4 ms·

>Apple is just about the only company with a similar ethos and enough money and patience to be a viable competitor and have a competitive brand known for qualit

>Apple is just about the only company with a similar ethos and enough money and patience to be a viable competitor and have a competitive brand known for quality. Mostly agree, though I suspect a few of the major car companies like Volkswagon/Audi and Toyota/Lexus are capable of this as well. But yes, Apple has the cash reserves to not just manufacture electric cars, but to build out the necessary infrastructure network as well: - charging stations blanketing the country - battery replacement stations for faster "charging" on the fly - local maintenance stations - etc.. Apple could centralize sales to Apple's website, and transform "dealer networks" into "maintenance networks". Sales can be handled in a centralized manner, but maintenance still requires locality. All that requires large upfront CapEx, but Apple is one of the few that has more than enough cash reserves for that.

ethbr0 6y ago
Tesla and Apple have figured out that could is a better stock multiplier than does.
- SkyMarshal 6y ago
  Isn't that how the entire stock market works? Valuations based on net present value of future projected earnings. You just need a story about future earnings that enough of the market will buy into. Both Apple and Tesla have enough track record to credibly tell such a story.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    Net present value of future projected earnings, adjusted for risk. That last part seems to be missing. Likely because the smart money knows that retail investors + indices = momentum trading on sectors. As there's no ability for anyone to call BS in the way they used to be able to. Or to put it another way: if I'm Toyota, I have a demonstrated ability to build cars profitably. If I'm someone who says I can build as many cars as Toyota, how many pitfalls are there between what I say I can do and actually doing it? Admittedly, corporate conservatism and risk avoidance in leadership is absolutely a thing, but it feels like we're rewarding claims of execution over actual execution.
    - enos_feedler 6y ago
      If you are Toyota, you've only demonstrated you could build cars profitably for the consumer market you were already in. If consumer preferences, trends, etc have changed, and no product is yet available to fulfill those new preferences, there is actually risk that what you are good at building profitably isn't what people want anymore. There is risk in that too.
      - SkyMarshal 6y ago
        Well to nitpick a little, in the case of Toyota at least, and given the success of the Prius, it seem Toyota has proven they can identify and succeed in (or even create) new consumer markets.
        enos_feedler 6y ago
        Thats true. Gotta give them credit. This could be a good proof point for derisking the Toyota case. However, Apple is pretty secretive and they often surprise us. There is a lot of design space deviation possible in a complex product like a car. Until we know what that product delta is, we cant really assess Toyota’s ability to pivot quickly enough. Apple wouldnt invest if the delta on what they can offer is small. So should be interesting.
      - ethbr0 6y ago
        There is. But are you saying that: "the risk that Toyota, with demonstrated volume manufacturing prowess, is unable to pivot into a new class of vehicles" is greater than "the risk that a new manufacturer, with no track record of volume automotive manufacturing, can create a product and manufacture it in volume"? That was my original contention and where I feel the market is mispricing risk.
        enos_feedler 6y ago
        Yes. Because there is theory and case studies to back how often a company like Toyota will fail to pivot
watsocd 6y ago
If Steve Jobs was still alive, I would agree with you. Steve Jobs = Elon Musk in a different market. Without someone in control who can make major decisions quickly, capital will not be enough for Apple.
beezle 6y ago
>and transform "dealer networks" into "maintenance networks". People tend to overlook just how many service centers are available for the big three (about 10K), not even counting independent garages. Tesla has..500. How many will Apple have? If the Tesla service horror stories are anything to go by, I can only imagine what it would be like for an iCar once production ramps up.
01100011 6y ago
Apple has the cash to do all kinds of things. Why shouldn't Apple get into transoceanic shipping? Mining? Canned food? All of these things are outside of Apple's core focus and they are unlikely to possess an advantage over other players. Sort of like automobiles. The world is starting to feel like 1999 all over again. People's visions are getting further and further removed from reality.
- SkyMarshal 6y ago
  Apple's core focus is Design of consumer electronic appliances. Making complicated technology simple, intuitive, and trouble-free, and hiding the complexities behind the scenes. Technically, an Electric Car fits that description too. The challenge is that the complexities of an EV are similar, but greater in scale than for consumer electronic devices - more parts, more complex supply chains, more extensive support network (charging stations, maintenance providers). Whether Apple can scale up to handle those increased complexities, and whether they calculate it's financially worth it for them, I doubt anyone outside Apple can really know at this time.

ethbr0 6y ago

Tesla and Apple have figured out that could is a better stock multiplier than does.

SkyMarshal 6y ago
Isn't that how the entire stock market works? Valuations based on net present value of future projected earnings. You just need a story about future earnings that enough of the market will buy into. Both Apple and Tesla have enough track record to credibly tell such a story.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  Net present value of future projected earnings, adjusted for risk. That last part seems to be missing. Likely because the smart money knows that retail investors + indices = momentum trading on sectors. As there's no ability for anyone to call BS in the way they used to be able to. Or to put it another way: if I'm Toyota, I have a demonstrated ability to build cars profitably. If I'm someone who says I can build as many cars as Toyota, how many pitfalls are there between what I say I can do and actually doing it? Admittedly, corporate conservatism and risk avoidance in leadership is absolutely a thing, but it feels like we're rewarding claims of execution over actual execution.
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    If you are Toyota, you've only demonstrated you could build cars profitably for the consumer market you were already in. If consumer preferences, trends, etc have changed, and no product is yet available to fulfill those new preferences, there is actually risk that what you are good at building profitably isn't what people want anymore. There is risk in that too.
    - SkyMarshal 6y ago
      Well to nitpick a little, in the case of Toyota at least, and given the success of the Prius, it seem Toyota has proven they can identify and succeed in (or even create) new consumer markets.
      - enos_feedler 6y ago
        Thats true. Gotta give them credit. This could be a good proof point for derisking the Toyota case. However, Apple is pretty secretive and they often surprise us. There is a lot of design space deviation possible in a complex product like a car. Until we know what that product delta is, we cant really assess Toyota’s ability to pivot quickly enough. Apple wouldnt invest if the delta on what they can offer is small. So should be interesting.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      There is. But are you saying that: "the risk that Toyota, with demonstrated volume manufacturing prowess, is unable to pivot into a new class of vehicles" is greater than "the risk that a new manufacturer, with no track record of volume automotive manufacturing, can create a product and manufacture it in volume"? That was my original contention and where I feel the market is mispricing risk.
      - enos_feedler 6y ago
        Yes. Because there is theory and case studies to back how often a company like Toyota will fail to pivot

watsocd 6y ago

If Steve Jobs was still alive, I would agree with you. Steve Jobs = Elon Musk in a different market. Without someone in control who can make major decisions quickly, capital will not be enough for Apple.

beezle 6y ago

>and transform "dealer networks" into "maintenance networks". People tend to overlook just how many service centers are available for the big three (about 10K), not even counting independent garages. Tesla has..500. How many will Apple have? If the Tesla service horror stories are anything to go by, I can only imagine what it would be like for an iCar once production ramps up.

01100011 6y ago

Apple has the cash to do all kinds of things. Why shouldn't Apple get into transoceanic shipping? Mining? Canned food? All of these things are outside of Apple's core focus and they are unlikely to possess an advantage over other players. Sort of like automobiles. The world is starting to feel like 1999 all over again. People's visions are getting further and further removed from reality.

SkyMarshal 6y ago
Apple's core focus is Design of consumer electronic appliances. Making complicated technology simple, intuitive, and trouble-free, and hiding the complexities behind the scenes. Technically, an Electric Car fits that description too. The challenge is that the complexities of an EV are similar, but greater in scale than for consumer electronic devices - more parts, more complex supply chains, more extensive support network (charging stations, maintenance providers). Whether Apple can scale up to handle those increased complexities, and whether they calculate it's financially worth it for them, I doubt anyone outside Apple can really know at this time.