- Last Active
george kaplan said:The problem with Mazda is no experience with electric vehicles. If Apple is going to pair with a company, it would make sense to partner with a company which has experience making electric vehicles on its assembly line *in the US*. Mazda hasn’t done this (and I think it’s major North America plants are in Mexico anyway).
But Nissan has been making the Leaf in this country, and VW is preparing to build its ID.4 in the US as well. The VW base BEV chassis is widely regarded as one of the most advanced, to be used by both VW and Audi. I have no idea if the US plant for the ID.4 will have excess capacity, but Apple would be building on a great platform.
There is always the chance that Kia could circle back, since they likewise have a very promising BEV platform and can build in the US. Apple clearly has much to figure out in the months to come.
I am confused to read all these comments.
I do not understand why all of you are talking about Hyundai?
It was about a negotiation between Apple and Kia.
Hyundai had a good argument to not make cars for Apple. However, Hyundai forwarded this corporation to Kia.
You know that the company logo Kia was Kia Motors, but now, the logo only covers Kia without Motors.
Kia is no longer a car company, but a mobility company. Mobility means flexibility and open-minded to work with others.
Hyundai and Kia already confirmed to check all possibilites with other IT firms.
We already had detailed information like production in Georgia, investment of $3bil. from Apple, and search of potential partners in the USA etc.
The contract was leaked. That´s what made Apple upset and made Apple pause the negotiation.
Kia was closed to sign. It was a completely dummy fault by Hyundai. I would not wonder if executives - who ever - were fired who leaked all these detailed contents to the media.
My bet: We will see that the negotiation will continue.
I would not be able to see the future shape of AAPL if AAPL was broken up.
iPhone is very popular due to iOS and differentiated app store policy.
iOS is very popular due to their setting on iPhone.
So, there is an interplay between iPhone and iOS, which makes AAPL so successful.
To other companies: They could be more powerful by being broken up as they are really "data-driven" companies.
Break up --> more competition --> more data collected driven by more competition --> more powerful.
In real, Epic does not care about the payment system. For Epic, it is not about "can´t pay 30% fees", but about "does not want to pay".
All of this is to say that the demands Epic makes in its lawsuit are not, in fact, merely arguing that the smartphone apps market should be more competitive, with more payment options. The sandboxed app store model is not some curious, incidental feature of modern smartphones - rather, this is an essential and hugely important part of why they have such a strong software ecosystem. Epic is explicitly arguing that we should abandon the smartphone software model and security model almost entirely, and switch to what would actually be the old Windows model. Its arguments would also of course mean that we should abandon any level playing field, and move to a model where big companies and big brands have an even bigger advantage, because a trusted platform is replaced by a trusted reputation. This would be good for big established brands - like Epic - but not for may other people.If app developers rather listen to EPIC, then good luck.