[HN Gopher] Ford Hires Away Executive Leading Apple's Car Project
___________________________________________________________________
Ford Hires Away Executive Leading Apple's Car Project
Author : barredo
Score : 91 points
Date : 2021-09-07 19:03 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| while1fork wrote:
| I don't understand why Apple would want to enter the automotive
| manufacturing business. It's so far-afield from computers, mobile
| screens, and accessories. TVs, home automation, VR glasses, smart
| home gym, and audio equipment seem much closer to the product mix
| than something random like a lawnmower, car, or business jet.
| michelb wrote:
| I keep thinking that the 'car' project is just one of apple's
| many experiments to find/figure out a product but this one is
| hard to keep invisible because they need more physical space for
| it. So nobody really knows what it is but you get these glimpses.
| It must be extremely frustrating that they can't contain it as
| they did with the smaller hardware.
| paxys wrote:
| IMO people's fascination with tech secrecy is also waning in
| recent years. Apple's "one more thing" reveals used to get
| worldwide press, now people prefer Elon tweeting Tesla &
| SpaceX's hardware and software prototypes literally years
| before launch.
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| TBF, it is not because of the tech secrecy. It is more of
| they don't have a new toys to show, I mean something that
| stands out. Tesla and SpaceX are new and those toys that the
| public want to see. They want to see progress, they don't
| want to see same old things.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Apple has been flirting with this topic for quite long and are
| obviously not succeeding in hitting a formula that makes sense
| for them, which would be a mass produced premium priced vehicle
| that people with too much money would prefer over the likes of
| expensive sports cars, teslas, and what not. It's both obvious
| and stupendously hard if you've never produced a car before.
| Tesla is basically the Apple of cars already. They raised the
| bar quit high for Apple to break into that market and not look
| like an also ran type product (i.e. like most of Tesla's
| competition right now).
|
| Rumor has it they were talking to Kia at some point. That does
| not instill a lot of confidence. Fine cars, but sort of the
| equivalent of the beige boxes that Apple once competed against
| when IBM PCs were a thing. Munro did a review on a Kia the
| other day and the lack of enthusiasm for it was quite obvious.
| It's not that it was a bad car (he actually liked it, just not
| for himself) but just a bit boring, bland, and cheap. Alright
| if that's what you can afford. But kind of not the market Apple
| is after. Partnering with Kia would be the equivalent of
| letting Compaq or Dell take care of producing the imac in 1999.
| It took Steve Jobs to figure out that mess. Better beige boxes
| weren't the answer and he pretty much axed that first thing
| into his second round at Apple and rebooted what is now the
| most valuable company on the planet.
|
| You can see the dilemma here. They basically lack internal
| skills/knowledge for building a car manufacturing operation and
| partnering is alien to them. So, how do you create a car with a
| screen and some fancy Apple experience when you've basically
| never build a car and your entire vision revolves around what's
| on that screen? Perhaps they should just outright buy their own
| car company and get it over with. They are certainly rich
| enough and there's no lack of suitable companies struggling to
| survive but yet still competent enough to innovate. I'm
| surprised they haven't already. Allegedly, they opted out of
| acquiring Tesla when they had the chance.
| Sophistifunk wrote:
| Bollocks. Kias might be made with cheaper materials than
| Tesla, and they're not as fast, not as "high tech", but you
| know what? THEY FIT TOGETHER. Tesla isn't the Apple of cars,
| it's Alienware.
| mulmen wrote:
| TBH the interior quality of Tesla has never impressed me.
| It has always had a more "Kia" (haven't been in one from
| the last 10 years) or Chevy vibe than a premium brand.
| ksec wrote:
| I will speculate. The initial rumors of Apple wanted to build
| a car themselves were not true. It is typical of Apple in
| their path finding to have expertise and knowledge of how it
| is built, and how to automate the whole thing along with
| industry experts. Once they figure this out they start
| partnering. This is vastly different to most other brands
| where the whole process is outsourced.
|
| Then the next part is simply Apple thinking their core value
| has to be experience and AV. Since AV is still years if not
| decades away. They are only thing left will be in car
| experience. But is experience really enough to sell cars?
|
| Part of the advantage Apple has with AV is that it requires
| lots of custom silicons. It is literally a giant iPhone with
| lots more sensors running on battery around the cities. And
| Apple has the expertise and scale over pretty much all other
| players.
|
| But I still dont believe AV will be a thing any time soon. It
| could be done now if we could get rid of human drivers on the
| road in some cities. But adding human into the equation is
| just putting an infinitely variable into it.
| stncls wrote:
| It probably does not affect the cheaper models to the same
| extent, but Kia's design language has changed quite a bit
| over the last 5 years.
|
| For example, The Grand Tour's James May was full of praise
| for the Kia Stinger in 2017 (
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht1Zh-1q7LU ).
|
| More recently, the Kia Telluride was 2020 "World car of the
| year". In 2019 it was basically sold out everywhere, and it
| ended up moving more than double the numbers as the Hyundai
| Palisade, which is essentially the same car with a different
| exterior design.
|
| The evolution has been attributed by some to their poaching
| of European talent, like German car designer Peter Schreyer
| of Audi TT fame.
| qaq wrote:
| Look @ https://www.genesis.com/us/en/2022/genesis-gv70.html &
| Tesla I would hardly call gv70 a beige box compared to Tesla
| Y
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| That's exactly what it looks like to me though. I guess
| tastes are different. But it to me just looks like a
| generic Chrysler style vehicle with a lot of chrome and
| bulk to make it look like a more premium kind of thing than
| it is. Poor Steve Jobs would turn his grave. I was talking
| about the Kia Niro, which is one of their EVs. I doubt
| Apple would waste time on ICE vehicles (which the genesis
| obviously is).
|
| But you are right that Teslas are kind of bland in their
| own right.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| Is it really because of the physical size of the car? I rather
| think they're unable to keep it secret because of the large
| amounts of specialized hiring, supply chain talks, etc
| ABeeSea wrote:
| It's like Amazon's Fire Phone in 2012/13 on steroids. So much
| smoke, so much hiring, so much supply chain rumor. It's
| definitely real and something impossible to hide.
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| Surely they could've done a better job? Test any hardware that
| cannot be concealed in a secret underground garage, and
| hardware that can be concealed (e.g. self-driving systems) in
| cars that look like their streetview vans, which are already
| bristling with sensors.
| gtirloni wrote:
| How's it frustrating to you personally? I don't get it.
| usui wrote:
| The person isn't saying it's personally frustrating. The
| person is saying that it must be frustrating for the people
| in charge or involved with the project, such as an executive
| who directs the project but then gets poached by Ford.
| gtirloni wrote:
| Oh, I just re-read the comment and I get it now ("it must
| be..."). Thanks, and sorry.
| beefman wrote:
| https://archive.is/7i2DM
| azinman2 wrote:
| > Farley has said Ford's future depends not on selling cars one
| at a time, but on selling features to owners to constantly update
| their cars like they do their phones.
|
| I really disagree with this on so many levels, and I believe the
| market will ultimately reject it too. When you're spending tens
| of thousands on a car, the last thing you want is some optional
| monthly fee for seat warmers and navigation features. This seems
| to be driven simply by the desire to have a monthly income versus
| what consumers actually want.
| stingrae wrote:
| this sounds like having to go to the dealership and paying for
| them to give you updated maps for your built-in GPS, a terrible
| UX.
| jabo wrote:
| What if upgrades were done over the air, so you didn't have
| to go to a dealership. And the base cost of the vehicle comes
| down, now that there's a recurring revenue component?
|
| Would that change your mind?
| yellow_postit wrote:
| Volkswagen has a system like this in production already
| with CarNet with subscription pricing for things like
| better voice control, tracking, and maps.
|
| https://carnet.vw.com/#/plan-pricing
| true_religion wrote:
| Sure, but what if you are merely leasing the car? In that case,
| you are already paying a monthly fee, so psychologically adding
| $30 to it for a navigation system isn't that big of an ask.
|
| It can even be justified by saying that the car isn't yours to
| begin with, so the real owner has a right to charge extra for
| features that will now incur a maintenance cost due to your
| use.
| vsskanth wrote:
| Just wondering if the exec move is signalling Apple isn't
| planning on bringing the car to production ?
|
| I'm in the automotive field and I came across some of their job
| postings, and based on the JD it looked to me like they were
| pretty serious about bringing something to market.
|
| Me and a bunch of my friends and colleagues were contacted by
| recruiters and it seemed like they wanted people with experience
| bringing a car to production.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| This is a good point (you seem downvoted). I am sure Apple is
| serious. But I suspect Ford is _more serious_. Self-driving and
| electric are _existential_ issues for Ford and everything will
| be thrown at it.
|
| Has Tim Cook indicated in a chat at the bar that maybe Apple is
| not so serious? I don't know. Has the exec looked at Apple and
| thought "I don't know how to turn you into a car culture?" Or
| maybe its all about the Benjamins.
|
| There are a lot of issues at play - I am not sure which I would
| go for - a possible side-player at the worlds best funded
| company, or a saviour figure at a company that will have to
| live on subsidies for a decade? Career choices can be weird
| stcredzero wrote:
| A lot of people who follow what's been happening with EVs think
| that certain legacy auto brands will evolve to survive as design
| and marketing organizations. (EDIT: Of EVs, specifically.) These
| companies will put their design on top of a skateboard/chassis
| designed and manufactured by another EV company, like Tesla. If
| brands don't survive as a separate (EDIT: EV) company, then they
| could also do this as a division of a parent auto company. This
| will probably happen to brands like Ferrari, Maserati, and
| Lamborghini.
|
| Apple stands a good chance of breaking into that evolved form of
| the business. They are, after all, very good at marketing and
| design.
| NortySpock wrote:
| Also, sort of related: earliest concepts I've heard of for the
| Skateboard model of EVs was ~2002 by GM.
|
| https://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2002-10/hy-wire-act/
|
| https://books.google.com/books?id=aQAAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA49&dq=%...
| Someone wrote:
| I think it's more that more and more brands will become just
| that: brands owned by a much larger group.
|
| There's a lot of consolidation going on in the market.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Group already had quite a few
| brands, but merged with
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Chrysler_Automobiles to form
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellantis.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group similarly, has
| quite a few brands.
|
| Ferrari at sometime was part of
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Chrysler_Automobiles, the
| predecessor of PSA group.
|
| Maserati already is part of a larger group. It is owned by
| Stellantis.
|
| Lamborghini is owned by Audi, which is owned by Volkswagen.
| csmeder wrote:
| The sale of Volvo to Geely blows my mind in particular when
| you realize $1.5b is only 30,000 BTC. Geely bought Volvo for
| the cost of 6 pizzas [1].
|
| [1] Ford paid $6.5 billion for Volvo in 1999, ten years
| later, in 2010 10,000 Bitcoins was worth 2 large pizzas, and
| 8 years later in 2018 Ford sold Volvo to Chinese carmaker
| Geely for $1.5 billion (30,000 BTC by today's valuation).
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Oh man, Stellantis... It's like all the most soon-to-be-
| obsolete automakers decided to band together to form a last
| ditch effort in the soon-to-be-EV world but only made it
| easier to short their collective downfall. Chrysler really
| never even close to recovered from 2008.
| baktubi wrote:
| My boobs will wiggle to-and-friggle. Wiggle they will wiggle.
| Electric vehicle jiggle. Wiggle the electric port bzzp.
|
| Downvote the shock goes, by the ever-too, over-too serious
| electric vehicle bzzps.
| [deleted]
| bydo wrote:
| Ferarri and Maserati are already part of Fiat. Lamborghini is
| owned by Volkswagen.
|
| Edit: My mistake, Maserati is owned by Stellantis, which is the
| parent company of Fiat's parent company, and Ferrari went
| independent in 2015. So this does still apply to Ferrari.
| stcredzero wrote:
| _If brands don 't survive as a separate company, then they
| could also do this as a division of a parent auto company._
| gorbypark wrote:
| I know it'll probably never happen but I always thought it
| would be cool if there was an industry standard (or probably a
| few for different wheel bases) skateboard to cab
| interface/mounting points so that one could buy a skateboard
| from a choice of manufacturers and then pick a cab from
| another. I'm guessing the skateboard manufacturers would
| eventually consolidate into just a few, but cab makers could
| range from cheaper imports all the way up to super high end
| custom built ones. The ability to upgrade either a skateboard
| or cab independently from each other would be pretty sweet,
| too.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| It's hilarious reading comments like this.
|
| The car companies that have the supply chains, the know-how,
| and now the motivation to electrify (the key component
| previously missing), will somehow defer to Tesla to build their
| platforms.
|
| If Tesla can figure out how to turn their market cap larger
| than every other automaker into basic spare parts availability,
| that will be a starting point.
|
| -
|
| Also FYI, 2 out of 3 luxury manufacturers you mentioned already
| do that with established auto manufacturers
|
| The Maserati Ghibli platform can trace its roots to the
| Chrysler LX platform like most FCA products and is intermixed
| with Chrysler/Jeep parts
|
| Lamborghinis share platforms with various Audis
|
| Only Ferrari is really putting out really independent platforms
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| > The car companies that have the supply chains, the know-
| how, and now the motivation to electrify
|
| The car companies supply chains are set up for ICE, not EV.
| Likewise, their know-how is also for ICE, not EV. It's like
| saying Kodak was in a prime position to take advantage of the
| digital camera (which they invented), but it was actually the
| opposite - they'd spent decades optimizing around a separate
| core technology and couldn't change until it was too late.
|
| I'm not a fan of Tesla for a myriad of reasons and I love
| cars. But the notion that traditional car companies can
| magically start cranking out profitable EVs (Tesla made most
| of their money from tax credits which are essentially gone
| now) is laughable.
| andechs wrote:
| A EV is a much simpler device than a ICE - it's a battery
| and an electric motor, it's much simpler than mechanical
| power. Gone are oil pumps, transmissions, etc.
|
| On top of all this, you can now route power through
| electrical wires, rather than needing an accessory belt to
| distribute mechanical power to the A/C, oil pump, power
| steering etc.
|
| The electric car's tech advances are mostly in the battery
| technology (and vapourware "Level 5 automation in 2019").
| Tesla will have a unique differentiator in battery tech and
| production, but it's not crazy to retool an existing ICE
| manufacturer to EVs.
| stcredzero wrote:
| _Gone are oil pumps, transmissions_
|
| Sandy Munroe did a disassembly of an EV motor oil pump
| just a few days ago. (In fairness, he also notes that one
| manufacturer has done away with this oil pump, and uses
| the heat pump instead.) Also, some EVs also have
| transmissions.
| jeeeb wrote:
| > But the notion that traditional car companies can
| magically start cranking out profitable EVs (Tesla made
| most of their money from tax credits which are essentially
| gone now) is laughable.
|
| That seems to be exactly what a lot of traditional car
| makers are doing though. Ford, Audi, BMW, VW, Hyundai,
| Renault, Nissan, Mazda all have or are adding EVs to their
| range, and that's just off the top of my head. They seem to
| expect profits to reach similar levels to ICEs as well:
| https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/automakers-finally-
| se...
|
| Similarly Honda have announced they're going to phase out
| ICEs by 2030 (iirc). Toyota just announced around 10
| billion dollars of investment to expanding battery
| production to 33x current levels and 5 billion in battery
| technology R&D.
|
| Digital cameras destroyed Kodak's business model of selling
| film. For car makers though selling EVs is essentially the
| same business model as selling ICEs. They sell cars not
| particular types of drive chain.
|
| Tesla is now well established as a luxury car brand but I
| think smaller EV startups are about to be washed out by
| competition from traditional makers. Smaller traditional
| makers will likely struggle to make the investment required
| to make the transition though. There's likely to be a
| period of industry consolidation.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Do people realize how little of a modern car's complexity
| is the powertrain?
|
| The eTron was built on a rework of the Audi platform that's
| in _twelve_ ICEs before hosting it 's first EV.
|
| I mean, there's a reason the manufacturers will give you a
| 100k mile powertrain warranty, but won't cover a broken cup
| holder past 40k.
|
| ICEs have been iterated to the point of boredom. Most
| engines today are 3rd or 4th generations of their original
| designs with emissions improvements and moderate power
| gains.
|
| Making flexible platforms, having a supply chain that isn't
| so starved they're actually able to provide parts post-sale
| (current global woes notwithstanding), things like
| that's...
|
| That's what make the notion that car manufacturers suddenly
| can't make cars just because the powertrain changed is what
| I find laughable.
|
| -
|
| Actually, funnily enough people don't realize this has
| actually happened before.
|
| 1970 Clean Air act and the 1970 oil crises might as well
| have been a "reset" in powertrain development.
|
| Many cars could no longer exist as they did, and
| manufacturers had to adjust to a completely new market,
| with new competition from efficient overseas competitors
| (who's efficient-focused powertrains previously had no
| place)
|
| Sound familiar?
|
| Some companies that were already floundering did fold.
| American Motors died off and Chrysler picked up the pieces.
|
| But for the most part the industry adjusted and moved on.
| Because at the end of the day the powertrain is just that,
| the powertrain. It's _supposed_ to be boring for the
| manufacturers because people will put up with a
| infotainment system that can 't play video games when
| you're parked, but they won't put up with an engine that
| works when it wants to.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > It's like saying Kodak was in a prime position to take
| advantage of the digital camera (which they invented), but
| it was actually the opposite - they'd spent decades
| optimizing around a separate core technology and couldn't
| change until it was too late.
|
| Their problem is the same one as Kodak, but it's not that
| they're too optimized for the legacy technology. It's that
| they don't want to give up the cash cow.
|
| Digital cameras don't need Kodak film. Electric cars don't
| need oil changes from the Chevy dealership.
|
| GM absolutely can make electric cars. They don't want to,
| because that's the end of their service business. It's the
| end of people buying a new car because their old car won't
| pass emissions. It's the end of people spending $2500 to
| put a new transmission in their $8000 car.
|
| All they get instead are battery replacements, but the cost
| of a battery replacement is mostly the cost of the battery,
| not the labor. And batteries are a fungible commodity, so
| they have to compete on price with Panasonic and LG and
| they won't get anything like the margins they currently get
| for engines and transmissions.
|
| They don't want this so they drag their feet. In the
| meantime it's an opportunity for competitors to eat their
| lunch.
|
| Whether they get on the ball in time to not become Kodak
| remains to be seen.
| bluGill wrote:
| > Electric cars don't need oil changes from the Chevy
| dealership.
|
| The car manufactures have nothing to lose from the loss
| of oil changes, only the independent dealers.
|
| > It's the end of people buying a new car because their
| old car won't pass emissions. It's the end of people
| spending $2500 to put a new transmission in their $8000
| car.
|
| Most cars are replaced because the lease was up on the
| old one. Even way down the line, most places don't have
| emissions testing for old cars: the car is replaced
| because the parts wear out. Ever seen a car with 250k
| miles on it - don't use the door handle to close it, it
| will just break off more, just ignore the worn spot on
| the seats, the AC will work for another two weeks if I
| recharge it - the above is real from my last car - a
| small number of all the little things (and it still ran
| great)
|
| Transmissions are generally rebuilt by a third party.
|
| > All they get instead are battery replacements, but the
| cost of a battery replacement is mostly the cost of the
| battery, not the labor.
|
| NO, the cost of the battery is they have the ability to
| replace it. Either you replace all the individual cells
| (if 18650 a lot of labor - and you need a new chargers
| for the new chemistry), or more likely the manufacture is
| keeping everything around to make it even though the car
| it went in is out of production. Either you are paying
| for labor, or paying for a battery assembly process for
| an obsolete car. Third parties might do this for popular
| cars, but you never know when you buy a car if that
| battery platform will be used enough for someone else to
| start production when you need it.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| > Most cars are replaced because the lease was up on the
| old one.
|
| From a bit of cursory research just now, only a quarter
| to a third of new cars in the last few years in the US
| have been leased rather than purchased, so I'm pretty
| sure this is not true. (Of the folks I know who've leased
| cars in the past, about half of them actually bought out
| their lease at the end, too, although obviously that's
| anecdotal.)
|
| I think the rest of your comment's on point, I just think
| you're underestimating how many people treat cars closer
| to the way you apparently do. :) While this is again an
| anecdote, when I traded in a Mazda 3 after eight years, I
| was surprised at how many friends and acquaintances I
| talked to -- including other folks right here in Silicon
| Valley, making more money than I am to boot -- reacted to
| that as "only eight years?"
| BoorishBears wrote:
| > The car manufactures have nothing to lose from the loss
| of oil changes, only the independent dealers
|
| The dealers and the manufacturers are a symbiotic
| relationship.
|
| If the service department stops being a cash cow, is the
| manufacturer supposed to give up more of their margin?
|
| Because the dealers are independent _just_ enough that if
| they decide to fold, the manufacturer can 't just swoop
| in and keep everything running.
|
| Right now people don't appreciate how happy the
| manufacturers are to sell the car to the dealer and take
| their money. If a car sits on the lot for a year it's not
| their problem (unless all of them do that is and there's
| no room)
|
| Service departments and Finance departments are the two
| things that keep that relationship going. Right now part
| of the resistance to EVs from dealers is also likely the
| potential buyers.
|
| You can guestimate EVs have a 10k premium over comparable
| ICE vehicles right now going based on a base Model 3 vs a
| Camry. The people who have money for that premium likely
| have better credit scores and can't be hit with extremely
| lucrative subprime rates.
|
| Someone with an 800 credit score won't let them tack on a
| 3% finance reserve to their 1% loan, but someone with a
| 650 score being told their rate is 11% isn't going to
| question why it's so high...
|
| Honestly this stuff is way more complicated than HN tends
| to assume. There are so many forces at play here that
| trying to make statements like "maybe tesla will make
| cars for all the other brands" is never going to be
| realistic.
|
| > Transmissions are generally rebuilt by a third party.
|
| This is an aside, but transmissions are often _replaced_
| by a dealer. Most places will not sell the average person
| on rebuilding their transmission lol, that sounds like a
| relic of yesteryear. Today a used replacement would be
| the middle ground offered for an out of warranty owner.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > The car manufactures have nothing to lose from the loss
| of oil changes, only the independent dealers.
|
| The car manufacturers sell their cars through the
| dealers. If every time they make an EV, the dealerships
| don't order them and steer every customer away from
| buying them, that's just as much a problem for the car
| manufacturer.
|
| > Most cars are replaced because the lease was up on the
| old one.
|
| The leased car still goes to someone else who then needs
| to service it.
|
| And if the old cars start lasting for 40 years instead of
| 15 then the value of just off lease cars goes down due to
| increased supply, which makes leasing more expensive to
| offset the loss of resale value, which makes fewer people
| buy new cars.
|
| > Even way down the line, most places don't have
| emissions testing for old cars: the car is replaced
| because the parts wear out. Ever seen a car with 250k
| miles on it - don't use the door handle to close it, it
| will just break off more, just ignore the worn spot on
| the seats, the AC will work for another two weeks if I
| recharge it - the above is real from my last car - a
| small number of all the little things (and it still ran
| great)
|
| Nobody replaces the door handle on an ICE car with
| 250,000 miles on it because they know the powertrain will
| give out in another 10,000 miles and then the car will be
| scrap.
|
| But batteries don't work like transmissions. As they go
| bad they have 150 miles of range instead of 300. For many
| people that's enough and they'll drive the car that way
| another five years, and then it's worth replacing the
| door handle.
|
| Meanwhile battery prices are falling like a rock. The
| lower they get, the older the car is before it has to be
| scrapped because a new battery is too expensive.
|
| > Transmissions are generally rebuilt by a third party.
|
| Transmissions _can_ be rebuilt by a third party. That
| doesn 't mean nobody goes to the dealer or buys a new
| transmission from the carmaker.
|
| > NO, the cost of the battery is they have the ability to
| replace it. Either you replace all the individual cells
| (if 18650 a lot of labor - and you need a new chargers
| for the new chemistry), or more likely the manufacture is
| keeping everything around to make it even though the car
| it went in is out of production.
|
| Carmakers have the incentive to standardize this. If
| every GM EV for twenty years has one of two or three
| different battery packs, people will be making those
| indefinitely.
|
| Meanwhile the labor of replacing individual cells in old
| batteries will happen in countries with lower labor costs
| because it isn't labor that has to happen at the repair
| site.
|
| The result is that remanufactured batteries could end up
| being _very_ inexpensive.
| stcredzero wrote:
| _The car manufactures have nothing to lose from the loss
| of oil changes, only the independent dealers._
|
| The dealers' incentives are going to play some
| significant role in legacy EV sales. VW dealers were
| actively steering buyers _away_ from VW 's EVs. Also
| YouTuber "Tesla Economist" has been doing an informal
| survey by calling legacy auto dealerships and inquiring
| about EVs. Apparently, legacy auto dealers are now
| marking up EVs by $2000, $4000, in one case by $13000!
| (The Ford dealerships are steering callers _towards_ EVs
| now, so at least Ford has that going for them.)
|
| The loss of oil changes is going to have some not-
| insignificant effect on the auto servicing industry.
| Clearly!
| bluGill wrote:
| Most of the car supply chains are the same for EV and ICE.
| Still the same radio, windows, seats, tires... Yes ICEs are
| complex but they are not the only complex part.
|
| All Kodak shows is that it is possible to not use your
| prime position. Sometimes companies fail to transition,
| sometimes they don't. Only time will tell.
| Matthias247 wrote:
| I've worked at a major automative company in a R&D org of
| 5k people. Nothing in our org was "set up for ICE", and
| none of the suppliers would have been specialized for that.
| Keep in mind that a motor is only one part of a car, and
| even if you add other drivetrain related parts (exhaust,
| transmission, etc) it might barely end up as 33% of a car.
|
| Infotainment is pretty much independent of the engine
| (apart from some icons/visualizations/settings here and
| there), as are most driver assistance systems, safety
| systems, anti-theft, chassis, mirrors, lights, wheels,
| brakes, doors, trunks, etc.
| stcredzero wrote:
| _...Nothing in our org was "set up for ICE",..._
|
| _Infotainment is pretty much independent of the engine
| (apart from some icons /visualizations/settings here and
| there), as are most driver assistance systems, safety
| systems, anti-theft, chassis, mirrors, lights, wheels,
| brakes, doors, trunks, etc._
|
| From what little bit I know about testing of automotive
| systems, there is a vast warren of disconnected, diverse
| microcontrollers and separate communications busses in
| the typical ICE vehicle from several years back.
|
| Tesla turned this all on its head. Just about _every_
| system with software in a Tesla vehicle can be upgraded
| by a car 's central computer through an over the air
| update.
|
| Exactly the situation you describe above is what some
| would naively term, "set up for ICE." It's set up for the
| legacy ICE world, where there were no over the air
| updates, and the car wasn't a computerized robot on
| wheels. This legacy can be seen in the failed updates
| coming out of GM and Ford. There have been reports of
| legacy auto updates requiring buyers to go back to the
| dealership, but then the dealers are afraid to apply the
| update, because they experienced "bricking" the vehicle.
| detaro wrote:
| _naively_ , yes.
|
| Those developments are basically unrelated to ICE vs EV,
| at least from what I've seen. Car companies are working
| on that in ICE models too (and tried before they
| announced EVs). Car companies make EVs that don't have
| this kind of integration, and will continue to do so.
| Some probably have decided to align it and develop it in
| parallel for EV models only, or at least pretend to do so
| for marketing reasons, but it's not a fundamental
| property of either/or.
|
| "Having" to do both now of course doesn't make life
| easier for car companies, many of them still struggle
| very much with this "software" thing, and it shows.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > Tesla turned this all on its head. Just about every
| system with software in a Tesla vehicle can be upgraded
| by a car's central computer through an over the air
| update.
|
| They could do this with ICE couldn't they? What does that
| have to do with EV specifically? It seems it just adds to
| the lore of Tesla - The Tech Car
| while1fork wrote:
| Koenigsegg does almost everything and has a lot of unique
| features like all carbon wheels.
| stcredzero wrote:
| _The car companies that have the supply chains, the know-how,
| and now the motivation to electrify (the key component
| previously missing), will somehow defer to Tesla to build
| their platforms._
|
| That takes some doing, as GM is finding out with the Bolt EV
| catch-fire recall, costing them many 100's of millions. Even
| if they can source the batteries, and get to a minimum level
| of quality and dependability, they will probably still be far
| behind in terms of margins, power density, and efficiency --
| for several years at least.
|
| _Also FYI, 2 out of 3 luxury manufacturers you mentioned
| already do that with established auto manufacturers_
|
| Indeed. And at this point, Tesla is the most established EV
| manufacturer.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Lol those brands didn't randomly go to those manufacturers,
| Maserati is owned by FCA/"Stellantis" and Lamborghini is
| owned by VAG.
|
| I can't believe people are seriously entertaining the idea
| that a major auto manufacturer would need Tesla to make
| cars for them.
|
| At that point what is the manufacturer bringing? Tesla's
| totally-not-marketing has brought them more cachet than
| anyone "boring" like Ford or Toyota
| stcredzero wrote:
| _I can 't believe people are seriously entertaining the
| idea that a major auto manufacturer would need Tesla to
| make cars for them._
|
| The trend I see, is that the more people know about what
| it takes to mass-manufacture an EV, the more they expect
| that legacy auto companies are going to turn to another
| manufacturer for the battery pack and the drivetrain.
|
| _At that point what is the manufacturer bringing?_
|
| The strength of the brand. It's hard to deny the brand
| strength of Ferrari, Rolls-Royce, Maserati, and
| Lamborghini. People will pay ridiculous markups to own
| brands like that. This opens up the margins such
| companies would need to survive.
|
| _Tesla 's totally-not-marketing has brought them more
| cachet than anyone "boring" like Ford or Toyota_
|
| Does Tesla have the equivalent cachet of Lamborghini?
| It's debatable, I think.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| I don't know what supply chains the legacy automakers have,
| but it sure feels like they're having trouble sourcing
| efficient batteries.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Are they? Or are they making cars that are less efficient,
| regardless of battery tech?
|
| The Taycan for example, is clearly not focused on being as
| efficient as possible. It's an opulent car with all the
| heavy soundproofing and insulation people buying these
| types of cars expect.
|
| The Mach E is probably the most normal looking EV suv, and
| it's Cd ends up being the highest of the bunch despite not
| even having door handles.
|
| I don't think efficiency is the big win people are acting
| like it is. Just like there are gas guzzlers and econoboxes
| that get miles and miles per gallon, there will be more or
| less efficient EVs.
|
| Efficiency _by itself_ is not going to be a differentiator
| forever because past a certain range figure, most people 's
| needs are met. From there "splurging" an extra 5 cents per
| mile to have their preferred car is not a problem
| jsight wrote:
| I don't know why he used the term "efficient batteries".
| I don't really know what that means and basically agree
| with you. Ford doesn't have great driving efficiency, but
| it doesn't matter as they've solved for that by using a
| really big battery.
|
| However, they seem to be severely limited in production
| capacity due to the limited number of cells available.
| Right now, everyone other than Tesla seems to be hitting
| that issue, and Tesla is at least a year ahead. More if
| they can actually get the 4680 lines running on schedule,
| but that's a big if.
| [deleted]
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| There is enough battery capacity to build plenty of Ford
| Mach-E's. But Ford can't afford to spend $100,000 to
| manufacture a $50K car, nor can they use recycled laptop
| batteries that make the car 1000lbs heavier. The problem
| here is sourcing batteries that are weight- and cost-
| efficient, and Tesla has been investing heavily in the
| production of such batteries.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| I'm referring more to the poor production numbers and
| long delays. Efficiency is relevant insofar as
| manufacturers with less-efficient technology may need
| more [and more expensive] battery cells to build
| competitive cars with comparable range (which the market
| does demand), and this exacerbates the supply shortages
| and lowers the profitability of the resulting vehicles.
| Of course I'm assuming that batteries are a major part of
| the blocker here -- if not, something sure is.
|
| ETA: What I'm trying to say is that existing automotive
| supply chains may not be a massive advantage, if the
| relevant supply chains are battery/motor tech and Tesla
| has developed the best supply chains for those specific
| technologies.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I imagine Ferrari customers in particular would enjoy Silicon
| Valley chic and startup-quality fit and finish of a Tesla.
| stcredzero wrote:
| I upvoted you. Tesla did indeed deserve to be called out
| for this. According to Sandy Munroe, they seem to have
| learned this lesson, though.
| rasz wrote:
| You would think that, yet this is what you get from Tesla
| in 2020 in NY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pg7JmKElUw
| mhh__ wrote:
| What's in it for Ferrari? Ferrari ship a few thousand cars a
| year, 10k tops, and much smaller companies already make
| electric supercars.
| arpinum wrote:
| 14k a year
| mhh__ wrote:
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/695882/number-of-car-
| shi...
| Dumblydorr wrote:
| Tesla isn't doing that and afaik has no plans to do so. They
| would much rather put their own fully integrated stack right
| onto their own skateboard and make the full profit. Elon is a
| huge fan of vertical integration, why would he change to help
| his competitors?
|
| Skateboards simply aren't that hard to make, the legacy makers
| will have them within a decade. They won't be as efficient or
| have large capacity as Tesla, because meanwhile Tesla will keep
| building on it's technical lead and stay on top for at least a
| few years, in my estimation.
|
| They'll potentially be lapped by miraculous new battery
| designs, but with current batteries? Who can top Tesla in the
| 2020s?
| devnulll wrote:
| Tesla owns the near term EV space simply due to battery
| output. Nobody else has, or is making, those investments at
| sufficient scale.
|
| If Tesla realizes it's more profitable to sell skateboards to
| BMW, then they'll happily do that. They're a basic capitalist
| company in that regard.
|
| To what degree will existing automakers get national level
| protections in order to protect global interests? Germany
| certainly won't sit by while BMW & MB go under; they'll take
| some action even if it's forcing Tesla Germany to sell
| skateboards to BMW. Japan will do something similar to
| preserve Toyota & Honda, as will China and South Korea.
|
| Disruption will be very interesting in how it plays out...
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I'm also a bit skeptical about the skateboard hype. Like,
| wasn't this what the legacy auto manufacturers learned in the
| 90s as competition ramped up from Asia, that it really wasn't
| worth the diversion of having half a dozen barely-
| differentiated cars on the same "platform" being badged and
| marketed in different ways (think Taurus/Sable/Continental,
| etc).
|
| Basically, all the specs that matter will be coming from the
| skateboard as far as performance, battery life, handling, and
| so on. What incentive is there to try to build a new box when
| someone else is making the chocolates?
| oblio wrote:
| > Like, wasn't this what the legacy auto manufacturers
| learned in the 90s as competition ramped up from Asia, that
| it really wasn't worth the diversion of having half a dozen
| barely-differentiated cars on the same "platform" being
| badged and marketed in different ways (think
| Taurus/Sable/Continental, etc).
|
| Volkswagen is a top 3 auto manufacturer and was top 1
| recently. Volkswagen, Skoda, Seat, Audi go exactly against
| what you're saying.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| But do all the VW cars share everything except the badge
| and body shape?
| darkwater wrote:
| Kia EV6 and Hyundai Ioniq 5 have the same skateboard (today
| I learnt this naming), are obviusly 2 similar cars but have
| enough differences on the aestethic side to interest
| different people. External look is still a thing when
| choosing a car (right after the brand).
| quartesixte wrote:
| External look can also affect drive handling (weight
| distribution, aero, general bulk/length concerns for city
| streets/parking)!
| Digory wrote:
| Strong "JC Penney hires away Ron Johnson from Apple's retail
| project" vibes.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Ford is responsible for manufacturing the best-selling vehicles
| in the US, and has been for years.
| snarf21 wrote:
| Additionally, they are putting out some _really_ impressive
| EV designs and plans. I think Ford has an even stronger
| future.
| csmeder wrote:
| That's one take. Here is another: "$F holding the Feb 1 1994
| resistance as support to the penny so far. Legacy auto gonna
| need some catalysts as chip shortage will be prolonged and
| billions in capital needed for EV development."
| https://twitter.com/JoTrader4/status/1434945782323589123
| [deleted]
| notadoc wrote:
| I'm skeptical of the Apple Car project as a casual observer, are
| the employees too?
| bane wrote:
| I'm on the side of things where I think Apple realized that
| electric cars are sorta giant iPhones on wheels and thought they
| could move into the market if there wasn't already a strong
| leader. This all made sense when it was clear the technology was
| there and Tesla wasn't a sure thing, so there was ample
| competitive room to elbow into.
|
| When Tesla survived and thrived I believe this caused Apple to
| take a step back and watch how the market plays out for a bit
| before committing...trying to find out of there really was a play
| there.
|
| In addition, Tim Cook is a supply-chain guy, and the supply chain
| for electric vehicles is still very immature and extremely
| dependent on technology that Apple doesn't really have expertise
| in (yet), batteries. There's just not a good selection of
| suppliers for batteries that can produce at Apple's volume needs,
| and at car scale.
| amelius wrote:
| > electric cars are sorta giant iPhones on wheels
|
| Except cars can't compete for your attention. Your eyes must be
| on the road.
| [deleted]
| xt00 wrote:
| Would seem likely this is more like "Apple executive finally
| realizes apple doesn't really want to build a car, so leaves.."
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Why on earth would Apple want to build a car? Apple wants to
| make money off of cars by selling devices and software that
| integrate with cars -- look at the hugely successful CarPlay --
| but Apple is not going to manufacture their own cars.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > Why on earth would Apple want to build a car?
|
| From a business perspective, possibly because it's a huge
| market and Apple has a lot of cash to invest. It's quite
| different to what they currently do, but they are limited in
| how much they can expand in their current markets so they're
| probably going to want to try something new. Entering the
| phone market was pretty ambitious too (not _as_ ambitious,
| but they were a much smaller company then), and they were
| prepared to take their time doing it. I believe precursor
| forms of the iPhone were in development for over 10 years
| before it was actually released.
|
| I'm not going to say that Apple will decide to manufacture
| cars, or that they'd be successful at it if they did decide
| to. But I wouldn't rule them out either.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| It's not really a standard Apple play - take a new-ish
| technology and commoditise it, while wrapping it in pretty
| design and marketing glitter.
|
| Making pocket/rucksack electronic doodads is one thing.
| Cars are on a completely different level of
| industrialisation, supply chain management, dealer
| networking, service support... and existing competition.
|
| And the plausible market capture is much smaller.
|
| It would be like Apple trying to compete against NEC,
| Fujitsu, and IBM with a commercial mainframe project. They
| could surely get a product out. But why? And then what?
| nicoburns wrote:
| > It would be like Apple trying to compete against NEC,
| Fujitsu, and IBM with a commercial mainframe project.
| They could surely get a product out. But why? And then
| what?
|
| I think it's quite different. The car market is huge, and
| it's also a consumer market. Apple would struggle to make
| headway with enterprises, but they're good at consumer
| markets.
|
| A lot of people would have said the same at the prospect
| of Apple competing with Nokia, RIM, etc in the phone
| world. And then they came out with a product that
| completely blew everyone away. A car is harder for sure,
| but they have the money and they also have the time so I
| don't really see why not.
| mandeepj wrote:
| > Why on earth would Apple want to build a car?
|
| You would have said something similar if you had heard about
| Apple's Phone plans back in 2004-2006
| enos_feedler wrote:
| The same reason why Apple will probably make a TV even though
| they have AirPlay. They are different solutions to different
| problems. AirPlay and CarPlay are all about the iPhone and
| connecting it to a diverse ecosystem in another product
| category (TVs, Cars). It increases the value of the phone.
| Making a TV and making a car are stand alone products that
| answer the question: can we make a version of this product
| that is differentiated enough to be meaningful in the market?
| From a technology standpoint, this means clever integration
| of hardware, software and services. And beyond that, there
| are other things too (privacy, etc)
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I do not see any reason why Apple would invest in making a
| TV when all of these TVs exist that already support Airplay
| 2.
|
| https://www.apple.com/ios/home/accessories/#section-tv
|
| And they sell Apple TV devices, which when plugged into a
| TV with HDMI CEC controls (all of them nowadays), renders
| TVs indistinguishable from one another except for picture
| quality and maybe how quickly they turn on and off.
|
| I guess it is possible for them to integrate the Apple TV
| device directly into a TV, but I do not see the profit
| motive on the part of Apple nor the convenience motive on
| the part of the TV user as it is pretty easy to stick an
| Apple TV onto the back of a TV.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| Like I said, Airplay is a feature of an iPhone, not a TV
| product. The Apple TV set top box is a stop gap for a
| real tv. They need a placeholder platform to have the
| developer side of the platform seeded.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I disagree that the Apple TV is a stop gap. It works with
| any TV, and you stick some adhesive strips on it and
| stick it to the back of a TV, and the only difference is
| you need one more plug outlet for it.
|
| Sony/LG/Samsung have plenty of low-mid-high quality TVs
| for whoever wants them. There is nothing extra Apple can
| provide there.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| Thats exactly the problem. There is nothing extra Apple
| can provide. What if they want to use faceid for auth?
| They can't. If the TV is to be a platform like everything
| else, they can only push forward new APIs with new
| hardware. You are viewing the market is static.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That is a good point. I am only thinking of it in terms
| of how people use TVs today. If Apple does manage to
| convince people to to use it another way, then I agree
| there is some opportunity to have their own screen panel.
| justahuman1 wrote:
| Most TVs have garbage menu interfaces, I'd love for apple
| to provide a dumb screen + appletv
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| You never have to interact with a TV's interface already.
|
| HDMI CEC allows you to take a new TV, plug an apple TV
| in, and just use the Apple TV remote. The TV will
| automatically turn off and on switched to the Apple TV
| input, hence a dumb screen + Apple TV.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| What happens when you have a ps5, xbox and/or switch
| attached to the same tv? is it seamless? Does it just
| switch on whatever remote you are using? what about first
| time setup?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I do not use those devices so I do not know for sure. But
| HDMI CEC is supposed to automatically move you to
| whatever device you start using. So if you press the
| PlayStation controller, the TV should switch to the
| PlayStation input since it received a signal from the
| PlayStation, and so on.
|
| At least it works like that with Apple TV, I do not to
| see why Sony and Nintendo and Microsoft would not
| implement the same thing Apple did.
|
| And there is no first time setup. Of course, to change
| the TV picture's settings themselves you would have to
| use the TV.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| People have been talking about the Apple TV for many, many
| years. This actually sounds like a stronger case for Apple
| not making a car.
|
| > can we make a version of this product that is
| differentiated enough to be meaningful in the market?
|
| FWIW, I think the answer is 'No', unlike e.g. AR glasses or
| smartphones pre-2007.
|
| Heck, Apple TV and the homepod each are struggling relative
| to competitors and apple really hasn't delivered anything
| innovative in those spaces. Aside from truly wireless
| headphones, I can't think of any successful apple product
| that isn't primarily a computer.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| We'll see. Just because people talk about products and
| they haven't come to light yet doesn't mean they won't.
| In fact, its probably more likely that people are just a
| bit wrong on the timing and not wrong altogether. If
| there has been talk of cars and tvs for so long, chances
| are they will make their way out the door at some point.
| Same went for the phone, ipad, etc.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > If there has been talk of cars and tvs for so long,
| chances are they will make their way out the door at some
| point.
|
| I've never heard any rumors after maybe 2010 of an apple
| TV product that isn't a set top box.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Apple isn't great at building low-value-add products. They
| shy away from these. TVs are a prime example where they
| can't add value beyond an AppleTV set top box.
|
| - The set top box works with any TV and it's one SKU. The
| number of sizes/screen quality/prices that people would
| require from a TV is so not apple's MO. As much as apple
| loves integration, they'd prefer a one-SKU device more.
|
| - Airplay is value, but they haven't really added to it
| lately. The existing AppleTV already does it, and so do 3rd
| party tvs.
|
| - TVs are very low margin, and they don't own screen
| manufacturing so they're likely not able to take outsized
| profits from the market.
|
| Regarding the Car - Its an open question if they're still
| doing it, but maybe like the TV, they shouldn't wont...
|
| - They want to control the software and GUI and that's done
| now. Unless they want to control the car itself (eg. doors,
| alarms, etc. or self-driving) they don't need deeper
| integration.
|
| - Cars are very complex, even for apple standards - and not
| complex in the way apple is familiar with. They have no
| experience building or differentiating in this industry
| (like screens wrt to TVs but 1000x less experience).
|
| - CarPlay added tremendous value, and most cars have it
| now. Deeper integration of the phone as the brains makes
| sense. But does anything else?
| shrimpx wrote:
| It makes sense from the perspective of Apple consistently
| being a "personal device" company. A car is another personal
| device. The more cars become imbibed with computing the
| closer they get to Apple's core interest.
| nojito wrote:
| Why not?
|
| A car is basically a computer on wheels theses days.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Designing the bits the computer actuates is not something
| you can model like a computer, though. Vehicle Dynamics
| isn't easy to get right. Tyres in particular might as well
| have been invented by Satan himself if you try to model
| them in a hurry.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Despite being completely "drive by wire", (modern) cars are
| _not_ just "computers on wheels". For starters: cars have
| moving parts; Your phone doesn't (or does but barely).
| They're complex beasts.
| xt00 wrote:
| Probably most folks would think Apple could build a car
| -- and something being a computer on wheels Apple could
| handle, its more like Apple probably doesn't like the
| economics of it.. iphones and software services are
| pretty lucrative, and worst case scenario you ask the
| person to bring in their phone to get a replacement..
| when you scale that up to building service centers,
| paying mechanics, building huge factories that produce a
| small number of cars per day compared to the 1 million
| iphones per day it would be a losing part of the business
| in both profit margin and risk for years even if they end
| up being pretty successful with it eventually..
| jdavis703 wrote:
| My current laptop has a fan, and in the old days it had a
| spinning disc media (CD/DVD and HDD).
| [deleted]
| meibo wrote:
| Are you comparing a small DC electro motor that drives a
| static fan blade with the drive train and steering
| systems of a car?
| Schweigi wrote:
| I dont know why you got downvoted. Servicing cars is very
| different from handling what Apple is currently selling
| and definitely not remotely the same. So it's definitely
| a good question how or why Apple would enter the car
| market.
| Animats wrote:
| Ford is positioning the electric F-150 as a _power station_
| on wheels. Run a table saw off your work truck. Run your
| camp site off your personal truck. Emergency power during
| the next flood.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| The value of the car market is enormous. If you look at the
| top 10 industries, cars are the best market for Apple to
| branch out into. I can't see them in financial services,
| construction, or oil/energy.
|
| If you look at previous behemoth companies, like GE, they
| tried to hit all these industries and overextended. There was
| GE energy, GE Capital, GE digital, GE Healthcare, GE
| Transportation systems, GE Aviation, and some part of that
| made light bulbs. With Apple, they can't just keep producing
| phones and grow so the challenge is to break into new
| neighboring sectors. Their goal with the car was not so much
| to manufacture it as it was to provide industrial design,
| branding, and software support as an initial foray. They were
| turned back by Kia/Hyundai as not bringing enough to the
| table.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| As others mentioned, they already have huge financial
| services. Plus their mountain of cash is probably not just
| in some bank account, surely it's invested and put to work
| growing too.
|
| Apple clearly has healthcare ambitions by the Apple Watch.
| They're building stupidly popular medical monitoring
| devices, and a health data research platform. Seems like
| they could tip-toe their way towards medical records
| management software too.
|
| I am surprised they don't offer more cloud services for app
| developers, but i'm guessing its hard for them to compete
| with the major clouds.
|
| Apple does not have the manufacturing or sales chops to
| sell whole cars. While Apple Geniuses are great at fixing
| an iphone, they're ill equipped to service cars.
| spoonjim wrote:
| They are already in financial services big time (Apple
| Wallet/Pay/Cash) and that can grow.
| nickff wrote:
| Apple's Carplay may also be their first step in a 'automotive
| operating system' for partial or full self-driving cars. I
| could also see them building a 'development kit' car, with
| documentation to allow 'chassis-builders' and/or 'coach-
| builders' to create their own customized designs.
| wyager wrote:
| I hope to God I never have to ride in a vehicle where its
| core safety-critical functionality in any way shares code
| with CarPlay.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Yup. I deal with hysteresis on mine that will flip back
| and forth between day and night view every second if the
| ambient light is borderline.
|
| And other things. Car Play is great, but currently one of
| Apple's buggiest products.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| > _Why on earth would Apple want to build a car?_
|
| I am wondering about the same question. Cars are not a high-
| margin business.
| dduugg wrote:
| This was true of smart phones until Apple came along. It's
| still the case for non-Apple manufacturers: https://www.for
| bes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2019/12/22/global-...
| smnrchrds wrote:
| Apple's margins are high not because its production costs
| are much lower than others, but because it has premium
| pricing. Average cost of a new car in close to 39k USD.
| How much more can people possibly afford? It's easy for
| Apple to take the market for 100$ phones and create a
| market for 1000$ ones. It is much harder to find a market
| for 390k$ cars.
| ssijak wrote:
| Yeah wait till we see the price of some self driving 50kw
| tops ricksha size vehicle Apple will produce.
| dharmab wrote:
| Cars? No. Luxury cars? Possibly.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Maybe they got suckered in by the "autonomous cars are only 5
| years out" phase we went through a couple years ago, and
| figured they could sell rides, rather than cars? Not sure.
|
| Maybe they just try everything because they have infinite
| money, and don't want to become the next IBM or Microsoft.
| jollybean wrote:
| Cars are becoming platforms for software and services, where
| the differentiation are those things, which Apple is good at.
|
| Apple is so big, they have to look to giant markets to expand
| into.
|
| At their scale, they should probably always 'be thinking
| about making a car' because the potentiality is so big, but
| being prudent enough to say 'no' almost all of the time. To
| the point that I think it's unlikely they will make one.
|
| They partnered with Motorola just before the iPhone to dip
| their feet, so watch out for that one, i.e. the fully
| integrated Fiat, designed by Aplle or something.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-07 23:01 UTC)