Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Apple car

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Who agrees with me that Apple under the visionary guidance (oops, already gave it away)
of Steve Jobs would already have brought an Apple car?

Btw, it was a strong personal interest Jobs contemplated of encountering after the iPhone.
Probably break the vicious circle that's paralysing personal mobility?...

FEn8yrAXIAwVyJ1
 
Last edited:
Honestly, if Steve Jobs were alive today, he'd be driving a Tesla, and he'd have a Founder's Roadster on order. Of course, Steve's would be detailed perfectly, no paint failures or bare spots on the frame for him.

What Apple is planning, no one knows, because they seem to have made several changes over the years, and they could make several more. If there were a void in the market, they might enter, but I don't see the void. AND, with Jony Ive leaving Apple, I don't see Apple building a super-expensive vehicle. Jony was the one who drove an Aston.
Steve leased the same Mercedes SL AMG every 6 months. The SL and SLK were quite popular here in the Bay Area. Steve was more like a perfectionist. He wouldn't drive a Tesla consider most Teslas have subpar build quality and paint jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron_M3 and stcptl
Far higher than any automotive can ever hope to achieve under any scenario. But if they want to get in they would be scary formidable.
From what I have read / seen, Tesla cars have about the same profit margin, and maybe more.
They have months of backlog and their MFG costs are falling, so T is literally minting money. Elon recently posted their non-Union employees earn more than Union, with more benefits.

So, yes, Tesla is in an exceptionally strong position.
 
Agreed and it bears repeating that this offering from Apple as well as Google are simply infotainment and the other controls are just "skinned" (those are coded and managed by someone else).

What Tesla has is fully integrated with all the code running in the vehicle (BMS, brakes, EPAS, body controls, pedal monitor, AP, DU...etc). All, and I mean ALL, can be OTA'd down to the bootloader. Which means that no matter what it can be updated. This is the ultimate level of integration and is several levels away from what Apple and Google have done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DblOSmith
My original take here was Apple would supply the silicon for the car console and handle things like security in the car. That would be a significant shift and alter the landscape. Extending the current model (where the car console is a slave to the phone) might result in a marginally better version of CarPlay but it’s not game changing or even particularly interesting.

Car makers have struggled just getting phone as a key working right. This would mean they would have to build out their own entire buggy interface, then run CarPlay on top of that, adding a layer of interface bugs to original sloppy implementation.


I have. Riding my bike I wouldn’t say “Often”, but on occasion. I’ve also run out of batteries while on long rides on more than one occasion. Or just plain forgot my phone.

While CarPlay taking over the car would be interesting, it is a poor substitute for an integrated approach.

EDIT: My take here is if they took over the console it would be potentially game changing. This is just an incremental improvement.

Watching that video was painful. @DaveT please discuss with folks that know much more what is going on and educate yourself prior to posting about things that will never happen. James does a fantastic job with AI and FSD as an example.

I've written a bunch on this already so I'll just say this: Until Apple puts one of their chips in the vehicle and all compute goes through that chip, this is a nothing burger.

Thanks @cab, I've been ignorant of the developments in Apple Carplay and Android Auto, and I wouldn't be surprised if others are too. It's worth getting the facts and avoiding an Apple-to-oranges comparison (pun intended).

I'm impressed by the current state of Android Automotive OS (vs. infotainment-only Android Auto - see screen shot below). Unlike the proposed Apple Carplay (which requires an iPhone), Android Automotive OS is not a skin @Discoducky, but the default software in the vehicle:

"Android Automotive is an operating system and platform running directly on the in-vehicle hardware. It is a full-stack, open source, highly customizable platform powering the infotainment experience. Android Automotive supports apps built for Android as well as those built for Android Auto."

According to ArsTechnica:
"It controls not just maps and media, but the air conditioning, lights, ride settings, seat location, camera views, and most other car settings. You don't need a smartphone, since Android Automotive OS is installed on the car computer storage. An onboard version of the Play Store even lets you download apps directly to your car. The car is like the world's biggest Android device."

If you look at videos of, for example, Polestar's OS, (wow! that's a... Tesla-like experience!) there is no "default OEM software", it's only Android Automotive OS. So the problems others have noted about not having an iPhone at all times don't exist with Android Automotive OS.

And unlike Tesla, Android Automotive OS offers apps - like Lyft. It would be better for Lyft to be built-in to the car rather than the driver using their tiny phone to run their ride-share.

And one other advantage Google has over Apple: Google has a long-established record of collaborating with 3rd-party manufacturers - like Samsung - to develop Android on independent hardware devices. Apple? Not so much.

View attachment 813735

K Mods, I guess this should move to another thread now. :)