I'm not sure how you are going to feel about a car from the partnership between Apple and BMW. I doubt Google intends to build a car with a steering wheel.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Which other car company do you think have the darkest future?
- Thread starter Perfectlogic
- Start date
-
- Tags
- TSLA
I'm not sure how you are going to feel about a car from the partnership between Apple and BMW. I doubt Google intends to build a car with a steering wheel.
Personally, I'll evaluate based on merits based on if they can get it out before the Model 3 or not and when my next Leaf lease ends/other car dies. I test drove the i3 and that car was stupid on so many levels that I just totally ruled it out. I wouldn't get that car even if it was 50$/month less to lease than the Leaf. Before BMW can supply an EV drivetrain to Apple, they need to get their own act together. Tiny, poor choice of interior materials, worthless back seat, stupid doors, very poor UI on stuck on screen, non-adjustable regen. But investment wise, I'm long some Apple
, so I'm good with them making a compelling EV. I'm also good with steering wheel less cars. I'm not one of those who enjoys driving. The car can do it for me. And BMWs deal with Fisker will provide some insights on what, if anything, can BMW provide to Apple.I think Apple and BMW will form a new company. BMW has the best core competency for building a lightweight car. Apple doesn't want to manufacture. If I owned BMW, I would not be willing to just custom manufacturer for Apple.
A new auto brand seems to solve all the major problems. Apple would want to handle the retail end, which BMW doesn't do anyways.
Tesla probably can't be competitive on the user interface, so they may need to eventually partner with Google. Carplay vs. Android Auto on steroids.
A new auto brand seems to solve all the major problems. Apple would want to handle the retail end, which BMW doesn't do anyways.
Tesla probably can't be competitive on the user interface, so they may need to eventually partner with Google. Carplay vs. Android Auto on steroids.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
BMW's leadership already stated that the company didn't want to be Apple's next FoxConn (the Taiwanese megacorp that builds the iPhone in China). I don't blame BMW at all. It would be humiliation for a great auto marque to be in the same category as an Asian contract manufacturer with a reputation for running work camps with anti-suicide nets to prevent workers from jumping out of company dorms.
The Tesla UI is exactly the long term problem. No one will want a separate OS in the car. Everyone will want their computing environment to move seamlessly to the vehicle. Especially Apple users, who are accustomed to all computing devices working together.
Tesla probably can't be competitive constantly trying to write application programs patching iOS and Android functionality into the car.
This is also an advantage of designing a car with multiple smaller screens. Existing auto makers can give over one screen to Carplay or android auto, and do car control and information on other screens. Teslas giant screen could window Carplay, but then their whole current UI design falls apart.
Most Tesla buyers to date love the idea of setting up TeslaOS in their fancy new car, and put up with the lack of integration. It's unlikely the typical car buyer prefers this approach to seamless integration to apple or android.
As Android and apple become ultra sophisticated with voice control and semi-AI functionality, how does Tesla keep up?
- - - Updated - - -
Actually didn't a Mercedes exec say that? But I'm sure it applies to most auto makers.
BMW is owned by two people, I believe. A deal with Apple probably hinges on how they see the future, and how they get along with Tim Cook. All three are about the same age, I think.
Tesla probably can't be competitive constantly trying to write application programs patching iOS and Android functionality into the car.
This is also an advantage of designing a car with multiple smaller screens. Existing auto makers can give over one screen to Carplay or android auto, and do car control and information on other screens. Teslas giant screen could window Carplay, but then their whole current UI design falls apart.
Most Tesla buyers to date love the idea of setting up TeslaOS in their fancy new car, and put up with the lack of integration. It's unlikely the typical car buyer prefers this approach to seamless integration to apple or android.
As Android and apple become ultra sophisticated with voice control and semi-AI functionality, how does Tesla keep up?
- - - Updated - - -
Actually didn't a Mercedes exec say that? But I'm sure it applies to most auto makers.
BMW is owned by two people, I believe. A deal with Apple probably hinges on how they see the future, and how they get along with Tim Cook. All three are about the same age, I think.
Again, you have not test driven a Tesla or tried their UI and are pontificating about how currently comparatively poor options will outdo Tesla? This is the same argument as EV competition, although a more credible one. But, if Tesla is very vastly outclassed by Android Auto or Carplay at some point in the future, there is nothing preventing Tesla from adopting them just like other car makers. Right now, Tesla is ahead of all those options. In fact, Tesla could OTA that to all their cars.
You are wrong on all points. You are way too impressed with application programming, which is not defensible. They can busily write apps to try and keep up with changes in iOS and Android, but they will always be behind. They will never replace Apple and Android as a personal computing platform.
What Tesla seems to do very well is telemetry, but that is probably not a primary long term advantage.
What Tesla seems to do very well is telemetry, but that is probably not a primary long term advantage.
You just ignored the bolded. I'm very often wrong but I can tell you UI wise no auto maker has anything on Tesla and both Android Auto and Apple Carplay are currently far behind too.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
If I understand what you are trying to say, your argument is that (1) iOS and Android functionality changes over time, requiring Tesla to integrate the new functionality into the Tesla OS and (2) iOS and Android interfaces would clash with the Tesla touch screen interface.
Given that new Apple services and iOS APIs are usually disclosed months in advance at Apple WWDC each year, followed by months of public beta testing, I don't think it would be difficult for Tesla's software teams to quickly integrate new iOS features and new Apple services into the Tesla interface. I don't think there's any technical reason that Tesla can't integrate access to new services into the Tesla OS, especially when everything is Cloud based.
If I use a lot of Google services, I can access those services by logging into a web browser, or linking an Android handset to my account. I don't see why this would have to work any differently with a car. If the car OS can access Google Services, I just log in, and the car instantly has access to stuff I'd want, like contacts, calendar, saved Google map locations, etc.
What is this good for given the state of the EV market in 2015?
It's like looking at PC sales back in 1980 and estimating / trying to predict who will be on top by 1990, 2000 or 2010 in terms of margins and revenue.
By around 2020 we will have at least some other manufacturers offering long-range EVs, then we can draw a better comparison between Tesla and its competitors.
Today, this is still a snap-shot of a market that's a tiny niche within global car market sales (especially if we only count BEVs without PHEVs).
It will take at least 1-2 decades to declare "winners" or at least see clear trends in BEV sales as the market grows into the mainstream.
And once again: Unless Tesla invests billions into additional battery production in Nevada (which will be seen, construction or a lack thereof can't be hidden) it can't even ship 0.5% of all passenger car units / year because of a lack of long-range EV batteries. So much for "disruption" common in other sectors - simply not possible in the car sector. It will take decades for BEVs to reach meaningful double-digit marketshare.
Tesla can't sell a car it can't build - especially because of its vertically integrated battery production strategy.
Last edited:
Sidestep the question again. All I point out is how a car in the same size/price segment outsells the others. Somehow that doesn't gel with you. You are the one bringing in eGolf numbers and how VW outsells some car that is twice the price and a different size/segment. Not me.
I didn't compare the two cars / offerings directly, obviously completely different price brackets.
The point was to show that so-called "legacy" car makers can produce and sell EVs, otherwise VW wouldn't go from zero to top of the charts within a few months in places like Norway (arguably a global hotbed for EV sales thanks to many subsidies). VW is not just about "PR", they will probably be one of the car makers that will ship the widest range of PHEVs and EVs by 2020 - especially because of Dieselgate.
At the same time, the sales development in Norway shows that the EV market is in very early stages and the fog won't lift until 2025 or 2035 - only then will we see real trends who has the best offerings (also in terms of battery suppliers and make vs buy sourcing decisions etc.).
Trying to predict winners early on in a nascent sector is very, very tricky (cf. your SCTY pick in solar in recent months) - especially if a sector is so cap-ex intensive and full of upcoming technology gaps (new battery technologies).
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
Tesla doesn't have to take over a large % of the automobile market in order to generate large amounts of revenue and healthy margins. It's not like Tesla has to destroy Toyota, Ford, and Honda, in order to succeed. If Tesla's existence forces other automakers to move towards EVs, I'd say that's disruption. However, I agree that any transition would take years or even decades, because cars have relatively low turnover compared to cheaper stuff like mobile phones, and there are tremendous physical assets and supply chains involved.
Some people are betting that Tesla's innovation will keep it ahead of the competition. Others think that the competition will catch up. Apple is a big mystery. But nobody knows what will happen, so all we can do is place our bets.
- - - Updated - - -
I completely agree. That's why I say pick the stock you like and don't worry too much about it. The individual investor has, in practical terms, 0 influence on what will happen with a stock.
If TSLA is too risky, buy index funds. I use index funds for all of my retirement accounts. TSLA is for bets and fun!
Winners and losers can change places several times too. Apple went from a winner in the Apple ][ days to a loser in the 90's and then a winner again in the mid to late 2000's.
The Google integration is O.K., but Apple will likely never cooperate with Tesla on advanced functionality. Google voice will get expanded use, but that leaves Apple users without Siri integration.
Musks multiple insults of Apple product and employees probably give good insight into future Tesla software.
To be fair the most compelling 5-year-ahead story is Microsoft's and it probably will be quite willing to provide whatever it takes to integrate its cloud services with in-car computing platforms, Tesla's or others. But yes I was pointing this out in earlier threads, having a good current user interface in the car doesn't mean Tesla will be able to keep up with the big players let alone have an advantage. When I get into the car I'd want my electronic personal assistant to go ahead and figure out I've got an appointment in half hour and just flash directions on the map. That type of stuff requires deep integration into the cloud platform. It's a tough one to predict what the actual solution we'll end up with. I find it hard to believe that car sales would be driven by compatibility concerns of whatever the cloud platform I'm currently captured by but that just might be the case.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
This is sort of what I've been trying to get at.
The conventional thinking is that an automobile must interface with a phone, which in turn provides the interfaces with different services (like Siri, Google search, maps, etc.). I believe that's completely wrong.
How silly or ridiculous would it be if I had to connect my phone to my laptop every time I wanted to use a Google service? Ok, I concede that some people do tether their mobile phones to a notebook computer, but that's just to get access to the Internet (the phone is the "dumb pipe"). I can use a Google service using any Internet connection, whether it's through my computer's built-in cellular modem, WiFi connection at home, or wired Gigabit Ethernet in the office. Even if I have to plug my phone into my car to get data, that should be the only reason to plug the phone in.
If I have reminders on my Google calendar or stored locations on Google maps, all I have to do is have a device logged into my Google account, and that information is seamlessly available to me no matter what the platform. It's irrelevant whether I'm using my Windows notebook, my iPhone, or other device. That "other device" may well be a car in the future. As long as the other device supports connection to and use of the service, I'm good to go.
Apple could theoretically out of vindictiveness try to shut Tesla out of its services, but I doubt that would happen while Tim Cook is CEO. Steve Jobs said he would spend every last penny to take revenge on Google by destroying Android any way he could. Tim Cook basically ended that fight. Apple has historically made services available on other platforms when it helps Apple sell more devices. Bringing iTunes to Windows is probably the most obvious example, because it allowed Windows users to buy music for their iPods from the iTunes store. Right now, Apple's strategy is to make its services appealing by promoting its no-track and respect for privacy (contrast to Google). Would they really want to make their services less appealing by refusing to work with some car manufacturers? Cede the territory to Google, whose software has over 80% of the smartphone market?
This is why I think that whether a car can tap into a Phone and act as a head or monitor for a particular phone is a moot point. It's no longer about the phone. It's about the cloud services.
I saw on some other thread that Tesla already does this by integrating with your Google calendar.
- - - Updated - - -
Found it: Google calendar integration with Model S
My impression is tat the ICE makers are so far not willing to implement many of the "hooks" in Carplay and Android Auto to make these systems more central to car control. But I wonder if voice, map, and apps in these products ultimately overwhelm the car maker's desire to resist being sucked into the Apple or Google universe.
I don't want voice control in my car. I want to talk to Siri about all my stuff, including car functions.
Similar threads
- Locked
