Imo, Tesla will go up if they announce they are killing FWD as a standard features. they should make regular door a standard, and for FWD, extra $10K. Will speed up productions. Customer who wants standard door also happy. Those who wants overcomplicated door, pay extra $10K. Everyone happy
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
Currently Tesla vehicles can charge at ANY station (with the minor exception of CCS only charge stations). Be it superchargers, Public L2 stations using J1772 adapter, and Chademo stations using the Chademo adapter. CCS stations that exist are usually Combo stations with Chademo, so Teslas can use them. CCS only stations are rare (right now anyway), but if enough of them come online, I expect Tesla will make an adapter for those as well.
Now when it comes to Apple charging stations, I assume they will be DC fast chargers. There is no inherent reason a Tesla couldn't charge on those as well. But it would be entirely up to Apple to decide if they want to have a "closed garden" with their chargers. If it used a new connector, obviously Tesla would have to produce a compatible adapter for their vehicles.
Report: Apple interested in charging station tech for powering rumored electric vehicle
So, question for the resident Technical gurus here... Based on Apple's interest in charging infrastructure. No matter how they decide to move forward, this is a good thing for Tesla, right? Specifically, more charging stations = more acceptance of EVs? But what if Apple decides to setup their own charging infrastructure like Tesla did. Will Tesla still benefit? I'm having a bit of a fog, visualizing the millions of Model 3s being charged only at Tesla supercharge stations. It'd be great if Tesla can be charged at ANY charging stations, even if they had to pay per use. That way, Tesla won't have to aggressively scale up charging stations to accommodate the number of cars it will be selling, and take advantage of Apple's investment in that space...[/QUOTE]
Think Apple is basically shaping up to be a pure competitor in the vehicle space. It is not a particularly dangerous competitor though. The market opportunity to replace internal combustion vehicles with low cost per mile autonomous EVs is staggeringly huge and there is a good chance that Google ought to be a lot more worried.
On the tracton battery side it is fair to say that Tesla could likely win a competitive tender - whether Apple would seek alternatives regardless remains to be seen. At a guess, probably.
It is unlikely that Apple will create a performance vehicle or an owner-driver's vehicle of any description - and that will open up the possibility to use relatively poor performance batteries for which the world has a glut of production capacity standing idle particularly across Asia. An autonomous city commuter transit vehicle that goes off to a charging garage every 100 miles or so is no problem and has a ready market of thousands of millions of people that can just save on the cost of buying, financing, insuring, running, maintaining, taxing, parking and cleaning a gasoline car - and have a more pleasant journey to and from work, school or a night out instead.
It will still be a lot nicer to own or ride in a Tesla for the few thousands of millions of people that might care for a better car with performance and full highway capabilities.
So, question for the resident Technical gurus here... Based on Apple's interest in charging infrastructure. No matter how they decide to move forward, this is a good thing for Tesla, right? Specifically, more charging stations = more acceptance of EVs? But what if Apple decides to setup their own charging infrastructure like Tesla did. Will Tesla still benefit? I'm having a bit of a fog, visualizing the millions of Model 3s being charged only at Tesla supercharge stations. It'd be great if Tesla can be charged at ANY charging stations, even if they had to pay per use. That way, Tesla won't have to aggressively scale up charging stations to accommodate the number of cars it will be selling, and take advantage of Apple's investment in that space...[/QUOTE]
Think Apple is basically shaping up to be a pure competitor in the vehicle space. It is not a particularly dangerous competitor though. The market opportunity to replace internal combustion vehicles with low cost per mile autonomous EVs is staggeringly huge and there is a good chance that Google ought to be a lot more worried.
On the tracton battery side it is fair to say that Tesla could likely win a competitive tender - whether Apple would seek alternatives regardless remains to be seen. At a guess, probably.
It is unlikely that Apple will create a performance vehicle or an owner-driver's vehicle of any description - and that will open up the possibility to use relatively poor performance batteries for which the world has a glut of production capacity standing idle particularly across Asia. An autonomous city commuter transit vehicle that goes off to a charging garage every 100 miles or so is no problem and has a ready market of thousands of millions of people that can just save on the cost of buying, financing, insuring, running, maintaining, taxing, parking and cleaning a gasoline car - and have a more pleasant journey to and from work, school or a night out instead.
It will still be a lot nicer to own or ride in a Tesla for the few thousands of millions of people that might care for a better car with performance and full highway capabilities.
Last edited:
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
I simply don't understand how Apple can possibly blow Billions on Titan R&D? They are rumored to have employees sure... But can early design work really cost this much?
As Elon said before, Apple doesn't BUILD anything, they outsource production.
Someone defend this R&D spend... I don't get it.
Both Nokia and Blackberry spent significant amount of money in R&D, and guess how that turned out. The amount of money spent on R&D doesn't have strong correlation with breakthrough products.
Well, it is far fetched to account all R&D increase to the car. No-one except Apple knows the amount they spend on that.
ludicrousspeed
Member
Tesla driver caught sleeping while Autopilot steers
On the topic of Apple/autonomous cars, I thought I'd share this article since it hasn't been posted on the thread. Just goes to show how far autonomous technology really is today. As avid Tesla followers, most of us have a good understanding of this, but the enormous impact that autonomy will have has not been digested by the average person.
On the topic of Apple/autonomous cars, I thought I'd share this article since it hasn't been posted on the thread. Just goes to show how far autonomous technology really is today. As avid Tesla followers, most of us have a good understanding of this, but the enormous impact that autonomy will have has not been digested by the average person.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
I find their revenue estimates more interesting, especially since Tesla is ahead of Apple in this space.
Last edited:
From the latest annual report
TSLA 2015 annual report said:
I hope this is an error in the article or in the way I read it ('incremental spending'?!?) because if that number comes straight out of the report then I don't know how serious we should take it when it has these basic facts blatantly wrong?
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
The only justification is reaching full automation early.
In reality, the senior execs would rather spend the money to be one of the cool kids building cars than give it to shareholders in a higher dividend. I am not a Tim Cook fan.
Outsourcing expertise, paying silly money for poaching key people like Chris Poritt from competitors that were most likely very happy working where they were and rushing to compress almost physically incompressible development timescales, buying secrecy and writing off expensive errors.
Tesla has been at this since 2003 and by 2019 Tesla will have a fully autonomous fleet in super mass production.
Apple seems to want to do the same or similar thing by 2019 from a standing start commencing in 2014 - 2015. And because doing things like this is chump change to Apple compared to the opportunity cost of failure to compress timescales to the max. It is a fair bet that Samsung is on the case in a similar manner and Foxconn is known to be. Missing the beginning of a tech disruption by even a little bit and coming late to the party is not good.
It is by no means certain that Apple can afford to compete effectively with Tesla. The prospect of a SpaceX skynet OTA network is well beyond Apple's technical capabilities - and would empty if not overwhelm Apple's cash reserves to replicate it assuming Musk simply declined to allow Apple to use SpaceX to compete with SpaceX - which of course SpaceX would decline.
larmor
Active Member
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
Probably another GTAT like deal where the risk is taken by another party and apple pay a higher premium including equipment spend under R&D consultations. Tim Cook work that way.
You fear working with TSLA because if you frak up, they bring the production in house.
You fear working for apple because if you frak up, you go bankrupt and apple gets everything.
Why would you compare incremental Apple R&D spending to the whole Tesla R&D spending?
sub
Active Member
Go read any post where I mention my i3, I'm not a fan. I leased it to fill the void waiting for model 3, I refuse to own a GM or Ford product and the leaf is an Alien car. Only good thing about the i3 is that it's electric, our family refers to it as the "clown car". The bolt is DOA.
Did the i3 come with clown shoes and the nose, or just the motorcycle "extender" (apparently to match the motorcycle wheels)?
Kindly Note that shipping the GM Bolt sideways to the Lyft ride sharing fleet where I presume Lyft is obliged to buy them or more likely lease them with GM's investment dollars (so as to report sales without the Bolt having to face the humiliation of sticker price rejection by consumers) is not appreciably different from DOA.
Ride sharing is a means of delaying the inevitable for OEMs while still posting healthy quarterly production, sales and lease numbers despite a snowballing market exodus to vehicles that large OEMs are not equipped to make or to sell at competitive prices without near total retooling and recapitalization and a decade's worth of counter-cultural R&D in software, motors, drive inverters and batteries - without which the critical to customer value means of production is outsourced and what is left in house (body shell and rolling chassis) is a commodity.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
