sense to many consumers. Surprisingly affordable and useful in a good many ways. Simply, if that viability isn’t there Apple sits it out until the technology catches up with what the company wants to accomplish. Eventually technology catches up. That’s when Apple makes its move.