4 ms·
> incentivized to make the engine and car platform as simple as possible The question at core of the post is: how simple is possible? When iPhone launched it
by jarek 11y ago
> incentivized to make the engine and car platform as simple as possible
The question at core of the post is: how simple is possible?
When iPhone launched it didn't have copy and paste. That was fine because you can iterate on software and user expectations are different. But you can't launch a car without airbags.
What complexity can the software folks eliminate and still have a viable product? The internal combustion drivetrain is a good example, though replacing it with electric has its own complexities (e.g. batteries and their control systems). But is there much more? Software-culture companies are having problems being clever with just door handles. Will you convince users they don't need reliable cup holders - a plain old boring mechanical part?
If you can't simplify much more, will just IC to electric swap make enough of a difference?
- timcederman 11y agoTerrible example. When the iPhone launched, it could make calls and send messages extremely reliably. It was foremost a phone. Copy/paste wasn't a core part of that functionality.
- jarek 11y ago> Terrible example. When the iPhone launched, it could make calls and send messages extremely reliably. Unless you were holding it wrong ;) > Copy/paste wasn't a core part of that functionality. So, what complex car functionality do you reckon is non-core and can be cut by Apple?
- sorenjan 11y agoAccording to test engineers at Ericsson, the first iPhone was "a crappy phone" [0]. It routinely dropped calls [1, 2]. It also didn't have 3G or MMS, something most if not all other phones had at the time. But apparently it was good enough, did other things well, and could be updated and replaced. That's a major difference between consumer electronics and cars. [0] http://www.techsite.io/2015/10/16/ericsson-engineers-thought-iphone-was-a-crappy-phone/ http://www.techsite.io/2015/10/16/ericsson-engineers-thought... [1] http://www.pencomputing.com/reviews/apple_iphone_3months.html http://www.pencomputing.com/reviews/apple_iphone_3months.htm... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/31/AR2009073100971.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07...
- jfoutz 11y agoAnd yet, it seemed to do pretty well.
- kamaal 11y agoIt was perceived to do very well. And that is the only thing that counts. That's the same thing today too.
- timcederman 11y agoMy second mobile phone was an Ericsson GH688. I spent an obscene amount of money on an Ericsson T68 when they first came out. The iPhone was better than any Ericsson phone I ever owned, as a phone (I owned a total of 8 Ericsson phones).
- discreteevent 11y agoI remember comparing a Sony minidisc player with an iPod. Same track, same compression, same headphones. The sound on the iPod was hopeless in comparison to the minidisc. Maybe the iPod improved later, I don't know.
- DrStalker 11y agoA better example would be launching a car without electric windows or air conditioning; you can get by without those features, people got by without those feature for decades before they became common but they are nice features to have that improves your experience driving the car. Copy & paste is not essential to a phone, and anyone who moved to an iPhone from a non-smart phone had never had that feature previously.
- jarek 11y agoAir conditioning brings up a good point: a new entrant can simplify for an MVP by limiting sales locations, possibly implicitly. For instance one can probably sell quite a lot of cars in California without a heating system, then once they've learned more about how to build cars, add heating to a new model. I still think that complexity of everything else actually required is not to be underestimated though.
- walshemj 11y agoAh that's the market taken by the old EOL models where the line is shipped to China Russia or India or south America.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago> But you can't launch a car without airbags. What complexity can the software folks eliminate and still have a viable product? This is a very insightful comment. Take as an example the recent 1.0L three-cylindre 120hp Ecoboost petrol engine by Ford. It's so small the entire thing fully assembled fits onto an A4 sheet of paper. It's not actually a very big part of the car. Meanwhile, the Ford Fiesta which this goes into has increased its total weight by almost 50% since 1980. Factoring in weight reductions in the engine, that's 350+ kg worth of increased safety and comfort, none of which is particularly simple engineering, and none of which can be eliminated in a modern electric car.
- jp555 11y agoHundreds of suppliers build components for the iPhone, and don't many suppliers build all the components for car manufacturers? Why can't Apple get these suppliers to make their seatbelts, airbags, etc? But maybe the game changes when using something like Gordon Murray's iStream manufacturing or how BMW is building the i3 & i8.
- jfoutz 11y agoI thought it was just a passive restraint system. The other answers i'm aware of are goofy - automatic seat belts, a padded bar that rests against your chest and locks on impact, or a cushion car, guaranteeing you'll have enough time to slow down because of huge crumple zones. Who knows. Airbags are reliable, well understood technology. But maybe there is something better. With an active collision detection system, something else might work better.
- jarek 11y agoWell, that's true. But I'd say inventing a brand-new safety-critical technology - as much as it's possible and desirable - doesn't usually go in the "simplified things" column.