57 ms·

Apple Car: Bad Idea After All

• pram 4y ago
  The Polestar 2 feels like what an 'Apple car' would be like, to me. It seems to have a giant Android tablet in the middle console. Looks pretty smooth and tasteful overall but I can't summon up any excitement for it.
  • dabeeeenster 4y ago
    I own a relatively early Polestar 2 in the UK. It has been plagued with software problems, including a software update failing and bricking the car, requiring 3 different volvo techs to come and unbrick it. Even with Google helping on the software! Even now I'm stuck on 2.0 for some reason (2.2 is the latest in the UK). No idea why. Cant face the call to Polestar support and the inevitable reply of "Take it to a vovlo dealer". The car itself is an absolutel monster. Love it to bits. The software not so much.
    • hangonhn 4y ago
      Given the relative simplicity of an electric drivetrain compared to ICE, is all that software absolutely necessary? I'm a bit shocked (pun intended?) to hear that your car got bricked by a software update.
      • WorldMaker 4y ago
        The fun trade-off to the simplicity of the electric drivetrain is that the drivetrain is now almost entirely software defined. In an ICE your torque is a factor of a lot of physics: the physics of the motor, the fuel injector, the gear ratios in the transmission, and so on and so forth. With an EV motor it in theory has 100% torque physically available at all times, if you've got the power stored in your battery for that. You don't actually want to drive that way, though, because that can waste a lot of power, that can be dangerous, and that can cause damage (to tires, if nothing else). The curves of how much power the car applies to an EV motor become software: everything about the "feel" of the acceleration pedal and even some of the "feel" of the brake pedal (because of regenerative braking) are software-defined curves. That's why EVs often give you multiple "Driving Modes" to explore to find the driving curve that feels the most fun for you to drive, or gives you the most ludicrous performance, or saves you the most battery power, or lets you do everything with a single pedal. Some of that is that people are just so use to driving ICE vehicles that manufacturers feel the need to make EVs drive like ICE vehicles for comfort and familiarity, even though they don't have to (there's no transmission gears to physically shift). Modern EVs are software-defined cars.
        • hangonhn 4y ago
          Thanks for explaining that to me. That's such a fascinating way of looking at it. I wonder how long it will be before we get the Linux of cars. Or the Pine Laptop equivalent.
• Juliet245 4y ago
• ghaff 4y ago
  Possible CarPlay expansion aside--I can't even summon up a good devil's advocate argument for this. I was having a discussion over the weekend over where Apple goes next with respect to hardware. I think my money is on AR if the many technical limitations can be overcome. There are also the social issues but as with many other things, I suspect a lot of people would be willing to put up with even more ubiquitous cameras in exchange for convenience whether you like it or not.
  • germinalphrase 4y ago
    Setting aside technicals issues as a huge caveat, the promise of AR is massive. I'm actually somewhat surprised that we're not seeing more AR focused media to prime people to the possibilities (but maybe we're just too early).
    • ghaff 4y ago
      Probably too early although we've seen some attempts with AR apps on phones. As you say, technical is a huge caveat. But it's pretty easy to see that IF we could have glasses that could overlay/enhance/record/etc. there are so many possibilities in a way there aren't with VR for example--for both consumer and commercial uses. By contrast, VR seems pretty limited; immersive gaming and virtual tourism just aren't that interesting for most people. And people don't want immersion in a lot of circumstances. When you can envision a clear market based on "just" relatively straightforward (if significant) extrapolations of technology that seems something worth paying attention to.
      • germinalphrase 4y ago
        Absolutely. I would absolutely love to work in the AR space at some point. That said, I can just as easily identify any number of social/cognitive/cultural "diseases" or abuses of that world. Should the transition happen (and all signs point at the big players /trying/ to make it happen), we will have some gnarly traps to avoid - and I'm not very confident that we will do so with grace.
• skhameneh 4y ago
  This is a disappointing read, zero insight into objectives beyond an EV for end consumers. There is so much more to consider - progressing Carplay integration, demand for processing/sensing, partnerships, building knowledge, etc. Take the Sony Vision S for example, that was never intended to be a produced vehicle.
• SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  Automotive EE here… any article that talks about Tesla’s financials even indirectly and it does not immediately mention how much money they make by selling carbon credits back to GM Ford and Stellantis can pay immediately be disregarded. A casual look at the numbers doesn’t explain much. But if you look at that 7% margin, and realize that Tesla is nearly doubling that with carbon credit sales which are 100% margin. It changes the picture. Anyone else has a car they make 7% minus buying credits to be able to sell more in California. Tesla sells a car they make more. Without the carbon program Tesla would drastically have to change its model, which will be interesting because everyone is selling their own EVs and won’t need to buy as many credits soon. It makes no sense for Apple to get into vehicles for 20 reasons, this is just one. They’re way too late.
  • bushbaba 4y ago
    Wouldn’t people have said the same with mp3 players back in the day. Honestly the biggest challenge will be manufacturing. Apple likes to surprise folks, how do you surprise them when you’ve got to build massive new factories
    • lisper 4y ago
      > the biggest challenge will be manufacturing Don't underestimate the challenge here. Making an MP3 player is not that different from making a computer. Making a car is very, very different.
      • SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
        It took Tesla a decade to learn this. And they’re just getting around to the ideas that the industry had 100 years to develop and refine.
    • kkaske 4y ago
      Wouldn't people have said the same thing with cell phones back in the day? In fact I had a discussion with an Apple store employee asking what they thought about the rumor that Apple was going to be releasing a phone. He said that there was no way Apple would even want to be in that space. I'm not saying they will get into cars, but you just never know.
• ARandumGuy 4y ago
  A full Apple Car has always seemed unrealistic to me. Cars are a fundamentally different industry then consumer electronics and software. Apple would be starting from scratch, and facing a lot of entrenched competition with huge budgets and infrastructure. And for what? What could Apple do that GM, Toyota, or Tesla couldn't? Maybe a better UX for the dashboard. And while many car UXs are absolutely terrible, improving them isn't some insurmountable challenge for existing manufacturers. And besides, Apple could just expand carplay and partner with car manufacturers, which seems like it would work better for everyone involved.
  • sk55 4y ago
    Once autonomous technology becomes mainstream, UX becomes the differentiating factor. I think Apple would have a lot to offer.
    • anamexis 4y ago
      And the entire rest of the car as well...
    • packetlost 4y ago
      The winds don't seem to be blowing in the direction of true autonomous driving through. The hype cycle seems to have died down and the sense of reality is setting in.
      • mberning 4y ago
        Capitulation on “full self driving” is here. Most manufacturers will be lucky to get level 3 automation by the end of the decade
        • bryanlarsen 4y ago
          Level 3 is widely considered to be a bad idea. Relying on a driver to take over quickly is a recipe for disaster.
        • 4y ago
• ncmncm 4y ago
  They could have bought Tesla, once. Too late now.
• meltyness 4y ago
  If it's something they officially give up on: Good. There's no sense in trying to further extend mega caps. If there were really a litany of issues with how vehicles were made, one would expect investment to appear in research and development that addresses those specific issues, not vehicles appearing out of capital groundswells from disasters. It's alarming that the media doesn't call this what it is: a sell signal, and a clear sign that stock buybacks, collusion, and scared FTC beauraucrats who aren't willing to throw down the antitrust flag are making a sick economy sicker.
• nixpulvis 4y ago
  "(nearly)"
• SomeCallMeTim 4y ago
  Given the number of times I've seen a reported, verified bug in OS X be "fixed" by hiding the bug from the public tracker and marking it "will not fix," I would have a hard time ever trusting a car made by Apple. Apple also makes their products to be disposable, seemingly as part of the culture, while a well-made electric car can run to a million miles over 50+ years. That's a very different build philosophy. The key to me is that Apple presents the image of perfect fit and finish--beyond that their products are not problematic in a lot of ways (ability to modify them, or expand them, or extend them in ways that Apple doesn't approve of...). Some of their tech is cool, don't get me wrong. But it's far from perfect. I would imagine an Apple car that only supports Apple Maps, Apple Music/Podcasts, and Siri and will only connect to iOS devices...and that costs twice as much as the Tesla for the base model, and more if you want a reasonable range. Pandora? Spotify? Waze? Meh. Sorry. Oh, and don't forget monthly fees for navigation; probably more like the $36/month of the Audi EV than the free navigation for the Tesla. I'm sure there's a market for it. There are a lot of people who love Apple and who have money.
  • lucasmullens 4y ago
    The latest iPhone reversed course on the disposability piece a little bit, making it arguably the most repairable iPhone ever.
    • gatonegro 4y ago
      Yes, and then went and serialised the parts.
      • pulvinar 4y ago
        That's to make the phones less of a theft target (for parting out). It's a tradeoff, but one most people prefer.
        • gatonegro 4y ago
          If the manufacturer makes parts easily available, wouldn't the incentive to steal devices to sell for parts more or less disappear? Same thing with counterfeit parts. The market for stolen/fake parts exists because OEM parts are essentially impossible to acquire legally. Serialisation is simply another way for Apple to maintain control. You can now repair a device, but only with Apple's blessing and knowledge. The privacy/safety stories they sell are just that.
• SoftTalker 4y ago
  I don't even think about buying cars less than 10 years old or so. I have actually had better luck doing this than when I used to buy cars new or nearly-new. It weeds out the lemons and the owners who don't take care of their cars. Let someone else take the depreciation and find out how they hold up in the long term. Does Apple have any history of supporting its hardware for that long?
  • s0rce 4y ago
    I was trying to do this and the market seems terrible. I can buy a 10-12yr old car with 150k miles for >$10k (at least in models that I was looking at). Or stuff that is hard to maintain for $5k (which is what I'm already driving). Newer used cars are almost as much or even more than new! Ended up putting a deposit on a new one.
    • SoftTalker 4y ago
      True enough that used car prices have kind of gone nuts in the past year or two. I look for local private sales, not dealer cars. You have to be both patient and ready to pounce when a good deal comes up.
  • drewzero1 4y ago
    This is something that really worries me about current automotive trends. Carmakers tend to assume a 10-year lifespan for their vehicles, though last I saw the average age of cars on the road in the US is slightly higher than that[0]. My current car is approaching 30 and I'm planning to replace it with something closer to 10-15 in the near future, old enough to avoid touchscreens and new enough to not be destroyed by rust (yet). With vehicles incorporating more technology, I'm concerned they might stop lasting long enough for rust to be an issue. Tech companies have already perfected a model of planned obsolescence. If cars start becoming obsolete and unusable as fast as tech products do, they won't have a chance to depreciate enough for me to afford one. 0: https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/average-age-of-vehicles-in-the-us-increases-to-122-years.html https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/average-age-of-vehic...
• fdye 4y ago
  So I've always wondered if Apple actually building a 'car' was ever really the goal. It seems like a skunkworks where they try crazy things and then incorporate into Carplay. Future seems to be ever expanding Carplay support. I use it and probably would not buy another car that did not have it integrated. I imagine car manufacturers are somewhat tired of always building HUDs and in vehicle control systems. So gradually standardizing on a way to take all the displays/touchscreens in a vehicle and let them be run by Carplay seems like the future. Eventually, they can start handing more and more of the software side (not their specialty) off to people cellphones via some interface, particularly around media. As the ubiquiti of the M1/M2 type chip is found in all of our pockets (embedded ML silicon), the car companies will no longer have to actually embed it in a vehicle as an add on. Plugging in your phone with an M1/M2 type chip will unlock Siri or similar AI functionality in the vehicle. Sure it will drive without it, just like it does now, but it wont be 'cool' and have all the assist, nav, and media functionality everyone wants.
  • dzhiurgis 4y ago
    Seeing how boring Carplay has been so far I’d have my doubts about skunkworks. That said it makes sense they might be working on exclusive operating system of sorts. The way car systems (100s of suppliers and their implementation) work nowadays is insane.
    • bergenty 4y ago
      I don’t know what you mean by “boring” but CarPlay is fantastic. It works really well and covers most things I’d like to do with a central console.
      • ghaff 4y ago
        "Boring" is good compared to most of the systems the car manufacturers came up with. A some of them still manage to screw up the integration of CarPlay with their own infotainment systems which often don't seem to want to get out of the way.
      • randomdata 4y ago
• stephc_int13 4y ago
  The competitive advantages of Apple are a strong brand, a huge stack of cash, world-class software and silicon engineers and second-to-none operations to build and sell millions of high-tech devices. They can make a car if they want to make a car. They could also make nice planes and boats... The question is, how competitive can they be in this market? I think they are too fat.
• supervillain 4y ago
  A suggestion for Apple. 1. Apple is worth $2.44 trillion USD; pay off the whole $240 billion USD debt owed by the Philippines. 2. Establish Apple HQ facilities in the Philippines and employ the vast majority of the country's talented software engineers there. 3. Take advantage of the cheap labour, low costs, and high standard of living to ride the wave of unending profit. This is how you turn things around and switch the lightbulb.
  • barbazoo 4y ago
    It's a fun thought experiment, I'm wondering though, what problem would that solve?
  • zffr 4y ago
    > pay off the whole $240 billion USD debt owed by the Philippines. Why do this?
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
    takes huge bong hit this is how you turn things around and switch the lightbulb
  • bergenty 4y ago
    Terrible idea, the Philippines is not known for innovation.
  • paxys 4y ago
    They can set up a facility and employ people in a country without paying off their debt. What exactly does Philippines have to offer that others don't?
    • supervillain 4y ago
      If the Philippine debt is repaid, you'll have established the new Silicon Valley, complete with a talent pool dominated by software engineers and a large number of blockchain and AI experts.
• pmontra 4y ago
  Anything can happen so these could also be wildly successful items in our future <fun>A phone from Mercedes</fun> <fun>A CPU from Ferrari</fun>
  • drewzero1 4y ago
    Maybe not quite the same thing, but OnePlus did a McLaren edition of one of their phones a few years back. It doesn't seem like it took the market by storm but it's still popular in some circles. (The improved specs certainly helped as well.)
• kalimanzaro 4y ago
  What if Apple made a 1500 dollar electric Mini (car)? Might just work. I have seen some comments here saying that all the money in the world can't buy you a better mobile phone. If Apple is able to generalize that to another product class, the world might really change for the better.
  • dirheist 4y ago
    I think a mini car would tank Apple's brand value significantly, especially if you think about the type of die hard apple fanboys who would be the first flock to hit the streets in these things. All it takes is a couple of people getting into some pretty dumb accidents to make people turn against them (the same way people judge BMW and Tesla drivers but probably to an even greater extent tbh).
• dtagames 4y ago
  Does anyone really think Apple is building a car? I don't and I never did. It makes no sense. It's not an industry one can just "switch into." The capital requirements for owning a car factory are ridiculous and it's not something you can outsource. There is zero crossover between consumer entertainment devices and the car business, as evidenced by the poor state of tech in cars! This is not something Apple can fix by making cars.
  • Someone 4y ago
    > There is zero crossover between consumer entertainment devices and the car business, as evidenced by the poor state of tech in cars! That looks similar to the state of MP3 players before the iPod, or smartphones before the iPhone. I think a self-driving car with a car-width display and hifi stereo (or better) could be a huge success, even if the self-driving only works on highways, as with the latest Mercedes. > It's not an industry one can just "switch into." Reminds me of https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-should-pull-the-plug-on-the-iphone https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-should-pull-the-plug...: “Now compare that effort and overlay the mobile handset business. This is not an emerging business. In fact it's gone so far that it's in the process of consolidation with probably two players dominating everything, Nokia Corp. NOK, -0.68% and Motorola Inc. MOT During this phase of a market margins are incredibly thin so that the small fry cannot compete without losing a lot of money. As for advertising and expensive marketing this is nothing like Apple has ever stepped into. It's a buzz saw waiting to chop up newbies The problem here is that while Apple can play the fashion game as well as any company, there is no evidence that it can play it fast enough. These phones go in and out of style so fast that unless Apple has half a dozen variants in the pipeline, its phone, even if immediately successful, will be passé within 3 months. There is no likelihood that Apple can be successful in a business this competitive.” Of course, that doesn’t imply the car industry is similar or that Apple can find the magic that cracks open the market, but they may think making a side bet of a few billion (Apple’s problem is that their MVP is larger than what the CEOs of most startups can only dream of) to see whether they can is a good idea.
    • dtagames 4y ago
      The reason that Apple is able to sell iPads and iPhones is that they are small computers, something which Apple has made and sold from day 1. This is not true of cars. Apple's entire business model has been predicated on proprietary computer hardware that's smaller and more capable with each iteration. When it became possible to play music, watch videos, and make phone calls on these small computers, Apple started selling them for that. The only new business Apple has ever gotten into is media, and that rides on the back of their hardware. None of this is true for cars! Apple's production, design, marketing, etc. have no overlap with how cars are made or sold -- and no amount of wishing or money will give them that overlap. It's not that it's a new business for Apple, cars are completely unrelated to anything Apple has ever made or done. No business in history has ever pulled off a switch like that. It's the reason that railroads never became airlines, for example. Even with unlimited capital, Apple lacks the mindset to produce and market a car out of thin air -- a task which is difficult even for those entrenched in the industry.
• rektide 4y ago
  Disney said no to buying Teitter because it would be a bad look, is a chaotic & messy property to acquire. It would be hard to manage & sully their clean image. Associating yourself with automobiles doesnt feel exactly the same, but there's a similar jist to me. Cars have some very obvious bad impact on this world. Supporting & selling them is a pain. Trying to keep yourself as a loved respected treasured company would be much more difficult, quite likely impossible.
• _ph_ 4y ago
  I found the announced enhancements to car play very interesting. To my understanding, it aims for replacing most of the user-facing software in cars. This is very tempting for car manufacturers, not to compete with car play, but just embrace it. It almost looks as if car play is to become the Windows of the car industry - instead of trying to come up with your own solution, just install the most widely used software available on the market. That could be a big step for Apple and hugely profitable, in the same way Windows made Microsoft into the giant it is. It just could be that. But that would depend on the car manufacturers giving up on their own software so easily and it would be a completely new strategy for Apple. They love to control the whole stack. Even in cases, where they entered a market with a collaboration - the early iPod Phones come to my mind - they later switched to their own product. Also, the rumor about an Apple car does keep coming back. And they spend a lot of money on what ever they are doing. So while the play on just Car Play might be strong, they do have something brewing in case car manufacturers don't just jump onto it. My favorite theory though is: they are building something which will be a "car" but as different from current cars as the iPhone was from mobile phones of its day and age. I would be really curious to see that.
  • taffronaut 4y ago
    Margins in the auto industry are tight and manufacturers are seeing software as their saviour. Hence we see software features allowing you to 'subscribe' to e.g. heated seats. There's hope in auto manufacturers for the "Smart TV play" where owner/driver analytics (anonymous and otherwise) can be sold on. Then there are hoped-for kickbacks from in-car infomercials advising drivers to replace consumables like tyres via a manufacturer-linked outlet. This is why car manufacturers fixate on their own software and yet car software will become more and more dysfunctional for the end user as they're the 'mark' not the customer. It could be hugely profitable for Apple to take over the space, but that would be at the expense of the car manufacturers' dreams of software-driven increase in margins, so I wouldn't bet on them signing up soon.
• tialaramex 4y ago
  HN seems like the sort of audience who can tell me. This is a serious question: Why would anybody listen to Jean-Louis Gassée? What I see is a career of failures, at Apple, at Be, at Palm, JLG was dealt good hands and some bad hands but played each indifferently. Did I miss something important ?
  • abrichr 4y ago
    This is not uncommon amongst executives. It’s often described as “failing forward”.
  • MBCook 4y ago
    That never stopped John C. Davorak. JLG is known and was at Apple. That makes him incredibly qualified. Somehow. I don’t know. He doesn’t seem worse than many other random columnists.
    • kalleboo 4y ago
      Dvorak was always just a troll, Gassée tries to be some kind of visionary
  • B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago
    A critic, ou analyst, does not need to be a good practitioner to provide the public with interesting insights. The "you can't cook/compose/etc, how dare you criticize the food/music/etc" line is rather crass.
  • kevingadd 4y ago
    This criticism doesn't seem like it fits for the actual content of the article. I read through it and didn't see much appeal to authority going on here, it's arguments mixed with opinion and justification/examples.
    • tialaramex 4y ago
      It wasn't really about this article in particular, I was wondering if I've just missed a reason why and the answer seems to be no.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• tobyjsullivan 4y ago
  I think people focus too much on the actual car in this speculation. What about the service? Apple is really, really good at finding industries full of bullshit (computers in the 80's, mobile phones in the early 2000's) and saying, "okay, here's a slightly better looking product, with fewer features, and no more bullshit." The vehicle market is full of bullshit. Tesla took the same tactic and has knocked it down considerably, but there's still the rest of the market.
  • mijamo 4y ago
    I don't think you can say Tesla is "no more bullshit". If anything they are the one adding shiny useless feature for the buzz, and having a terrible all touch UI that makes no sense for driving. The only car manufacturer that is "no more bullshit" would be Dacia and that's not the same segment. But they are indeed doing really well!
    • cruano 4y ago
      I mean, it's different bullshit at least no ? Not having to deal with dealerships, actual software updates instead of just abandoning software (BlueLink anyone?), pushing maintenance from every 6 months to ~2 years I don't own or want a Tesla, but its certainly different from the rest of the industry
  • BluSyn 4y ago
    It's amazing to me how short-sighted many views on Apple Car are. Service is key. Apple won't be following the model of the existing car makers. They WILL NOT sell cars direct to consumer. That's the key insight. They will not have showrooms, sales teams, or public service centers. You won't buy their cars directly at all. Instead, they are going for the end goal: Fully autonomous electric vehicles on-demand. This is the holy grail Tesla and others are going for. I don't know why this isn't obvious to everyone. Most of us are still stuck in the old paradigm. Apple is thinking bigger. The Apple Car will not have a steering wheel. Complete Level 5 autonomy is not some add-on feature, it is the key enabler that allows the entire product the exist. You don't need public service centers, because Apple will manage their own fleet, manage their own charging infrastructure, etc. The user experience is simple. You tell Siri I want to go to X by X time. The car arrives, it drops you off. That's the end. No bullshit. Fewer features. Less hassle. And in the end, less cost for the end user. The perfect UX. That's the Apple vision. Note, this is also Tesla's vision. But the other makers don't see this yet, and as a result will likely be bankrupt within 10-15 years.
• jononomo 4y ago
  I wish Toyota would partner with Apple for their internal maps, screen, controls, etc. Toyota seems to have a major problem with intuitive usability (especially for my parents who are in their 80s). Toyota is the largest car company in the world and makes the most reliable vehicles in the world, but they need that extra touch to take them to the next level. Just as I would never by a phone that is not an iPhone, or a laptop that is not a MacBook, I would never buy a car that is not a Toyota. But Toyota does have some room for improvement. Also, an Apple-Toyota partnership would make Teslas look pathetic in comparison.
  • jononomo 4y ago
    How much would it cost for Apple to take a 10% stake in Toyota? Doesn't Apple have a couple hundred billion dollars just lying around in cash?
    • restore_creole_ 4y ago
      That would be around $19 billion and Apple has around $40 billion on hand. Although I think the culture of Japan would cause more difficulties other than having enough money to afford it.
    • smileysteve 4y ago
      why buy 10% of Toyota when they could buy 100% of Ford (49.7bn market cap) with 90% cash on hand.
      • jononomo 4y ago
        Because Toyota makes reliable cars. As I noted above, I would never buy a car that is not a Toyota. If you want to be flashy, you get a BMW, but it you want to fight a war in the Middle East you get a Toyota Land Cruiser. Don't dismiss the reliability of Toyotas -- they really have it figured out.
  • _JamesA_ 4y ago
    Adding wireless CarPlay would be a great start.
• Joeri 4y ago
  Off topic, I am really digging the artwork at the top of this article. The bondi blue iMac, on wheels so snug in their wells they couldn’t turn more than a few degrees, standing on a white polished surface that it couldn’t drive on without unsightly black streaks, with a clearance so low it needs that polished surface to drive on. The most impractical car design, but quintessentially Apple. It is part homage and part diss at the same time. I love it.
• taylodl 4y ago
  What if Apple moved sideways and got into the electric motor scooter market instead and displacing the likes of Vespa? If they keep the power low enough (no freeway driving here!) then most states wouldn't require a special endorsement to ride it. It would be the ultimate cafe runner! Hipsters, college students, high school students, and suburban folks needing to drive everywhere would love it - and it would be reducing the amount of dino fuel burning vehicles on the road. The battery could be easily removable and carried in to charge in your house/apartment/dorm without any special equipment. Apple could absolutely kill this market.
  • greedo 4y ago
    The market for that (in terms of $$) would be a rounding error when compared to what they make on the AppleTV.
    • taylodl 4y ago
      You may be right but I wonder how such a market would compare to MacBooks? I wonder what the margins are? I think it's a big market and I don't see the so-called Big Four motorcycle manufacturers as being able to garner the public sentiment needed to tackle it. Apple could make it an extension of their environmental programs. Just a thought.
      • greedo 4y ago
        Well, MacBooks are the majority of Macs sold. 1Q of 2022, Apple sold roughly 3 million Macs. Figure an average of $1000 per Mac (which is low, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ), that's almost $3B. Now Apple no longer breaks out product sales, so this is market research data, but it's probably safe to figure the annual Mac market at around $10B. I can't see scooters being a big market at all, at least not at the margins Apple likes.
• WalterBright 4y ago
  There have been a lot of failed new car company startups. Like the Tucker, the Bricklin, the DeLorean. It's really, really, really hard to create a new car company. The usual problem is way, way underestimating the amount of capital it will take. Tesla is an amazing company because they achieved it. Apple's expertise is in making software and tiny electrical gadgets. How they thought that would translate into expertise in making cars is beyond me. It makes about as much sense as diversifying into making jet engines.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • detaro 4y ago
    > How they thought that would translate into expertise in making cars is beyond me Is there any concrete statement/"evidence" that they ever seriously intended to "make cars"? Media reports always talk about "Apple cars", but the concrete visible bits I've seen also fit a software/computer-angle. But "Apple is dabbling in self-driving tech like any other large company with lots of money and an AI/ML-department" isn't as catchy a story.
  • B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago
    > How they thought that would translate into expertise in making The "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in." line aged poorly extremely fast. But you know that, everybody knows that. And Apple has the capital and the Tesla blueprint. So, why really not? (genuine question, I'd like to pick your brains on that)
  • bombcar 4y ago
    I've always thought Apple's play is to try to build a self-driving setup that can be sold/integrated with other manufacturers.
• aetherane 4y ago
  I don't get why Apple's user experience keeps being repeated as "second to none". It really depends on what you are doing and used to. I personally find Android easier to use than iOS, but maybe I would feel differently if I haven't been using it for a while.
  • PlsDntBan 4y ago
  • pGuitar 4y ago
    Apple always had anti-consumer rules for their products... not sure why it finally took off.
    • boxed 4y ago
      Besides them inventing the modern smart phone and revolutionizing an industry? What did the romans ever do for US? :P
      • smoldesu 4y ago
        All Apple did is commodify the industry, and that business model has proven to be successful for them (same as it was with the iPod). At the end of the day, Apple's contributions to technology aren't chivalric acts of kindness. Their ultimate goal is the same as everyone, running a rent collection business and relying on their services to make consistent income. That's what I think we need to fix. Apple can continue to make phones, we just need to separate their services (the App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV, Podcasts, etc.) from their hardware business. If they did that, I might actually buy a Mac again!
        • scarface74 4y ago
          A commodity is something by definition that is easily substitutable and you have to compete on price. Apple products are anything but a “commodity”. This is kinda Econ 101.
        • 4y ago
• Tiktaalik 4y ago
  A mild problem that Apple has is that they seem to spend a lot of time solving the sort of problems that a highly paid VP from California would have. Being frustrated by the driving experience and trying to solve that problem is in that category, being focused on the sort of annoyances that people spending huge amounts of time driving to Cupertino would have. Meanwhile city governments around the US and the world are trying very hard to reduce the amount of cars on the road. Would be nice if Apple were thinking ahead and not contributing to the entrenchment of this 20th century technology.
  • alexyz12 4y ago
    Theres no money in reducing the amount of cars on the road. There's no money in solving societies problems in general - who would pay for it?
    • astrange 4y ago
      Micromobility companies look like they’re doing okay to me.
• jedberg 4y ago
  Apple doesn't get into low margin businesses. They get into an adjacent business. A prime example is TVs. There is no Apple TV set. There is AppleTV, a high margin add on for any TV with HDMI that makes it "just work". They had the chance to buy a cellular carrier, but chose not to, because it's low margin. Instead they make a phone that works on any carrier. Cars are a low margin business. But a car add-on could be a high margin business. They already have CarPlay, but I can see them making a hardware add-on for cars.
  • bartart 4y ago
    Aren't products like smartphones, laptops, desktops, etc all low-margin businesses though? At least for every other company in the market. Apple just sticks to the high end? Porsche sells hundreds of thousands of vehicles per year with something like $20k profit per car on a $90k average selling price. There could be big demand for an innovative Tesla equivalent that didn't have so many build quality issues. And Foxconn is desperate to get an Apple car contract. Car companies really screwed themselves by outsourcing everything to suppliers (who have much higher profit margins than the car manufacturers at this point) except the internal combustion engine which is losing importance fast. What I am seeing here for Apple is big demand, low barrier to entry, and high profits.
  • jillesvangurp 4y ago
    Apple is like other big companies, fundamentally risk averse. They seem incapable of straying too far from their core business, which at this point is making laptops and phones (and content delivery to those platforms). It's a very lucrative business and they've been gradually shifting revenue to software and content distribution. But that business in turn is ironically held back by the notion that it requires Apple hardware. They are not selling a lot to non Apple hardware owners. So, from that point of view, they actually should be expanding their platform to new areas. Like the living room or the car. Which begs the question why there is no Apple gaming console, an Apple TV (as in an actual TV). Instead what we got was a rather underwhelming Apple TV thing that isn't very good as a gaming console and more of a chrome cast substitute aimed at people who want to experience a very watered down Apple experience on their non Apple TV. And we got the streaming service which so far isn't making too much of a dent in Netflix. What's weird is that they've had a great chip for many years that is perfectly capable of running lots of games. A lot of their mobile apps are in fact games and they run great on IOS. And the M1/M2 chips are pretty decent at running GPU accelerated software as well. But what they did not do was open up the platform to games. They have a few game ports running on mac OS and the Apple TV is technically an IOS device and even has some games. But it's so crippled that that is very much a side show of a side show. The Apple TV itself is of course a side show and playing games on it is very much an afterthought; that's not what it's for. Cars are much worse for Apple. They could do one on paper but they'd have to partner with someone on all the car bits, which is uncomfortable for Apple (it means they don't control the platform) because they don't have a lot of in house experience building cars. And there are a lot of new companies focusing on making great cars right now (Tesla famously being labeled the Apple of cars, for example). And, car ventures are very capital intensive. You'd need many billions of investment to produce even a small number of cars. Tens/hundreds of billions to scale up; like Tesla has done. That makes it a very risky business. So, they did Apple Car play instead, which seems the closest Apple will get to the automotive experience and it's similar to the Apple TV in the sense that it's a watered down experience that only makes sense for existing Apple users. It expands their reach a little and it brings in some revenue. But it's not an Apple Car.
• bottlepalm 4y ago
  It’s funny how Apple CarPlay is basically the Android of the car world. While Tesla is more like IOS/iPhone, controlling both the hardware and software.
  • scarface74 4y ago
    Tesla is more like Samsung. Decent hardware and subpar software and user interfaces.
    • bottlepalm 4y ago
      The point is Samsung does not control the Android software. Regardless which car do you think has better software and UI than Tesla?
      • scarface74 4y ago
        Android is open source (enough), Samsung can and does make changes to Android to support its own hardware with its own UI. I’ll take any car with CarPlay over the Tesla interface.
        • bottlepalm 4y ago
          Yea that was a concern when I bought a Tesla, but now I don’t miss CarPlay at all.
          • scarface74 4y ago
            I would really miss running my third party apps - especially Overcast.
            • bottlepalm 4y ago
              I mean iPhone apps still run fine through Bluetooth and there is a phone dock right under the main screen in Tesla so no problem seeing the phone and interacting.
• Melatonic 4y ago
  I always liked OSX but an Apple Car is literally something I would never buy. Their walled garden manipulative BS is the exact opposite of what I want in a vehicle.
  • scarface74 4y ago
    Yes because you can install anything you want on other cars…
• pryelluw 4y ago
  I don’t see the point of them selling a car. Expanding CarPlay is more realistic. Let the automakers produce the vehicle code and apple takes care of the screens and what nots. I’d love to be able to build iOS apps for my car. Though as someone who values consumer and ownership rights, it might not be a great idea after all.
  • strulovich 4y ago
    Tesla has a $886m market cap as of today, that’s a third of Apple’s. There’s money to be made selling cars, a lot of money. If all Apple does is CarPlay, they don’t get that money.
• terminatornet 4y ago
  only apple car i wanna hear about is the one lowly worm from busytown drives
• beloch 4y ago
  The iBug will probably be good for some people but horrible for others. "It just works" is a fine motto, but a lie. Devices often need intervention to work properly or to work at all. Laptops and phones generally require a lot less intervention than cars. Some of us are happy to outsource that labour to others. Some of us are fascinated with how things work and prefer to at least try fixing things ourselves. I have learned from personal experience that Apple is outright hostile to the latter form of folk. I fully expect an Apple car will have all manner of non-standard screws, fasteners, and parts. It will be technically possible for third party mechanics to deal with, but letting one breathe on your iBug will void the warranty. Just opening the hood will, no doubt, require special tools and break multiple tamper-proof warranty-voiding seals. If you're happy taking your iBug into an Apple store every time you hear a new noise, you'll be fine with an iBug. If you're the sort who wants to pop the hood and try to track down the problem yourself, then beware!
  • scarface74 4y ago
    As opposed to Teslas and where the rest of the car industry is going?
• tiffanyh 4y ago
  I think did an "Apple TV" to their car efforts. Originally, Apple desired to make the Apple TV (hardware) the complete replacement for all your TV viewing needs. And for all the streaming services to just be dumb content pipes connected through a common / consistent Apple TV (app/software) UI. Then Apple realized the Netflix's of the world are not going to give up the user experience, let alone the direct relationship with the user. So Apple then pivots by making Apple TV just the platform for some other company to deliver their stream service through (like the Apple CarPlay). They then refine their strategy to come around to realizing, they need to make their own content (the new Apple CarPlay HUD / instrumentation).
• Ftuuky 4y ago
  Apple should buy comma.ai and turn iPhones into autonomous drivers.
• olliej 4y ago
  Sure it crashes all the time, but it looks really sleek while doing so :D
• Animats 4y ago
  Oh, no new news. At first it seemed this was going to be "Apple cancels car project". But no.
• yalogin 4y ago
  What is the point of this article? I guess it had good engagement here but ultimately doesn’t provide anything of value. Apple will get into the car business if it can offer something better. Either way the product will be wonderful if they do, and we know they won’t abandon it too. So if they get in we can see iteratively improving product that is baseline better than many/most. Does it happen? Who knows?
• daviddever23box 4y ago
  This may have already been said, but QNX is the underlying OS for CarPlay, and not iOS / macOS / *os. It has a pretty strong track record for realtime capabilities.
• nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  The Apple Helicopter was a great idea! https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh1a53zaGV1qasgpw.gif https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh1a53zaGV1qasgpw.gif
• victor106 4y ago
  Watching the code interview with Jonny Ive, the part where Kara asks him about UI in cars, it feels like Apple is working on a car. https://youtu.be/sdvzYtgmIjs https://youtu.be/sdvzYtgmIjs
• BluSyn 4y ago
  It's amazing to me how short-sighted many views on Apple Car are. Service is key. Apple won't be following the model of the existing car makers. They WILL NOT sell cars direct to consumer. That's the key insight. They will not have showrooms, sales teams, or public service centers. You won't buy their cars directly at all. Instead, they are going for the end goal: Fully autonomous electric vehicles on-demand. This is the holy grail Tesla and others are going for. I don't know why this isn't obvious to everyone. Most of us are still stuck in the old paradigm. Apple is thinking bigger. The Apple Car will not have a steering wheel. Complete Level 5 autonomy is not some add-on feature, it is the key enabler that allows the entire product the exist. You don't need public service centers, because Apple will manage their own fleet, manage their own charging infrastructure, etc. The user experience is simple. You tell Siri I want to go to X by X time. The car arrives, it drops you off. That's the end. No bullshit. Fewer features. Less hassle. And in the end, less cost for the end user. The perfect UX. That's the Apple vision. Note, this is also Tesla's vision. But the other automakers don't see this yet, and as a result will likely be bankrupt within 10-15 years.
• bmitc 4y ago
  > a company who’s sense of fit and finish, its attention to the user’s experience is second to none Lol. At a minimum, I’d rephrase that as: > a company who’s sense of fit and finish, its attention to the user’s experience is antagonistic
• myrandomcomment 4y ago
  Having owned both MB and Porsche I can say I would pay for having an Apple driven, configurable dial set. That being said, the trend to replace buttons that you can feel and learn and access without thinking (looking at you Tesla) I hope there is some sanity to the design. Screens for what they are good at, buttons for normal everyday stuff!