[turtle]

Who needs CarPlay! I have AppleCar!

It would be interesting to see what they put out there. I'm guessing it would be along Tesla lines. Out of reach of most but close enough to have people dream for it.

[addison]

Wasn't it just a few years ago the thing to say about Apple was that they only did a few things and did them well? They supposedly didn't get bogged down like other companies by trying to get into all sorts of businesses. Nowadays it's the opposite. Apple is going to make cars. Apple is going to be a luxury goods company. Apple is going to buy a studio and make original programming. Apple is going to be a defense contractor, etc.

Can you make money in cars? Hell if I know. Lots of people have tried and failed that's for sure. It's totally different than any business they've ever been in. Heavily regulated with lots of liability issues. Plus it's subjected to political pressures regarding trade. It certainly won't be as profitable as their phone business but then again nothing will ever come close to that.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by addison Wasn't it just a few years ago the thing to say about Apple was that they only did a few things and did them well? They supposedly didn't get bogged down like other companies by trying to get into all sorts of businesses. Nowadays it's the opposite. Apple is going to make cars.

Idunno. It's true that, if Apple is making a car, you will no longer be able to fit all their products on a table, because a car wouldn't fit.

But I don't see a car as being that far outside of Apple's other businesses, to be honest. It's a hardware product quickened by software. It's not like they're selling web hosting or becoming a balloon-based ISP or trying to enable same-day delivery of everything or any of the zillions of side projects each of their competitors (Google, Amazon, Microsoft) do.

Apple is going to be a luxury goods company.

I'd argue they already were.

Apple is going to buy a studio and make original programming. Apple is going to be a defense contractor, etc.

The original programming bit is outside of Apple's wheelhouse, I agree. I'm not sure I can see them competing with their media providers in a big way.

As far as the defense stuff, we don't know anything at this point. I think it's far more likely it's going to be something like "Apple is going to try to make sure the Apple Watch meets military security standards so they can sell the Pentagon a bunch of Apple Watches" than "Apple is designing bionic legs for super soldiers". They're trying to be a bigger force in the enterprise, and the US government is a pretty big enterprise.

Can you make money in cars? Hell if I know. Lots of people have tried and failed that's for sure.

Actually, I'd argue very few people have tried. Before Tesla, when was the last new car company you heard of? The high barriers of entry have protected all the existing entrants, who are for the most part failing to innovate. (Tesla was able to make a class-leading sports sedan on their very first try, which doesn't speak well for everybody else.) I think it's a market ripe for disruption for those with the resources to enter.

It's totally different than any business they've ever been in.

Not really. I've said this before, and Gruber said it on his most recent podcast, but the thing to ask about a new sector is: does design matter? Because if it does, it plays to Apple's strengths. Is the car ripe for reinvention? With most of the competition seemingly married to the century-old pile of hacks that is the ICE, with dozens of different CPUs in their cars forming decades of fossilized technical cruft because their cars are at their heart purely mechanical objects with a bunch of digital shit glommed on, there's certainly opportunity for an Apple-like company to present a radically simpler, reconceptualized car.

The real question is, is Tesla that Apple-like company? Unlike in other fields Apple has redefined, there's already a (smaller with a questionable amount of resources) company that's "thinking different" and excelling for it. But I think there's room for, you know, two car companies, and nobody else seems to be joining the future anytime fast.

I don't think Apple wants to be Tesla, though. I think they want to be Toyota: the safe choice, understated and synonymous with "good car," that costs a little bit more but is totally worth it. Because Toyota sure as hell ain't Toyota any more. Just look at some of their new cars. What the hell are they doing?


only posting one photo, because i don't want to beat a dead horse…you end up with this!

Would truly considered design shine like a bright light in the car market? Hell yes. It'd be a breath of fresh air, and that's why Apple's building one. (Even the Tesla isn't exactly beautiful, and it's class-leading in spite of its interior.)

Plus, when you have the world's best industrial designer on your team, and he's a huge car nut, and you have gobs of cash and your biggest problem is that you are making all the moneys from your existing markets and need to find new markets, I mean, why wouldn't you?

[Brave Ulysses]

That's a great analysis and written piece Robo. You have me convinced :-)

[Eugene]

If Apple did start selling cars, I don't think they'd want to be Toyota on any sort of reasonable timescale. Toyota has had almost a century to grow into its position. I also don't think Apple has any interest in selling the masses sub-$30K cars to start. An Apple car would be practically laid out, but in a luxury trim because it will be low volume and highly sought by a crowd that demands it.

[Kickaha]

I think Tesla beat them to that punch.

Same MO: sell a seriously well designed and executed product, at the luxury end, and make bank.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Kickaha I think Tesla beat them to that punch. Same MO: sell a seriously well designed and executed product, at the luxury end, and make bank.

There's plenty of room in that space For healthy competition. Look at how well BMW (still independent after all these years) is doing with its ever expanding body/trim-level options. Also the Model S people want is still a $90K car, while the Model 3 is two to three years off.

[addabox]

Originally Posted by Chinney Not entirely true. It is accurate to say that Tesla stuffs a lot of battery into the Model S. It is also true that Tesla has not yet developed a 'Holy Grail' battery technology that nobody else knows about. But Telsa has made plenty of small technological advances in the way that the battery is incorporated and managed in their vehicles, and in other vehicle technologies, that contribute significantly to the range. Nothing revolutionary, maybe, but they all add up. As for quick recharging, Tesla's supercharger development is at the head of the pack for that. Tesla is really serious about developing practical electrical vehicles that will replace internal combustion, and I admire them for that. As for "rich guys toy" comment, I agree, but only in part. The Model S is very expensive. But I would not call it a rich-guys "toy". I would reserve that designation for the first Tesla design, the Roadster. I think that even Tesla would agree that was mostly a toy - but a toy with an technological development purpose. The Model S, by contrast, is a serious and practical car. Sure it is definitely a 'rich-guys serious and practical car', but its price is not out of league from what you would pay for a medium-to-top end Mercedes or BMW. Next for Tesla is an SUV, and then a mid-sized regular car, each at declining price points. Key to Tesla's plans is bringing the electric car to a level of general affordability. As for the BMW i3, with 4 seats and a maximum range of only 80-100 miles (without a gasoline range extender) it is not really anything more than an urban runabout. Nothing wrong with that, but it does not really compare with the Tesla. And the BMW is certainly far from being cheap either. I think the Model S is a better value overall.

I disagree-- I think the i3 is the model Apple will emulate, and not Tesla.

Tesla gets compared to Apple a lot, but that would be the Apple of 15 years ago, not the Apple of today. Today's Apple has much more in common with BMW than Tesla. They have the deep pockets, the willingness to iterate, to put real money behind R&D, the reputation, for good or ill, of being a luxury brand for brand snobs.

And the i3 seems much more like an Apple product than anything Tesla makes or has announced. Tesla makes niche, no compromise performance cars. The i3 is the product of a bunch of carefully weighted tradeoffs, making it feel tepid to enthusiasts but having more to offer the average driver. Sound familiar? Plus the i3 is very big on advanced manufacturing techniques, all-over green footprint, recycled materials, etc. Again, seems like a pretty good fit.

So what could Apple do with an i3 template? Well, for one thing, Apple has a lot of experience with eking battery life out of devices. Stem to stern Apple software running an i3 like vehicle might get you some appreciable range extension right off the bat. Apple has a lot of experience shaving ounces off of devices. Does that scale to car sizes? Don't know, but you can bet that's part of the plan. BMW seems to have deliberately limited the range of the i3, possibly because it serves as a real world test bed for future tech and they wanted to be conservative. But battery tech keeps improving, and it's not hard to imagine that the i3 will be offering close to a 200 mile range on battery alone by the time Tesla gets the Model 3 on the road, whether Apple pitches in or not.

So what if all of a sudden there was a $45,000 BMW/Apple cobranded electric car with 200 mile range? Say 300 with a gas extender? With incentives that's getting down to mainstream + premium territory for a base model, then you can spend more if want, just how Apple likes it. Some of that Ive magic to make the design a little more main street friendly? I personally like the look of the i3, but I know it's a bit polarizing. Apple's current design language is nothing if not anodyne, and while that might strike some as "bland", it might make for tasteful, elegant car that would appeal to a wide swath of buyers. Or maybe they go the iMac route and come up with something "fun", a head turner that redefines the compact urban vehicle.

All wildly speculative, of course, but I've thought since it was released that the i3 was the most Apple-ish car on the road. I think it makes a ton of sense for Apple not have to completely reinvent that wheel, but to bring their customary flair, refinement and innovation (particularly in the area of driver interaction) to an operational template. How that works out branding wise is anybody's guess, but I fully expect, should Apple actually do something in the car area, that this would be the way that they would go.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by addabox I disagree-- I think the i3 is the model Apple will emulate, and not Tesla. Tesla gets compared to Apple a lot, but that would be the Apple of 15 years ago, not the Apple of today. Today's Apple has much more in common with BMW than Tesla. They have the deep pockets, the willingness to iterate, to put real money behind R&D, the reputation, for good or ill, of being a luxury brand for brand snobs. And the i3 seems much more like an Apple product than anything Tesla makes or has announced. Tesla makes niche, no compromise performance cars. The i3 is the product of a bunch of carefully weighted tradeoffs, making it feel tepid to enthusiasts but having more to offer the average driver. Sound familiar? Plus the i3 is very big on advanced manufacturing techniques, all-over green footprint, recycled materials, etc. Again, seems like a pretty good fit. So what could Apple do with an i3 template? Well, for one thing, Apple has a lot of experience with eking battery life out of devices. Stem to stern Apple software running an i3 like vehicle might get you some appreciable range extension right off the bat. Apple has a lot of experience shaving ounces off of devices. Does that scale to car sizes? Don't know, but you can bet that's part of the plan. BMW seems to have deliberately limited the range of the i3, possibly because it serves as a real world test bed for future tech and they wanted to be conservative. But battery tech keeps improving, and it's not hard to imagine that the i3 will be offering close to a 200 mile range on battery alone by the time Tesla gets the Model 3 on the road, whether Apple pitches in or not. So what if all of a sudden there was a $45,000 BMW/Apple cobranded electric car with 200 mile range? Say 300 with a gas extender? With incentives that's getting down to mainstream + premium territory for a base model, then you can spend more if want, just how Apple likes it. Some of that Ive magic to make the design a little more main street friendly? I personally like the look of the i3, but I know it's a bit polarizing. Apple's current design language is nothing if not anodyne, and while that might strike some as "bland", it might make for tasteful, elegant car that would appeal to a wide swath of buyers. Or maybe they go the iMac route and come up with something "fun", a head turner that redefines the compact urban vehicle. All wildly speculative, of course, but I've thought since it was released that the i3 was the most Apple-ish car on the road. I think it makes a ton of sense for Apple not have to completely reinvent that wheel, but to bring their customary flair, refinement and innovation (particularly in the area of driver interaction) to an operational template. How that works out branding wise is anybody's guess, but I fully expect, should Apple actually do something in the car area, that this would be the way that they would go.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but you seem to be arguing against points made by somebody other than me. I have heard the comparison of Tesla to Apple, but I agree with your opinion that Tesla is not a lot like the Apple of today, and, if any legitimate comparison would be made, it would be to the Apple of 15 years ago. The Apple of 15 years ago, though, was a pretty interesting company. It had Steve Jobs back at the helm and was on the run-up to becoming the dominant company that it now is. I am not sure that I am ready to give Tesla that much credit.

But I do think that Tesla has made strides toward real-world electric vehicles, and has realizable plans for major further developments. Tesla's has been a top-down strategy toward affordable and practical vehicles. Their vehicles are not yet affordable to most, but they are, already, practical, great cars. There may be other paths than Tesla's strategy, and that is fine, but I like what Tesla has done and I like their future plans. I would like to own a Tesla. I can't yet say the same thing about any other electric vehicle out there.

[709]

Honestly, I hate the idea of a ar.

There is a thing that Apple does very well: consumer gadgets. There is a thing that Apple doesn't do well at all: 1st release software.

I get that my iPad might be a bit boinked with the new OS, but holy shit now you're controlling a ton of metal down the street, or faster and holy-shitier, the freeway. I'm not on board with that at all.

I get that it's the future, sure, but I'm not in love with the options. Maybe that's just me.

[PB PM]

It's not just you, I just don't get the Apple car. Then again I don't get the Apple Watch either, I must just be out of touch.

The more new product types Apple makes the lower the quality of the products have seem to become as a whole. Overall I think Apple just needs to take a deep breath and say, yeah it's enough.

[Eugene]

The car industry was boring for decades. Now it's a driving force behind advances in AI, image recognition, battery tech, etc.

Same goes for the Apple Watch, it's a sensor platform first.

I also fail to see how hiring more talent to develop new products automatically worsens existing products worked on by others. I don't think you realize how small most hardware/software dev teams are.

[addabox]

Originally Posted by Chinney I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but you seem to be arguing against points made by somebody other than me.... .

True, I just had a notion and scanned the thread to see if anyone had already said it, then used your post as a place to hook in, all willy-nilly like.

[Chinney]

Apple Car by 2019 'confirmed'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ap...2019-1.3238226

It is not really 'confirmed' though if you are citing "unidentified sources".

[Kickaha]

But are they making plastics?