-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Apple car rumors fuel Geneva debate about car of future - Yahoo Finance
Tim Cook gave a great quote along the lines of my comment up thread.
Billionaire Carl Icahn can't wait to drive an Apple car - Feb. 27, 2015
Tim Cook gave a great quote along the lines of my comment up thread.
Billionaire Carl Icahn can't wait to drive an Apple car - Feb. 27, 2015
Last edited:
Morgan Stanley lends more credence to the idea of Apple car - again. In my mind, if Apple decides to get into the automotive space, partnership with Tesla is almost inevitable.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-car-could-drive-company-to-1-trillion-valuation-2015-03-02
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-car-could-drive-company-to-1-trillion-valuation-2015-03-02
I still find it funny that some people are all excited about how Apple could approach the car market differently, when in fact it's likely the Apple engineering mindset would have converged (or will converge) on a *very* similar path to what Tesla has done - that is, design EVs from the ground up using first principles.
I 100% agree. If Apple was going to build a car, it would be a Model S (and the forthcoming Model X). Among other issues, the automotive industry has too many regulatory guidelines and dependence on suppliers for Apple to move in the secrecy and speed in which Apple is accustom. I believe Tesla is innovating (for better or worse) and investing as quickly as possible.
The Blue Owl
Endangerous Herbivore
That's right. The "car of the future" has been on the road for more than two years, and the incumbents didn't pay attention. Now that the biggest gorilla in the jungle is looking in the general direction of their berry bush and making noises, all of a sudden it's about "complementarity" and "convergence". When, actually, it's about their survival. And the way they talk makes me think they still haven't come to terms with this fact.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Let me pose a question: If Apple were to enter the EV market, would they be able to grow EV revenue faster than 50% per year for more than 7 years running? How or why not?
Apple if it developed an iPhone of the car industry, will grow 100% yoy revenues. No doubt. Before some raise questions, I think that Model S still has room for improvement. I also ask if Apple would have released a Model S had they been in place of Tesla. I see Apple making huge improvement in following.
- Exterior appeal. Many compare Model S design similar to jaguars, kias, hyundais and what not. Out of 5000 phone models, iPhone stood out every year it has been in market.
- Interior: Apple would do a MUCH BETTER job at interior than Tesla. No doubt here. Yes, infotainment is good on Model S, but beauty about Apple is that they will bring subtle changes you never thought necessary but once you have em, you can't live without it.
Apple has strict quality control rules and they also innovate hugely on production side. They use camera tech to find the best back module that will fit current front unit in assembly. Happens in milliseconds. Their fit and finish is the best in industry. They can be somewhat better than Tesla.
In terms of EV tech, Apple has some catch up to do. But so was the case to develop smart phones. Different challenges, they rise up for the occasion. They take product approach at heart and don't really have a timeline unlike Tesla or anyone else. This is the reason, they are a step ahead of others.
I feel that Apple must be the change Elon wants in EV industry. Suddenly, the whole industry will release EVs the following year if Apple sets up a press conf to release an EV.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Zero Chance.
If they do some kind of wierdmobile most will hate it.
If they do something conventional then it can't be much better than Tesla.
The difference between electronics and cars is no one ever tried to make electronics beautiful. Just functional.
Auto designers have been trying to design bold and beautiful cars since they were eight years old.
Tesla is like Jaguar, Aston Martin and Maserati.
Saying Kias and Hyundais is just hateraid.
- - - Updated - - -
Apple does not make anything. Foxconn may have strict quality control.
A car is orders of magnitude more complex. Even a BEV.
You didn't get my point.Zero Chance.
If they do some kind of wierdmobile most will hate it.
If they do something conventional then it can't be much better than Tesla.
The difference between electronics and cars is no one ever tried to make electronics beautiful. Just functional.
Auto designers have been trying to design bold and beautiful cars since they were eight years old.
Tesla is like Jaguar, Aston Martin and Maserati.
Saying Kias and Hyundais is just hateraid.
- - - Updated - - -
Apple does not make anything. Foxconn may have strict quality control.
A car is orders of magnitude more complex. Even a BEV.
iPhone is not a weird phone. I would say Apple knows more about design and no compromise approach than anyone else. Remember Elon took out the reading lights from back? I cannot imagine Apple doing that. A simple and small example. Yes, Elon brought back the reading lights after one of his sons complained.
Yes going far to compare Model s with kias is not right and I would not like to hear as well. However, that's been discussed many times elsewhere by many. I only hear iPhone copycats.
About manufacturing, Apple has many patents and share them with foxconn to build their devices. The camera tech to find the best cover that'll fit current assembly module is Apple manufacturing patent.
I like Tesla more than Apple with EVs because of its mission and a great leader, but looking back 10 years, I wouldn't count Apple out.
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
Your post shows a fanboyish believe in Apple's superiority. Anyone actually involved in this industry will tell you that you are ignoring a few inconvenient facts... Antenna design in the iPhone 4 (where Apple ended up giving everyone a free bumper case because of horrid reception, depending how you hold the phone). Apple's problems with swelling batteries. The disaster around feature removal in Final Cut Pro X - just to pick three very different examples.
So yes, they have good designers. And they have bullied their eco system into decent quality. But they also have an infallibility complex. And tend to seriously underestimate the complexity of new markets. See the health features of the watch.
I'm sure someone must have posted this video here... Introducing Apple Car - YouTube I keep thinking it's spot on
Having said all this, yes, it would be nice to have someone with their cash enter this market. But no, they are not as magical as their hardcore fanboys seem to think
So yes, they have good designers. And they have bullied their eco system into decent quality. But they also have an infallibility complex. And tend to seriously underestimate the complexity of new markets. See the health features of the watch.
I'm sure someone must have posted this video here... Introducing Apple Car - YouTube I keep thinking it's spot on
Having said all this, yes, it would be nice to have someone with their cash enter this market. But no, they are not as magical as their hardcore fanboys seem to think
While I am doubtful that Apple will get into the business of designing and building cars -- and I think we are in agreement on that -- I disagree with your statement quoted above. Though beauty is of course a subjective quality, I find the MacBook Air, iPhone, and many other Apple products to be be both beautiful and functional.
Yes Apple had made technical and design mistakes with their products (as has Tesla and every other company I can think of). But considering the hundreds of technical and design issues that Apple has successfully solved on their way towards making their current product line propel them to become the highest-valued corporation in human history, it seems clear to me that Apple is doing a lot of things right.
Calling Apple advocates "fanboys" is neither a constructive argument nor a courteous approach to disagreeing with someone's point of view.
Last edited:
The reason why I have an iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Pro is simple: interoperability across platforms. Sure, there are ways to get an Android/Windows ecosystem that is similar, but nothing that is as easy and seamless.
I don't see that there is a comparably strong cross-platform hook between my car and my phone/tablet/laptop. Sure, I would very much like my Model S nav system to be able to pick up a route I've planned out on my computer, but such integration is a relatively minor plus (or minus) compared to all the other attributes of a car.
I don't see that there is a comparably strong cross-platform hook between my car and my phone/tablet/laptop. Sure, I would very much like my Model S nav system to be able to pick up a route I've planned out on my computer, but such integration is a relatively minor plus (or minus) compared to all the other attributes of a car.
Robert, I agree with cars - you'll have a different set of ecosystem. Charging systems, service, traffic intelligence, geo-parameters, and much more not known will be developed. The App Store/cloud may just be a part of infotainment system. Cars have not changed much technically so once tech companies dig the hole, I am sure they will find compelling ecosystems and use-cases that we don't yet know/care about.
About being fanboy, I am a Tesla fanboy not Apple fanboy! The response hurts, but hey, I am here to make money and not to win a debate with someone.
About being fanboy, I am a Tesla fanboy not Apple fanboy! The response hurts, but hey, I am here to make money and not to win a debate with someone.
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
I'd never call serious Apple advocates "fanboys".
I will, however, call people "fanboys" who make generic, overreaching statements declaring a company or technology perfect and pretending they are infallible.
I call people who do this to Tesla "fanboys", I call people who do this to Apple "fanboys", I call people who do this about Linux "fanboys".
It's a term used to point out that someone has stopped to think critically about the shortcomings of a company or technology. In the post that I responded to (and foolishly didn't quote) that attitude seemed pretty clearly visible to me.
Let me rectify my mistake:
Apple would never take something useful away from its customers? Tell this to the large Final Cut Pro user base.
iPhone copy cats? Every single feature introduced in the iPhone 6 has been in the Nexus phones (and Android) for a year or two.
And finally "Apple has many patents" and equating that to Apple's superior knowledge in (of all things) manufacturing a car...
I rest my case.
But @pGo, let me be clear - I don't mean "fanboy" as a personal insult. If you took it that way, then I apologize. To me "fanboy" is a description of an attitude towards a company or technology. And I was simply trying to highlight that attitude as demonstrated in your post.
- - - Updated - - -
I am sorry - I did not intend to hurt your feelings.
- - - Updated - - -
Actually, now that you say that...
There are aspects where I'd love to see a car that is tightly integrated into such an eco system. My wallet would hate that, but from a user experience point of view? Apple has shown the ability to do a very good job of integrating different screens and different adjacent markets. The iTunes sound system and the Apple Maps navigation system might not be perfect and will sure be expensive, but I have no doubt that the user experience would be better than what we have in the Tesla today (where you can't just google for an address, click on it in the browser and have it be the destination or a waypoint)
(admittedly, it would be iCar3 that would actually be worth owning... anyone who had the original iPhone with no cut and paste, edge network and a pretty much unusable browser will most likely agree
)
@dirkhh, thank you for your latest post. This illustrates the danger of using a term, in this case "fanboy", that is easily misinterpreted or taken in a way not intended. Better to use a few more words for the sake of clarity. Thank you.
I agree with @dirkhh most recent comments as well.
I would like to add that while it is subjective, I want to dispel this myth that Apple would design better aspects of a car than Tesla at this point in time. Apple can not "participate" in the auto industry in the same manner it manufactures in it's other markets. Apple could not control the automotive supply chain in the same manner it controls the cell phone supply chain: Tim Cook Defused Steve Jobs' Thermonuclear War, ThenÂ*He Took Down Android - Forbes The automotive market has many more components and suppliers for Apple to have the same market influence as they do in Cell Phones. At this point in time, Apple could not move any faster or any more efficiently than Tesla is moving in terms of designing, manufacturing, and innovating an EV. It is not just the large challenges (closing the plant for several weeks to retool, battery production delays, etc.), but the supplier dependence that would trip up Apple. Apple would be beholden to the same suppliers (for example, auto seat suppliers) as Tesla. And neither Tesla nor Apple could make them move any faster or efficiently because the volume production is too low to be a higher priority for these suppliers. Supplier relationships are improving, but the auto industry is driven (no pun intended) by one word: volume. Auto suppliers prefer to manufacture units in the millions, not tens of thousands. So, if Apple or Tesla wants to improve their seats, it will be a lower priority for the supplier than the OEM. And just because they are "Apple" or Tesla does not move the needle here in Michigan (Tesla supplies 20% of the car from Michigan). Volume moves the needle. And it is not a realistic option for Tesla (or Apple), to vertically integrate every aspect of the automobile at this point in time. If it made financial sense and would not delay other projects, I'm sure Tesla would manufacture their own seats and other components (actually, Tesla is moving their seat supplier's production to Fremont starting with the Model X). But neither Apple nor Tesla will vertically integrate these components until volume ramps up.
As I stated before, I believe the only manufacturer that would want to design and innovate as quickly as Apple is Tesla.
I do not believe that Apple is necessarily pursuing the EV market to expand their eco system. This very short article, touches on why I believe Tim Cook and Apple are looking outside their eco systems:
Shifting money from profitable businesses to promising businesses is what financial markets are supposed to do. But, Buffet says, there are three impediments that make it harder to do this — impediments that his company is in a unique position to overcome:
Ego: This is arguably the biggest one. When profitable companies get interested in investing in new businesses, they tend to want to find related industries. So Microsoft has turned its Windows and Office profits into the XBox, Bing, Windows Phone, and other technology businesses. Buffett says it is more lucrative to invest across the whole range of businesses, without regard to adjacencies or synergies or anything else. Since his company is a pure holding company rather than an effort to actually manage anything, it's easy to be objective and dispassionate.
Warren Buffett explains how taxes, Wall Street greed, and executive ego help him get rich - Vox
Clearly Apple is not a holding company, but they are resembling one but looking outside their typical industries most notably in Health and Automotive.
I would like to add that while it is subjective, I want to dispel this myth that Apple would design better aspects of a car than Tesla at this point in time. Apple can not "participate" in the auto industry in the same manner it manufactures in it's other markets. Apple could not control the automotive supply chain in the same manner it controls the cell phone supply chain: Tim Cook Defused Steve Jobs' Thermonuclear War, ThenÂ*He Took Down Android - Forbes The automotive market has many more components and suppliers for Apple to have the same market influence as they do in Cell Phones. At this point in time, Apple could not move any faster or any more efficiently than Tesla is moving in terms of designing, manufacturing, and innovating an EV. It is not just the large challenges (closing the plant for several weeks to retool, battery production delays, etc.), but the supplier dependence that would trip up Apple. Apple would be beholden to the same suppliers (for example, auto seat suppliers) as Tesla. And neither Tesla nor Apple could make them move any faster or efficiently because the volume production is too low to be a higher priority for these suppliers. Supplier relationships are improving, but the auto industry is driven (no pun intended) by one word: volume. Auto suppliers prefer to manufacture units in the millions, not tens of thousands. So, if Apple or Tesla wants to improve their seats, it will be a lower priority for the supplier than the OEM. And just because they are "Apple" or Tesla does not move the needle here in Michigan (Tesla supplies 20% of the car from Michigan). Volume moves the needle. And it is not a realistic option for Tesla (or Apple), to vertically integrate every aspect of the automobile at this point in time. If it made financial sense and would not delay other projects, I'm sure Tesla would manufacture their own seats and other components (actually, Tesla is moving their seat supplier's production to Fremont starting with the Model X). But neither Apple nor Tesla will vertically integrate these components until volume ramps up.
As I stated before, I believe the only manufacturer that would want to design and innovate as quickly as Apple is Tesla.
I do not believe that Apple is necessarily pursuing the EV market to expand their eco system. This very short article, touches on why I believe Tim Cook and Apple are looking outside their eco systems:
Shifting money from profitable businesses to promising businesses is what financial markets are supposed to do. But, Buffet says, there are three impediments that make it harder to do this — impediments that his company is in a unique position to overcome:
Ego: This is arguably the biggest one. When profitable companies get interested in investing in new businesses, they tend to want to find related industries. So Microsoft has turned its Windows and Office profits into the XBox, Bing, Windows Phone, and other technology businesses. Buffett says it is more lucrative to invest across the whole range of businesses, without regard to adjacencies or synergies or anything else. Since his company is a pure holding company rather than an effort to actually manage anything, it's easy to be objective and dispassionate.
Warren Buffett explains how taxes, Wall Street greed, and executive ego help him get rich - Vox
Clearly Apple is not a holding company, but they are resembling one but looking outside their typical industries most notably in Health and Automotive.
Last edited:
Your post shows a fanboyish believe in Apple's superiority. Anyone actually involved in this industry will tell you that you are ignoring a few inconvenient facts... Antenna design in the iPhone 4 (where Apple ended up giving everyone a free bumper case because of horrid reception, depending how you hold the phone). Apple's problems with swelling batteries. The disaster around feature removal in Final Cut Pro X - just to pick three very different examples.
So yes, they have good designers. And they have bullied their eco system into decent quality. But they also have an infallibility complex. And tend to seriously underestimate the complexity of new markets. See the health features of the watch.
I'm sure someone must have posted this video here... Introducing Apple Car - YouTube I keep thinking it's spot on
Having said all this, yes, it would be nice to have someone with their cash enter this market. But no, they are not as magical as their hardcore fanboys seem to think
I wouldn't say I believe in any kind of inherent Apple superiority, but there's no denying they put way more engineering effort into details and polish. For example, rather than stick a generic fan into a Macbook like other OEMs, they go out of their way to study rotor designs and airflow to design better custom fans. Magnetic laptop lid that can be lifted with one finger, rather than generic latch design. Magnetic power connection to prevent tripping accidents. These are a few small examples of better designs that one can appreciate without being a blind Apple faithful.
At the same time I agree scaling up mass vehicle production is not a place Apple has expertise in. It's easy to forget that manufacturing the touchscreen console in the Model S is in itself already as complicated as making an iPad and that's a relatively easy part of Tesla's process - and even that is outsourced to Foxconn. Apple would have almost as much growing pains as Tesla in the car market, albeit anaesthetised by generous applications of cash.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
For those that haven't read it, I commend to you Warren Buffett's annual letter to shareholders. This idea that @Michiganmodels just talked about and linked from Vox is explored in more detail in this year's letter:
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2014ltr.pdf
As well as in previous years letters.
Similar threads
