[HN Gopher] Apple Car: Bad Idea After All
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Car: Bad Idea After All
Author : spking
Score : 125 points
Date : 2022-09-27 14:40 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mondaynote.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mondaynote.com)
| jedberg wrote:
| Apple doesn't get into low margin businesses. They get into an
| adjacent business. A prime example is TVs. There is no Apple TV
| set. There is AppleTV, a high margin add on for any TV with HDMI
| that makes it "just work".
|
| They had the chance to buy a cellular carrier, but chose not to,
| because it's low margin. Instead they make a phone that works on
| any carrier.
|
| Cars are a low margin business. But a car add-on could be a high
| margin business. They already have CarPlay, but I can see them
| making a hardware add-on for cars.
| Melatonic wrote:
| I always liked OSX but an Apple Car is literally something I
| would never buy. Their walled garden manipulative BS is the exact
| opposite of what I want in a vehicle.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Yes because you can install anything you want on other cars...
| jononomo wrote:
| I wish Toyota would partner with Apple for their internal maps,
| screen, controls, etc. Toyota seems to have a major problem with
| intuitive usability (especially for my parents who are in their
| 80s).
|
| Toyota is the largest car company in the world and makes the most
| reliable vehicles in the world, but they need that extra touch to
| take them to the next level.
|
| Just as I would never by a phone that is not an iPhone, or a
| laptop that is not a MacBook, I would never buy a car that is not
| a Toyota. But Toyota does have some room for improvement.
|
| Also, an Apple-Toyota partnership would make Teslas look pathetic
| in comparison.
| jononomo wrote:
| How much would it cost for Apple to take a 10% stake in Toyota?
| Doesn't Apple have a couple hundred billion dollars just lying
| around in cash?
| smileysteve wrote:
| why buy 10% of Toyota when they could buy 100% of Ford
| (49.7bn market cap) with 90% cash on hand.
| restore_creole_ wrote:
| That would be around $19 billion and Apple has around $40
| billion on hand. Although I think the culture of Japan would
| cause more difficulties other than having enough money to
| afford it.
| eande wrote:
| Toyota is heavily investing and committed to launch their own
| groundbreaking Arene OS solution through the Toyota's Woven
| Planet Group starting in 2025.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota...
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Apple has already publicly torpedoed their relationship with
| one major manufacturer (Hyundai/Kia). It's suspected that the
| same thing has happened less publicly with others like Nissan.
| They've supposedly been talking with Toyota for a bit, but
| that's always been a weird choice because Toyota leadership has
| never fully bought into the idea of electric vehicles and SV
| development styles, nor are they likely to enjoy being treated
| the way Apple tends to treat "suppliers". They also have their
| own development units for this, like GM and most of the German
| manufacturers.
| _JamesA_ wrote:
| Adding wireless CarPlay would be a great start.
| Animats wrote:
| Oh, no new news. At first it seemed this was going to be "Apple
| cancels car project". But no.
| pmontra wrote:
| Anything can happen so these could also be wildly successful
| items in our future
|
| <fun>A phone from Mercedes</fun>
|
| <fun>A CPU from Ferrari</fun>
| drewzero1 wrote:
| Maybe not quite the same thing, but OnePlus did a McLaren
| edition of one of their phones a few years back. It doesn't
| seem like it took the market by storm but it's still popular in
| some circles. (The improved specs certainly helped as well.)
| tiffanyh wrote:
| I think did an "Apple TV" to their car efforts.
|
| Originally, Apple desired to make the Apple TV (hardware) the
| complete replacement for all your TV viewing needs. And for all
| the streaming services to just be dumb content pipes connected
| through a common / consistent Apple TV (app/software) UI.
|
| Then Apple realized the Netflix's of the world are not going to
| give up the user experience, let alone the direct relationship
| with the user.
|
| So Apple then pivots by making Apple TV just the platform for
| some other company to deliver their stream service through (like
| the Apple CarPlay).
|
| They then refine their strategy to come around to realizing, they
| need to make their own content (the new Apple CarPlay HUD /
| instrumentation).
| Ftuuky wrote:
| Apple should buy comma.ai and turn iPhones into autonomous
| drivers.
| dtagames wrote:
| Does anyone really think Apple is building a car? I don't and I
| never did. It makes no sense. It's not an industry one can just
| "switch into." The capital requirements for owning a car factory
| are ridiculous and it's not something you can outsource. There is
| zero crossover between consumer entertainment devices and the car
| business, as evidenced by the poor state of tech in cars! This is
| not something Apple can fix by making cars.
| Someone wrote:
| > There is zero crossover between consumer entertainment
| devices and the car business, as evidenced by the poor state of
| tech in cars!
|
| That looks similar to the state of MP3 players before the iPod,
| or smartphones before the iPhone. I think a self-driving car
| with a car-width display and hifi stereo (or better) could be a
| huge success, even if the self-driving only works on highways,
| as with the latest Mercedes.
|
| > It's not an industry one can just "switch into."
|
| Reminds me of https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-should-
| pull-the-plug...:
|
| _"Now compare that effort and overlay the mobile handset
| business. This is not an emerging business. In fact it 's gone
| so far that it's in the process of consolidation with probably
| two players dominating everything, Nokia Corp. NOK, -0.68% and
| Motorola Inc. MOT
|
| During this phase of a market margins are incredibly thin so
| that the small fry cannot compete without losing a lot of
| money.
|
| As for advertising and expensive marketing this is nothing like
| Apple has ever stepped into. It's a buzz saw waiting to chop up
| newbies
|
| The problem here is that while Apple can play the fashion game
| as well as any company, there is no evidence that it can play
| it fast enough. These phones go in and out of style so fast
| that unless Apple has half a dozen variants in the pipeline,
| its phone, even if immediately successful, will be passe within
| 3 months.
|
| There is no likelihood that Apple can be successful in a
| business this competitive."_
|
| Of course, that doesn't imply the car industry is similar or
| that Apple can find the magic that cracks open the market, but
| they may think making a side bet of a few billion (Apple's
| problem is that their MVP is larger than what the CEOs of most
| startups can only dream of) to see whether they can is a good
| idea.
| tobyjsullivan wrote:
| I think people focus too much on the actual car in this
| speculation. What about the service? Apple is really, really good
| at finding industries full of bullshit (computers in the 80's,
| mobile phones in the early 2000's) and saying, "okay, here's a
| slightly better looking product, with fewer features, and no more
| bullshit."
|
| The vehicle market is full of bullshit. Tesla took the same
| tactic and has knocked it down considerably, but there's still
| the rest of the market.
| mijamo wrote:
| I don't think you can say Tesla is "no more bullshit". If
| anything they are the one adding shiny useless feature for the
| buzz, and having a terrible all touch UI that makes no sense
| for driving.
|
| The only car manufacturer that is "no more bullshit" would be
| Dacia and that's not the same segment. But they are indeed
| doing really well!
| cruano wrote:
| I mean, it's different bullshit at least no ?
|
| Not having to deal with dealerships, actual software updates
| instead of just abandoning software (BlueLink anyone?),
| pushing maintenance from every 6 months to ~2 years
|
| I don't own or want a Tesla, but its certainly different from
| the rest of the industry
| Joeri wrote:
| Off topic, I am really digging the artwork at the top of this
| article.
|
| The bondi blue iMac, on wheels so snug in their wells they
| couldn't turn more than a few degrees, standing on a white
| polished surface that it couldn't drive on without unsightly
| black streaks, with a clearance so low it needs that polished
| surface to drive on. The most impractical car design, but
| quintessentially Apple.
|
| It is part homage and part diss at the same time. I love it.
| kalimanzaro wrote:
| What if Apple made a 1500 dollar electric Mini (car)?
|
| Might just work.
|
| I have seen some comments here saying that all the money in the
| world can't buy you a better mobile phone. If Apple is able to
| generalize that to another product class, the world might really
| change for the better.
| dirheist wrote:
| I think a mini car would tank Apple's brand value
| significantly, especially if you think about the type of die
| hard apple fanboys who would be the first flock to hit the
| streets in these things. All it takes is a couple of people
| getting into some pretty dumb accidents to make people turn
| against them (the same way people judge BMW and Tesla drivers
| but probably to an even greater extent tbh).
| meltyness wrote:
| If it's something they officially give up on: Good. There's no
| sense in trying to further extend mega caps. If there were really
| a litany of issues with how vehicles were made, one would expect
| investment to appear in research and development that addresses
| those specific issues, not vehicles appearing out of capital
| groundswells from disasters.
|
| It's alarming that the media doesn't call this what it is: a sell
| signal, and a clear sign that stock buybacks, collusion, and
| scared FTC beauraucrats who aren't willing to throw down the
| antitrust flag are making a sick economy sicker.
| rektide wrote:
| Disney said no to buying Teitter because it would be a bad look,
| is a chaotic & messy property to acquire. It would be hard to
| manage & sully their clean image.
|
| Associating yourself with automobiles doesnt feel exactly the
| same, but there's a similar jist to me. Cars have some very
| obvious bad impact on this world. Supporting & selling them is a
| pain. Trying to keep yourself as a loved respected treasured
| company would be much more difficult, quite likely impossible.
| olliej wrote:
| Sure it crashes all the time, but it looks really sleek while
| doing so :D
| taylodl wrote:
| What if Apple moved sideways and got into the electric motor
| scooter market instead and displacing the likes of Vespa? If they
| keep the power low enough (no freeway driving here!) then most
| states wouldn't require a special endorsement to ride it. It
| would be the ultimate cafe runner!
|
| Hipsters, college students, high school students, and suburban
| folks needing to drive everywhere would love it - and it would be
| reducing the amount of dino fuel burning vehicles on the road.
| The battery could be easily removable and carried in to charge in
| your house/apartment/dorm without any special equipment. Apple
| could absolutely _kill_ this market.
| ghaff wrote:
| Possible CarPlay expansion aside--I can't even summon up a good
| devil's advocate argument for this.
|
| I was having a discussion over the weekend over where Apple goes
| next with respect to hardware. I think my money is on AR _if_ the
| many technical limitations can be overcome. There are also the
| social issues but as with many other things, I suspect a lot of
| people would be willing to put up with even more ubiquitous
| cameras in exchange for convenience whether you like it or not.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Setting aside technicals issues as a huge caveat, the promise
| of AR is massive. I'm actually somewhat surprised that we're
| not seeing more AR focused media to prime people to the
| possibilities (but maybe we're just too early).
| ghaff wrote:
| Probably too early although we've seen some attempts with AR
| apps on phones.
|
| As you say, technical is a huge caveat. But it's pretty easy
| to see that IF we could have glasses that could
| overlay/enhance/record/etc. there are so many possibilities
| in a way there aren't with VR for example--for both consumer
| and commercial uses. By contrast, VR seems pretty limited;
| immersive gaming and virtual tourism just aren't that
| interesting for most people. And people don't want immersion
| in a lot of circumstances.
|
| When you can envision a clear market based on "just"
| relatively straightforward (if significant) extrapolations of
| technology that seems something worth paying attention to.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Absolutely. I would absolutely love to work in the AR space
| at some point.
|
| That said, I can just as easily identify any number of
| social/cognitive/cultural "diseases" or abuses of that
| world. Should the transition happen (and all signs point at
| the big players /trying/ to make it happen), we will have
| some gnarly traps to avoid - and I'm not very confident
| that we will do so with grace.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| A mild problem that Apple has is that they seem to spend a lot of
| time solving the sort of problems that a highly paid VP from
| California would have.
|
| Being frustrated by the driving experience and trying to solve
| that problem is in that category, being focused on the sort of
| annoyances that people spending huge amounts of time driving to
| Cupertino would have.
|
| Meanwhile city governments around the US and the world are trying
| very hard to _reduce_ the amount of cars on the road.
|
| Would be nice if Apple were thinking ahead and not contributing
| to the entrenchment of this 20th century technology.
| alexyz12 wrote:
| Theres no money in reducing the amount of cars on the road.
| There's no money in solving societies problems in general - who
| would pay for it?
| skhameneh wrote:
| This is a disappointing read, zero insight into objectives beyond
| an EV for end consumers.
|
| There is so much more to consider - progressing Carplay
| integration, demand for processing/sensing, partnerships,
| building knowledge, etc. Take the Sony Vision S for example, that
| was never intended to be a produced vehicle.
| WalterBright wrote:
| There have been a _lot_ of failed new car company startups. Like
| the Tucker, the Bricklin, the DeLorean. It 's really, really,
| really hard to create a new car company. The usual problem is
| way, way underestimating the amount of capital it will take.
|
| Tesla is an amazing company because they achieved it.
|
| Apple's expertise is in making software and tiny electrical
| gadgets. How they thought that would translate into expertise in
| making cars is beyond me. It makes about as much sense as
| diversifying into making jet engines.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| > How they thought that would translate into expertise in
| making
|
| The "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not
| going to just walk in." line aged poorly extremely fast.
|
| But you know that, everybody knows that. And Apple has the
| capital and the Tesla blueprint.
|
| So, why really not? (genuine question, I'd like to pick your
| brains on that)
| [deleted]
| detaro wrote:
| > _How they thought that would translate into expertise in
| making cars is beyond me_
|
| Is there any concrete statement/"evidence" that they ever
| seriously intended to "make cars"? Media reports always talk
| about "Apple cars", but the concrete visible bits I've seen
| also fit a software/computer-angle. But "Apple is dabbling in
| self-driving tech like any other large company with lots of
| money and an AI/ML-department" isn't as catchy a story.
| bombcar wrote:
| I've always thought Apple's play is to try to build a self-
| driving setup that can be sold/integrated with other
| manufacturers.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Automotive EE here... any article that talks about Tesla's
| financials even indirectly and it does not immediately mention
| how much money they make by selling carbon credits back to GM
| Ford and Stellantis can pay immediately be disregarded.
|
| A casual look at the numbers doesn't explain much. But if you
| look at that 7% margin, and realize that Tesla is nearly doubling
| that with carbon credit sales which are 100% margin. It changes
| the picture.
|
| Anyone else has a car they make 7% minus buying credits to be
| able to sell more in California. Tesla sells a car they make
| more. Without the carbon program Tesla would drastically have to
| change its model, which will be interesting because everyone is
| selling their own EVs and won't need to buy as many credits soon.
|
| It makes no sense for Apple to get into vehicles for 20 reasons,
| this is just one. They're way too late.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| Those credits aren't particularly relevant any more. Several
| years ago they were essential and made up practically the
| entirety of their profits, but today they're just a side-gig.
| In Q2'2022: $300m credits, $16 billion in total revenue, 2.3B
| in profit.
| aclatuts wrote:
| I was just going to say this. The credits definitely do not
| double their margins, it adds 2% to their 11% base margin for
| a total of 13%
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Q2 was 300m hmm? Ok, do the rest of the math at 5% likely-
| actual or 7% industry average on sales.
| bushbaba wrote:
| Wouldn't people have said the same with mp3 players back in the
| day.
|
| Honestly the biggest challenge will be manufacturing. Apple
| likes to surprise folks, how do you surprise them when you've
| got to build massive new factories
| kkaske wrote:
| Wouldn't people have said the same thing with cell phones
| back in the day? In fact I had a discussion with an Apple
| store employee asking what they thought about the rumor that
| Apple was going to be releasing a phone. He said that there
| was no way Apple would even want to be in that space. I'm not
| saying they will get into cars, but you just never know.
| bushbaba wrote:
| They can make the mp3 players in enough quantity in a
| single place. You can air freight mp3 players to do JIT
| delivery.
|
| With cars that's not possible.
| kkaske wrote:
| This is true. I would say, however, getting into phones
| meant dealing with carriers and such. That is still not
| to the same level of complexity of a car, but I could see
| Apple partnering with an existing maker to help fill in
| areas that they don't have skills in. They did that when
| they partnered with Google for webservices during the
| iPhone initial release.
| lisper wrote:
| > the biggest challenge will be manufacturing
|
| Don't underestimate the challenge here. Making an MP3 player
| is not that different from making a computer. Making a car is
| very, very different.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| It took Tesla a decade to learn this. And they're just
| getting around to the ideas that the industry had 100 years
| to develop and refine.
| ProAm wrote:
| > They're way too late.
|
| I agree but Apple is never first to the table, they always take
| others inventions and improve them. Apple also charges an
| insanely high profit margin so they might get by with or
| without the credits....
|
| But I agree this is dumb for Apple to pursue.
| terminatornet wrote:
| only apple car i wanna hear about is the one lowly worm from
| busytown drives
| _ph_ wrote:
| I found the announced enhancements to car play very interesting.
| To my understanding, it aims for replacing most of the user-
| facing software in cars. This is very tempting for car
| manufacturers, not to compete with car play, but just embrace it.
| It almost looks as if car play is to become the Windows of the
| car industry - instead of trying to come up with your own
| solution, just install the most widely used software available on
| the market. That could be a big step for Apple and hugely
| profitable, in the same way Windows made Microsoft into the giant
| it is.
|
| It just could be that. But that would depend on the car
| manufacturers giving up on their own software so easily and it
| would be a completely new strategy for Apple. They love to
| control the whole stack. Even in cases, where they entered a
| market with a collaboration - the early iPod Phones come to my
| mind - they later switched to their own product.
|
| Also, the rumor about an Apple car does keep coming back. And
| they spend a lot of money on what ever they are doing. So while
| the play on just Car Play might be strong, they do have something
| brewing in case car manufacturers don't just jump onto it. My
| favorite theory though is: they are building something which will
| be a "car" but as different from current cars as the iPhone was
| from mobile phones of its day and age. I would be really curious
| to see that.
| taffronaut wrote:
| Margins in the auto industry are tight and manufacturers are
| seeing software as their saviour. Hence we see software
| features allowing you to 'subscribe' to e.g. heated seats.
| There's hope in auto manufacturers for the "Smart TV play"
| where owner/driver analytics (anonymous and otherwise) can be
| sold on. Then there are hoped-for kickbacks from in-car
| infomercials advising drivers to replace consumables like tyres
| via a manufacturer-linked outlet. This is why car manufacturers
| fixate on their own software and yet car software will become
| more and more dysfunctional for the end user as they're the
| 'mark' not the customer. It could be hugely profitable for
| Apple to take over the space, but that would be at the expense
| of the car manufacturers' dreams of software-driven increase in
| margins, so I wouldn't bet on them signing up soon.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| "(nearly)"
| bottlepalm wrote:
| It's funny how Apple CarPlay is basically the Android of the car
| world. While Tesla is more like IOS/iPhone, controlling both the
| hardware and software.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Tesla is more like Samsung. Decent hardware and subpar software
| and user interfaces.
| beloch wrote:
| The iBug will probably be good for some people but horrible for
| others.
|
| "It just works" is a fine motto, but a lie. Devices often need
| intervention to work properly or to work at all. Laptops and
| phones generally require a _lot_ less intervention than cars.
| Some of us are happy to outsource that labour to others. Some of
| us are fascinated with how things work and prefer to at least
| _try_ fixing things ourselves. I have learned from personal
| experience that Apple is outright hostile to the latter form of
| folk.
|
| I fully expect an Apple car will have all manner of non-standard
| screws, fasteners, and parts. It will be technically possible for
| third party mechanics to deal with, but letting one breathe on
| your iBug will void the warranty. Just opening the hood will, no
| doubt, require special tools and break multiple tamper-proof
| warranty-voiding seals.
|
| If you're happy taking your iBug into an Apple store every time
| you hear a new noise, you'll be fine with an iBug. If you're the
| sort who wants to pop the hood and try to track down the problem
| yourself, then beware!
| scarface74 wrote:
| As opposed to Teslas and where the rest of the car industry is
| going?
| pram wrote:
| The Polestar 2 feels like what an 'Apple car' would be like, to
| me. It seems to have a giant Android tablet in the middle
| console. Looks pretty smooth and tasteful overall but I can't
| summon up any excitement for it.
| dabeeeenster wrote:
| I own a relatively early Polestar 2 in the UK. It has been
| plagued with software problems, including a software update
| failing and bricking the car, requiring 3 different volvo techs
| to come and unbrick it.
|
| Even with Google helping on the software!
|
| Even now I'm stuck on 2.0 for some reason (2.2 is the latest in
| the UK). No idea why. Cant face the call to Polestar support
| and the inevitable reply of "Take it to a vovlo dealer".
|
| The car itself is an absolutel monster. Love it to bits. The
| software not so much.
| hangonhn wrote:
| Given the relative simplicity of an electric drivetrain
| compared to ICE, is all that software absolutely necessary?
| I'm a bit shocked (pun intended?) to hear that your car got
| bricked by a software update.
| SomeCallMeTim wrote:
| Given the number of times I've seen a reported, verified bug in
| OS X be "fixed" by hiding the bug from the public tracker and
| marking it "will not fix," I would have a hard time ever trusting
| a car made by Apple.
|
| Apple also makes their products to be disposable, seemingly as
| part of the culture, while a well-made electric car can run to a
| million miles over 50+ years. That's a very different build
| philosophy.
|
| The key to me is that Apple presents the _image_ of perfect fit
| and finish--beyond that their products are not problematic in a
| lot of ways (ability to modify them, or expand them, or extend
| them in ways that Apple doesn 't approve of...). Some of their
| tech is cool, don't get me wrong. But it's far from perfect.
|
| I would imagine an Apple car that only supports Apple Maps, Apple
| Music/Podcasts, and Siri and will only connect to iOS
| devices...and that costs twice as much as the Tesla for the base
| model, and more if you want a reasonable range. Pandora? Spotify?
| Waze? Meh. Sorry. Oh, and don't forget monthly fees for
| navigation; probably more like the $36/month of the Audi EV than
| the free navigation for the Tesla.
|
| I'm sure there's a market for it. There are a lot of people who
| love Apple and who have money.
| runlevel1 wrote:
| > a well-made electric car can run to a million miles over 50+
| years.
|
| That remains to be seen.
|
| You mention Tesla as an alternative, but they're well-known for
| their fit and finish and repairability issues.[1][2]
|
| Apple's software fit and finish has taken a dive. My Tesla
| isn't much better. (ex: I couldn't move my headrest for a
| month.) Poke around teslamotorsclub.com and you'll find all
| kinds of silly bugs that drag on.
|
| > free navigation for the Tesla
|
| Tesla builds 8 years of connectivity into the initial sticker
| cost, after that they will be charging.[3] Apple will probably
| charge too if it also includes network connectivity.
|
| > Pandora? Spotify? Waze? Meh. Sorry.
|
| Apple _is_ especially bad about lock-in. I understand Pandora,
| Spotify, and Waze are installable on CarPlay (I haven 't tried
| them), but there's still plenty of walled garden stuff going on
| elsewhere.
|
| [1]: https://www.thedrive.com/news/34144/the-tesla-model-y-is-
| alr... [2]:
| https://www.thedrive.com/news/41493/teslas-16000-quote-for-a...
| [3]: https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/27/23281022/tesla-
| standard-d...
|
| EDIT: Add bit about software quality.
| lucasmullens wrote:
| The latest iPhone reversed course on the disposability piece a
| little bit, making it arguably the most repairable iPhone ever.
| simonh wrote:
| The disposability allegation was always bullcrap. iPhones
| have lead in terms of service lifetime, second hand value
| retention, and manufacturer software support for so long now
| and by such a huge margin I wonder at the motives of anyone
| still saying this.
| gatonegro wrote:
| Yes, and then went and serialised the parts.
| pulvinar wrote:
| That's to make the phones less of a theft target (for
| parting out). It's a tradeoff, but one most people prefer.
| gatonegro wrote:
| If the manufacturer makes parts easily available,
| wouldn't the incentive to steal devices to sell for parts
| more or less disappear? Same thing with counterfeit
| parts. The market for stolen/fake parts exists because
| OEM parts are essentially impossible to acquire legally.
|
| Serialisation is simply another way for Apple to maintain
| control. You can now repair a device, but _only_ with
| Apple 's blessing and knowledge. The privacy/safety
| stories they sell are just that.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The part would have to be easily available and cheap.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >while a well-made electric car can run to a million miles over
| 50+ years. That's a very different build philosophy.
|
| I'm trying to decide if this is something you actually think or
| is incredibly thick hyperbole. Why would you say a well-made
| electric car could run that many miles rather than the 200k+
| mile cars that actually exist?
| olyjohn wrote:
| Well made ICE vehicle could do that too. But the costs are
| not worth it for consumers. Big ass diesel semi trucks go
| over 1 million miles, then they are rebuilt and put back into
| service. Reliability doesn't just come because your car has
| an electric motor in it.
| cronix wrote:
| Because there are Tesla's that have gone over a million
| miles.
| olyjohn wrote:
| There's tons of ICE cars that have done it too.
| Aperocky wrote:
| That would not sell.
|
| I didn't buy a macbook because it had Apple logo on it, I
| bought it because of the M1 chip that was 1 generation ahead of
| anybody else. Similarly, I bought an iPhone mini because its
| form factor worked very well for me.
|
| If Apple introduced a VR headset I can already tell you that I
| won't buy it. If their car is inferior to others on the market
| then I won't buy it. I think most Apple consumer falls in the
| same camp as me.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > If Apple introduced a VR headset I can already tell you
| that I won't buy it.
|
| I might if it worked with existing VR games, etc. because the
| Oculus software on Windows is a shambles. Lost count of the
| number of times it just plain won't start because it thinks
| I'm N Windows updates behind (even though I'm not.) Also had
| to completely wipe and reinstall a few times. Then when it
| does agree that I have a headset and it recognises that I'm
| wearing it, sometimes it'll just ... not show anything for a
| few minutes. Or a game will crash (not always Oculus' fault)
| and the software will insist I can't start anything else
| because the other game is still running...
|
| macOS might have its glitches but software just works 99.9%
| of the time.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Why would you "imagine that" when CarPlay already supports
| third party app? Every Apple platform supports third party
| apps.
| dilap wrote:
| Fit and finish has absolutely collapsed in recent Apple
| software. Glitches and bugs all over the place. It's almost
| enough to tempt one to see if this really is, finally, the year
| of Linux of the desktop. Almost.
|
| I would disagree about Apple making products to be disposable,
| though! I've found Apple hardware to be incredibly long
| lasting. Their phones, ipads, and iphones all last years and
| years and years in my experience.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| > Fit and finish has absolutely collapsed in recent Apple
| software.
|
| Bugginess abounds more than ever in Apple's software, and I'd
| love for them to take a cycle off and just work on fit and
| finish and bugs rather than features. But to be fair, if
| you're judging against the experience of using Windows, well
| let's just say that's a low bar to beat.
|
| As far as Linux desktops go, I think the way they run very
| solidly these days is phenomenal, but I don't think they
| solve everyday problems (things that watches and phones and
| other devices can do) as well as Apple. If you embrace Apple
| devices and services, you have a whole bunch of tools that
| work phenomenally together in smart ways. I don't think Linux
| really can match that whole package anytime soon.
| zamalek wrote:
| > judging against the experience of using Windows, well
| let's just say that's a low bar to beat.
|
| Honestly, even with all the bullshit that Microsoft has
| been pulling, this isn't really true. I have used all three
| extensively in the past year (Windows since I was a
| teenager, switched to Linux only for 1 year, work has had
| me on an Apple device for 6 months). Linux just works.
| Windows usually just works, if you can ignore their asinine
| "features" such as adverts and Edge nags. Apple is by far
| the worst of the bunch, it feels like the entire platform
| is teetering on the edge of absolute chaos, held together
| only by the thankless work of the community (Brew, Co/lima,
| etc.). A fresh install of MacOS is completely and utterly
| incompetent.
| pineconewarrior wrote:
| Apple did just move to an entire new architecture so I am
| hoping the bugs will start to calm down soon.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >a well-made electric car can run to a million miles over 50+
| years. That's a very different build philosophy.
|
| Source? Apple currently makes the longest lasting consumer
| devices with the longest lasting software support, so not sure
| how one can conclude longevity is not in their build
| "philosophy".
|
| >I would imagine an Apple car that only supports Apple Maps,
| Apple Music/Podcasts, and Siri and will only connect to iOS
| devices...and that costs twice as much as the Tesla for the
| base model, and more if you want a reasonable range. Pandora?
| Spotify? Waze? Meh. Sorry. Oh, and don't forget monthly fees
| for navigation; probably more like the $36/month of the Audi EV
| than the free navigation for the Tesla.
|
| Why? All of those apps are usable in every Apple device's OS
| today, including Carplay. And Apple Maps has had free
| navigation since inception.
|
| Also, I can get into almost any recent car and plug in my
| iPhone or Android phone and have access to CarPlay and Android
| Auto, and get access to a ton of apps, except in a Tesla. Seems
| like Tesla is being the more restrictive party here.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > while a well-made electric car can run to a million miles
| over 50+ years
|
| That is a big claim, which is completely unsupported by
| reality. ICEVs do not get recycled because the engine died.
| Body rot, repairs that cost more than the value of the car,
| etc, this is why cars are taken off the road.
|
| If anything, the current batch of early generation EVs are
| probably going to have shorter than average lifespans compared
| to established ICEVs, not longer.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| There is a someone on YouTube who works driving HGVs for a
| large vehicle recycling company in the UK. I'm often
| surprised by the cars that are considered end of life. Cars
| which I still think of as recent models.
|
| It would be great to see some statistics but to me most of
| the cars he picks up require some kind of major repair work
| making it uneconomical to fix. Often not the engine
| admittedly, the vast majority can drag themselves onto the
| back of the truck under their own power (and it's so much
| faster to do that than get out the winch cable that there is
| a big incentive for him to try). Usually though they aren't
| running correctly or have obvious issues with the clutch or
| gearbox. Almost none of the modern cars suffer any
| appreciable rot.
|
| On the other hand I've been watching the price of 1st
| generation Nissan Leafs as I want one as a run around and
| over the last couple of years there prices appear to have
| increased. There are a couple of companies who will swap a
| 40kwh battery pack into a 24kwh leaf making it a very usable
| vehicle indeed, though the people doing this seem to be doing
| it for sentimental reason as you can buy a 5 year newer car
| with a 40kwh battery pack for the same net cost.
|
| The price for a full 24kwh battery appears to be in the
| PS2-4k range as even with 20% degradation it's still a huge
| amount of stationary storage.
| greedo wrote:
| I live in the Midwest (US) and all I see is cars rotting.
| Cars under 5 years where the owner doesn't take care of the
| paint (wash/wax etc) and the wheel wells start to rust off.
| I even play a game with my kids where we watch for
| "Pavement Princess" trucks that have rust.
| restore_creole_ wrote:
| For the million mile mark there is at least one example.
|
| https://insideevs.com/news/559261/tesla-
| models-p85-1500000-k...
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| With multiple battery and drive unit replacements we may as
| well call it Triggers Tesla!
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
| restore_creole_ wrote:
| It is normal for a car with that many miles to need to
| have some replacement parts. There are users who have
| reported going over 500,000 km on original battery (20%
| degradation).
|
| https://twitter.com/IovePianoBlack/status/155158555774626
| 201...
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| There is a big difference between some replacement parts
| and having all of the major components replaced multiple
| times.
| samatman wrote:
| I think you read the engine part wrong.
|
| The battery pack was recalled and its replacement has
| logged 1,000,000 km.
|
| Similarly, three of the four motors were all recalled at
| the same time, the fourth one wasn't and made it to
| 1,000,000 km, possibly 1,500,000 as well, the article
| says they don't know.
|
| Parts which are recalled and replaced by the manufacturer
| say something about reliability, but nothing about
| durability: reliability tends to improve.
|
| Regardless, my point is the engines were 3/4 replaced
| once, not replaced three different times. The battery was
| also replaced twice, but that's because the interim was a
| loaner, not because it failed twice.
| tialaramex wrote:
| HN seems like the sort of audience who can tell me. This is a
| serious question: Why would anybody listen to Jean-Louis Gassee?
|
| What I see is a career of failures, at Apple, at Be, at Palm, JLG
| was dealt good hands and some bad hands but played each
| indifferently. Did I miss something important ?
| abrichr wrote:
| This is not uncommon amongst executives. It's often described
| as "failing forward".
| MBCook wrote:
| That never stopped John C. Davorak.
|
| JLG is known and was at Apple. That makes him incredibly
| qualified. Somehow.
|
| I don't know. He doesn't seem worse than many other random
| columnists.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| A critic, ou analyst, does not need to be a good practitioner
| to provide the public with interesting insights.
|
| The "you can't cook/compose/etc, how dare you criticize the
| food/music/etc" line is rather crass.
| yalogin wrote:
| What is the point of this article? I guess it had good engagement
| here but ultimately doesn't provide anything of value. Apple will
| get into the car business if it can offer something better.
| Either way the product will be wonderful if they do, and we know
| they won't abandon it too. So if they get in we can see
| iteratively improving product that is baseline better than
| many/most. Does it happen? Who knows?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I don't even think about buying cars less than 10 years old or
| so. I have actually had better luck doing this than when I used
| to buy cars new or nearly-new. It weeds out the lemons and the
| owners who don't take care of their cars.
|
| Let someone else take the depreciation and find out how they hold
| up in the long term. Does Apple have any history of supporting
| its hardware for that long?
| jononomo wrote:
| I have a 2009 Toyota Prius and it has never once had a
| mechanical problem. Literally the only issue it has ever had is
| an inaccurate tire pressure indicator light on the dashboard.
| s0rce wrote:
| I was trying to do this and the market seems terrible. I can
| buy a 10-12yr old car with 150k miles for >$10k (at least in
| models that I was looking at). Or stuff that is hard to
| maintain for $5k (which is what I'm already driving). Newer
| used cars are almost as much or even more than new! Ended up
| putting a deposit on a new one.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| True enough that used car prices have kind of gone nuts in
| the past year or two.
|
| I look for local private sales, not dealer cars. You have to
| be both patient and ready to pounce when a good deal comes
| up.
| drewzero1 wrote:
| This is something that really worries me about current
| automotive trends. Carmakers tend to assume a 10-year lifespan
| for their vehicles, though last I saw the average age of cars
| on the road in the US is slightly higher than that[0]. My
| current car is approaching 30 and I'm planning to replace it
| with something closer to 10-15 in the near future, old enough
| to avoid touchscreens and new enough to not be destroyed by
| rust (yet).
|
| With vehicles incorporating more technology, I'm concerned they
| might stop lasting long enough for rust to be an issue. Tech
| companies have already perfected a model of planned
| obsolescence. If cars start becoming obsolete and unusable as
| fast as tech products do, they won't have a chance to
| depreciate enough for me to afford one.
|
| 0: https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/average-age-of-
| vehic...
| bumby wrote:
| I forgot where it was exactly, but I remember a discussion on
| a podcast about how auto manufacturers deliberately price
| their replacement electronics to force planned obsolescence.
| The example brought up was an SUV that has a large display
| that controls everything from HVAC to the radio. The screen
| had an expected service life of something like 7 years, but a
| replacement price of something like $7k. The thought was that
| when people are faced with a price tag like that on a
| depreciated asset, they'll be more likely to trade it in for
| a new model.
|
| Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon but that would all but guarantee
| my new model wasn't bought from the same manufacturer.
| drewzero1 wrote:
| Could that have been 2.5 Admins episode 78? They were
| discussing the incident where a radio station broadcast a
| corrupted image file that bricked Mazda radios that
| received it.
| bumby wrote:
| I don't think so, I'm not familiar with that particular
| podcast.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| A full Apple Car has always seemed unrealistic to me. Cars are a
| fundamentally different industry then consumer electronics and
| software. Apple would be starting from scratch, and facing a lot
| of entrenched competition with huge budgets and infrastructure.
|
| And for what? What could Apple do that GM, Toyota, or Tesla
| couldn't? Maybe a better UX for the dashboard. And while many car
| UXs are absolutely terrible, improving them isn't some
| insurmountable challenge for existing manufacturers. And besides,
| Apple could just expand carplay and partner with car
| manufacturers, which seems like it would work better for everyone
| involved.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I guess smartphones were also outside of their main field, they
| were the underdog and rapidly took over. They're probably
| seeking domains to replicate because phones won't sell forever.
| munk-a wrote:
| Personally, I'm waffling. "Gosh this is totally new hardware"
| could equally well be applied to the iPod launch or a dozen
| other devices - my personal doubt (that while we'll always have
| some cars the number of them is going to take a real nose dive
| sometime in the next two decades) is also kinda disproven by
| apple. Watches were on death's doorstop except for as weird
| wealthy status symbols - nobody was chomping at the bit asking
| Apple to make a watch but they made one and, while it isn't
| doing extremely well, it's certainly a market presence.
|
| So I feel like they probably could throw enough money at the
| problem to come up with a solution of some kind but it also
| just feels like a waste to me.
| waboremo wrote:
| As if Apple is just a tiny little startup looking for VC funds
| to get into the automotive industry and couldn't possibly
| compete with Ford.
|
| >And for what?
|
| Control over the entire driving experience. Just like they are
| obsessed with controlling the experience of a phone or a tablet
| and refuse to relegate aspects to partners.
|
| >improving them isn't some insurmountable challenge for
| existing manufacturers
|
| You say this but yet car manufacturers continue refusing to do
| so. It's been years already and sluggish screens are still
| normal, a bunch of weirdly placed knobs that offer no
| substantial tactile feedback, wheels that are horrible to hold,
| here are 3 different screens for some ungodly reason, and list
| goes on. Now this doesn't mean Apple will get everything right,
| but their attention to detail isn't something to overlook here
| and it's a huge advantage in a field where manufacturers have
| largely gone stagnant.
|
| Apple can expand carplay while also manufacturing their own
| car. Actually, that would be one of the greatest forms of
| advertising their own car. Here's the pure experience, whereas
| you're using something tainted by GM.
|
| To note, I'm not convinced the Apple Car will happen, but I'm
| frankly confused by people with the perspective that they have
| no leverage and nothing to offer here. A car with the Apple
| brand and nothing new will likely push more units than several
| new carmakers.
| thr0wawayf00 wrote:
| > You say this but yet car manufacturers continue refusing to
| do so. It's been years already and sluggish screens are still
| normal, a bunch of weirdly placed knobs that offer no
| substantial tactile feedback, wheels that are horrible to
| hold, here are 3 different screens for some ungodly reason,
| and list goes on.
|
| The laziness of auto manufacturers is so apparent these days,
| seeing reports of auto features being turned into
| subscription-based offerings. I just bought a brand new car
| that has a fair amount of sensor tech, which makes it
| difficult to mount 3rd party devices to the windshield
| because they obstruct the optical sensors. A service I would
| absolutely (and begrudgingly) pay for would be a built-in
| dash cam with a cloud integration. They already have all of
| the tech and expertise in-house. They would make a killing
| and I'm sure insurance companies would get on board too. But
| no, let's attach a monthly fee to heated seats instead.
| amelius wrote:
| > Control over the entire driving experience.
|
| Impossible. The driving experience is _also_ controlled by
| other road users and traffic laws, for example.
|
| > To note, I'm not convinced the Apple Car will happen, but
| I'm frankly confused by people with the perspective that they
| have no leverage and nothing to offer here.
|
| The Apple Watch looks sexless. Most people don't want a car
| like that.
| lowercased wrote:
| > As if Apple is just a tiny little startup looking for VC
| funds to get into the automotive industry and couldn't
| possibly compete with Ford.
|
| Ford's market cap is $47b. Apple has more than that free cash
| on hand. I suspect Apple would 'partner with', then
| eventually just subsume, an existing card company, if they
| really wanted to get in to this. You're buying a lot of
| existing infrastructure (dealers, parts, distribution,
| warehouses, etc) that would take a long time to replicate.
| fullshark wrote:
| > What could Apple do that GM, Toyota, or Tesla couldn't?
|
| I think they filed some patent that revealed their competitive
| advantage was based on the premise they were uniquely capable
| of extracting range and charge out of batteries via
| optimizations and their experiences building consumer
| electronics. If they delivered somehow an electric vehicle with
| much better UX across the board they could build a healthy car
| business.
| zx10rse wrote:
| Tesla is pretty much a software company.
|
| Apple or any other company that wants to step in the EV market
| can be huge, if they focus on build quality and user
| experience, and by user experience I don't mean just the UX
| dashboard.
|
| There is a huge room for innovation in the automotive industry,
| I argue that we still haven't saw the next Model T 100 years
| later, and the industry grew a lot.
|
| Give the people an affordable well build, reliable, easily
| serviceable car, and you might outsell Toyota Corolla.
|
| Apple started from scratch with the ipod, iphone, watch. Can
| they do it and with a car, I don't know they certainly have the
| budget, they certainly can find the talent, the only question
| is do they have the vision.
| askvictor wrote:
| Software companies don't have to manage production,
| inventory, shipping, or a heap of things that are crucial to
| physical products. Tesla do a heap of interesting things in
| software, but that doesn't make them pretty much a software
| company.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Apple does do this, just not for cars. They have a massive
| and fine tuned global supply chain for all their hardware
| devices.
|
| I imagine _some_ of that expertise would play well in the
| car market, but I 'm certain much as Tesla did, they may
| hit road bumps along the way, however its not completely
| out of their DNA to handle this sort of thing.
| morcheeba wrote:
| It's funny how those are the same arguments people made when a
| company that built PCs started making phones. How could they
| compete with Verizon?! They were thinking evolutionary, but the
| iPhone had so many fundamental changes (technological,
| business, social) that upended an industry and made new ones.
| I'm not saying the car is a good idea, but Apple has overcome
| entrenched competition before with very capable competitors.
| [deleted]
| hbn wrote:
| They already showed off giant carplay updates at WWDC this
| year. They showed a car where the entire dash was a giant wide
| screen, where it even handled the speedometer, odometer, fuel
| level, etc
|
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/09/apples-2023-carpl...
| packetlost wrote:
| I'd rather see standard APIs and hardware mounting systems
| that let me slot in different hardware to upgrade my cars
| software + screens + CPU + etc. without having to buy a new
| car
| babypuncher wrote:
| Isn't the point of CarPlay and Android Auto to make this
| possible, without needing to actually replace hardware? The
| idea is to make it so the hardware in your car is just a
| dumb terminal that doesn't ever need to be upgraded. Your
| infotainment system gets upgraded every time you get a new
| phone or iOS/Android upgrade.
| packetlost wrote:
| Sort of, but they don't let you control things like...
| climate control, etc.. There's no real reason those APIs
| can't/don't exist as long as they have proper safety
| mechanisms in place.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Isn't that the purpose of Android Automative - not to be
| confused with Android Auto?
| packetlost wrote:
| Yeah, but no manufacturer has implemented it to my
| knowledge. Also I believe that requires being installed
| on the car's head unit itself
| scrlk wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Automotive#Vehicles
| _wi...
|
| Seems like there's quite a few cars out there with
| Android Automotive?
| macshome wrote:
| There have long been CarPlay and Siri intents for things
| like climate control but no automaker has wanted to give
| up more control inside their dashboard.
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| Wow, congratulations, Apple managed to hotglue a screen to
| the dash. But how about the rest of the car?
|
| What's the seating like? Is the suspension firm or soft? How
| big are its blindspots? Can it make it over a grass median
| without bottoming out? What about a snow bank? How well does
| the frame cope with rust? Can you manipulate its doors with a
| hand full of groceries? Do the brakes fade when fully loaded?
| Does it oversteer or underwater under hard cornering?
|
| There's so much more to a car than its dashboard and
| powerplant, but I feel like 90% of SV think all you need to
| do to disrupt the auto market is bolt an iPad to a motor
| duped wrote:
| That terrifies me
| ghaff wrote:
| Of course, like it or not, you're describing how Tesla does
| it and again, like it or not, it's probably the direction
| that a lot of car controls are headed.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Which is why I'm torn. I love all of the safety features,
| quiet interiors, etc that modern cars have, but I really
| like the simplicity of older cars (especially their lack
| of privacy invading add-ons).
| duped wrote:
| Tesla interiors are awful (for a car, not just for a
| luxury car) so I'm in the "or not" category there. It's
| not just about the lack of physical dials (although
| that's a factor). Everything about Tesla interiors
| screams "cheap and no QA"
| savagej wrote:
| dylan604 wrote:
| You are not alone. I like the idea that gauges are
| connected directly to the thing they are measuring.
| However, I may be disconnected from modern reality in that
| what might look like a "traditional" gauge might already be
| connected to the car's computer rather than direct
| measuring. I'm just not a grease monkey to know the inner
| workings.
| ghaff wrote:
| While my Honda Passport does have a reasonable number of
| physical buttons--which probably are still fly by wire--
| I'm pretty sure all the gauge displays are all just
| digital readouts of readings coming off the bus.
| avianlyric wrote:
| Yeah no gauge in a modern car is directly connected to
| anything, except maybe the fuel gauge in a cheap car.
|
| Everything is being run the cars ECU, all of those gauges
| are servo driven, all of them are getting their data in
| the form of discrete digital values. That's assuming your
| car even has physical gauges, and not just digital gauges
| on a screen.
| agitator wrote:
| Yeah nothing in the UI is connected directly to a sensor
| these days. The UI is just a display for relevant data on
| the CAN bus.
|
| Sensors have redundancies and detections in both sensing
| and communications so that the receiving end knows when
| there is an issue and doesn't display false information,
| resulting in an error code being thrown and displaying a
| "check engine light".
| [deleted]
| roneythomas6 wrote:
| Since iOS 13(2019) Apple CarPlay can show a second display on
| the gauge cluster or HUD. AFIK no automakers have supported
| it. https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/20/20875604/apple-
| carplay-io...
| paxys wrote:
| The biggest reason that cars have horrible UX is that consumers
| don't care about it. No one is buying one for how good the
| speedometer looks. Give me a good performance and MPG. Make the
| components last long and be serviceable. Make it look good on
| the outside. Put advanced safety features. Perform well in
| crash tests. A hundred more of these and _maybe_ the car will
| be worth buying.
|
| People here are delusional when they go oh, Apple can make a
| better Carplay integration and easily outsell Ford and Tesla.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > People here are delusional when they go oh, Apple can make
| a better Carplay integration and easily outsell Ford and
| Tesla
|
| OTOH, why do most people buy a Tesla right now? "How good the
| speedometer looks" is a pretty good description. Performance
| is good, reliability awful, UI usability awful unless you
| like fancy computer graphics. As a car, a Model 3/Y has a lot
| of compromises and lacks many features other cars have. But
| that computer screen...
|
| To be fair, "image seekers" (traditional automotive
| terminology) most likely comprise the vast majority of Model
| 3/Y buyers at this stage. This is an area where Apple has a
| strong history of success.
|
| But I don't think it's a good fit, making cars is _expensive_
| and completely different from everything else they do.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I specifically don't want a Tesla because of the shitty
| infotainment system and lack of support for AirPlay.
| mercutio2 wrote:
| There's a lot I don't like about Tesla.
|
| But your list of good/bad didn't include a single word
| about the Supercharger network, which is the #1 reason
| people who want electric vehicles choose Tesla, in my
| experience.
|
| I agree that the big screen is annoying, but I put up with
| it so I can go on road trips and not rent a car or limp
| around searching for charging.
| [deleted]
| chroma wrote:
| People buy Teslas primarily for two reasons:
|
| 1. The Supercharger network means you can take them on road
| trips without worrying. This isn't the case for other EVs
| which use the Electrify America charging network.
|
| 2. They're basically iPhones on wheels.
|
| Unlike every other car manufacturer, you get constant
| software updates and improvements. Since I bought my car,
| software updates have increased its power by 5%, improved
| its range estimation, increased charging speeds, and it now
| drives itself on surface streets (originally it only self-
| drove on freeways). The UI has also been improved. Similar
| to iPad OS's dock, frequently-accessed apps are
| automatically shown in one area. I can also pin apps (or
| menus within some apps) if I want. A ton of new features
| have been added. I much prefer the current UI to the
| version that my car shipped with.
|
| This reminds me of the debate over physical keyboards on
| phones. For years after the iPhone came out, some people
| swore they'd never give up their physical keyboards. And
| yes, physical keyboards (just like physical buttons) do
| have a lot of advantages. But you can't change them with a
| software update, and you can't change them depending on
| context. For most use-cases, that flexibility outweighs the
| lack of tactile response.
| conductr wrote:
| This sounds like it's written by a male engineer. Everyone in
| my life I've ever bought a car with/for has been focused on
| the shiny objects and features that were so ridiculous they
| appeared to be purely designed for marketing. People care.
| That's why every surface is going digital, because people
| care. In fact, that's a move towards worse UX, likely higher
| maintenance, yet only makes sense because it looks cool.
|
| See smart tvs and good luck finding an old dumb tv these
| days.
|
| That's not to say I don't agree with your conclusion. Apple
| has to do a lot more than make the best dash app ever to sell
| cars. But then again, they don't manufacture anything
| themselves as is and do just fine. I'm sure they could find a
| Foxconn like partner in the automotive space.
| randcraw wrote:
| You describe only one reason for choosing a car: utility. But
| cars are often chosen for other reasons: style, status, some
| cool factor or compelling feature. UX is generally not a
| dealmaker, especially since nobody outside the car sees it.
| But bad UX definitely can be a deal _breaker_.
|
| For me, a good example of this is recent BMWs. The instrument
| cluster on 2 and 3 series models is hideous -- misshapen
| dials, poor color choices, bling where there should be
| understatement. The days of simply communicating only
| essential info elegantly are long gone. I simply would not
| buy a car with a dashboard that ugly. (These insights should
| matter to BMW since I've driven and loved their cars for 30
| years, but oddly they haven't sought my opinion. Alas, it
| shows.)
|
| Bad UX is indeed important to some of us.
| treis wrote:
| I think it's looking at Tesla's 875 billion dollar market cap
| and saying "I can do that". Which I think they can. They'll
| sell a ton of cars on brand alone so long as they don't mess it
| up.
|
| It's kind of an interesting dichotomy. You can look at Toyota,
| GM, Tesla, etc. and say why would Apple be interested in those
| profits. But then you look at Tesla's market cap and then it's
| obvious why Apple would want some of that.
|
| Ultimately I think the Apple car (and Tesla) is a long term
| bust. Automotive manufacturing is a well trod industry with,
| frankly, too many companies as is. I don't see how they could
| ever generate the sort of profits long term that the market
| caps imply.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Tesla is basically an overrated meme stick by any reasonable
| valuation.
|
| Apple isn't going to get that type of added market cap based
| on adding an addition $3 billion in net profit (what Tesla
| made)
| munk-a wrote:
| Tesla definitely has some smoke and mirrors going on and is
| clearly overvalued but I feel like calling them a meme
| stock at this point is pretty inaccurate. Teslas are on the
| road doing things and the company is selling them in pretty
| serious quantities... all against the seemingly iron willed
| determination of Elon Musk to bankrupt the company by
| creating a PR nightmare and wasting money.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Compare their sales and profits to other car makers. They
| are grossly overvalued
| qaq wrote:
| Compare their sales growth to other car makers. Compare
| their profit margins to other car makers.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Yes just like every startup. "We had 1% of the market and
| grew to 2%. We doubled in the last year and are growing
| much faster than the incumbents".
|
| In what rational world should Tesla have a PE of 20x GM?
| qaq wrote:
| We will pretty much know in the next few years. If they
| deliver 2 mil in 2023 and 4mil in 2024 that would be a
| very good indicator.
| treis wrote:
| Yes, but as a counter point they are grossly overvalued.
| If you can get the same gross overvaluation, which Apple
| probably can, then why not do it? Especially if you can
| goose the stock price long enough to hit your bonus
| metrics and cash out.
| scarface74 wrote:
| The markets aren't going to value Apple like Tesla just
| because they enter the same industry. Tesla has an
| earning multiple right now of 99.52x compared to Apple's
| 25.3x.
|
| Adding another 4 billion in profits when it already makes
| around $19.44B is not going to get the market to value
| its stock higher anymore than Disney adding streaming
| helped it to be worth the multiple that Netflix was.
|
| But the market can stay irrational longer than most
| people can stay solvent
| r00fus wrote:
| Overvalued, yes. Completely? Hell no.
| sk55 wrote:
| Once autonomous technology becomes mainstream, UX becomes the
| differentiating factor. I think Apple would have a lot to
| offer.
| anamexis wrote:
| And the entire rest of the car as well...
| packetlost wrote:
| The winds don't seem to be blowing in the direction of true
| autonomous driving through. The hype cycle seems to have died
| down and the sense of reality is setting in.
| mberning wrote:
| Capitulation on "full self driving" is here. Most
| manufacturers will be lucky to get level 3 automation by
| the end of the decade
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Level 3 is widely considered to be a bad idea. Relying on
| a driver to take over quickly is a recipe for disaster.
| ghaff wrote:
| I suspect that the next phase is some sort of
| "acceptance" around the limited conditions where full
| autonomy might be viable in the next decade+. E.g.
| limited access highways in x lighting/weather conditions.
| Which actually seems pretty interesting. It's just
| probably a very big gut-punch to anyone who thought
| they'd never have to drive/own a car outside of some very
| limited areas by about now.
| soperj wrote:
| I don't exactly see Apple as a AI powerhouse, maybe that's
| coloured by Siri though.
| fdye wrote:
| So I've always wondered if Apple actually building a 'car' was
| ever really the goal. It seems like a skunkworks where they try
| crazy things and then incorporate into Carplay. Future seems to
| be ever expanding Carplay support. I use it and probably would
| not buy another car that did not have it integrated. I imagine
| car manufacturers are somewhat tired of always building HUDs and
| in vehicle control systems. So gradually standardizing on a way
| to take all the displays/touchscreens in a vehicle and let them
| be run by Carplay seems like the future. Eventually, they can
| start handing more and more of the software side (not their
| specialty) off to people cellphones via some interface,
| particularly around media. As the ubiquiti of the M1/M2 type chip
| is found in all of our pockets (embedded ML silicon), the car
| companies will no longer have to actually embed it in a vehicle
| as an add on. Plugging in your phone with an M1/M2 type chip will
| unlock Siri or similar AI functionality in the vehicle. Sure it
| will drive without it, just like it does now, but it wont be
| 'cool' and have all the assist, nav, and media functionality
| everyone wants.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Seeing how boring Carplay has been so far I'd have my doubts
| about skunkworks. That said it makes sense they might be
| working on exclusive operating system of sorts. The way car
| systems (100s of suppliers and their implementation) work
| nowadays is insane.
| bergenty wrote:
| I don't know what you mean by "boring" but CarPlay is
| fantastic. It works really well and covers most things I'd
| like to do with a central console.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| You are right, maybe because it's boring it is good, but
| IMO its not fantastic. Main use case is using google maps
| in a pretty inconvenient way...
|
| Like, you iOS doesn't support my language maybe then just
| let me read message on that massive screen.
|
| And if my kids want to watch peppa pig - let them? Blocking
| video from central console is such immature safety feature.
| ghaff wrote:
| "Boring" is good compared to most of the systems the car
| manufacturers came up with. A some of them still manage to
| screw up the integration of CarPlay with their own
| infotainment systems which often don't seem to want to get
| out of the way.
| randomdata wrote:
| The display of outside temperature is a curious oversight.
| That's the one thing I find myself regularly toggling back
| to the native console for.
|
| iOS plasters that information all over the place when
| running on the device itself, so it is not like it is out
| of character.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| CarPlay does _not_ work well at all on my 2018 Golf. There
| 's a multitude of obvious, awful bugs. (eg. audio
| directions not occurring, but nonetheless ducking spotify
| audio for them)
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| > audio directions not occurring, but nonetheless ducking
| spotify audio for them
|
| FYI - there are two different audio "sources" at play:
| "music" and "announcements". Your "announcements" volume
| is set to 0.
|
| Not that I have any idea how to change that on _your_
| car, but on my VWAG car I can adjust the "announcements"
| volume by turning the volume dial while it is speaking
| the directions (or not, in your case)
| scarface74 wrote:
| How much of that is the fault of shitty CarPlay hardware
| in most cars? We see how well things like AirPlay works
| when Apple controls both ends of the hardware.
| munk-a wrote:
| Probably about 90%? Apple is writing software in an
| attempt to replace native software and whenever their
| software doesn't perform as well as the native software
| performs it's on them.
|
| I do understand that Apple needs to integrate with
| hardware from hundreds of different manufacturers and I
| feel their pain - but nobody is twisting their arm and
| forcing them into the market.
|
| I'm sure 10% of the time or so the car maker is just
| being completely incompetent in using incompatible
| hardware or switching things out at the last minute
| without warning - but yea, mostly on Apple.
| giobox wrote:
| I think this is a fair take, and I've had similar thoughts too.
| However, one thing computer industry people don't seem to get
| is how much the idea of Apple owning the "dials" on the
| instrument cluster as shown in the keynote this year will
| likely go down like a cup of cold sick at most European auto
| makers. In many cases the designs or colors used in the dial
| faces have decades of brand history behind them.
|
| Regardless of what customers desire, auto-makers are in no rush
| to become just a dumb pipe for apple or google's driving
| software. So far not one automaker has of yet publicly
| announced support or plans to support the more extensive
| CarPlay Apple demoed. I think if it does ship, it will need to
| support far, far more customization on interface and dial-faces
| than was shown in the keynote for auto-makers not to feel
| totally sold out of the cabin.
|
| It was slightly disappointing to me I've only really seen Nilay
| Patel at the Verge in the media point this out; anyone with
| experience of the car industry I think will come to a similar
| conclusion. People may forget, it took a very long time for
| some automakers to even trust adding the existing CarPlay,
| partly due to concerns regarding loss of control of cabin
| features. Old CarPlay is is a far less intrusive system than
| the one Apple are proposing now.
|
| As a thought experiment - if I personally ran BMW or Mercedes,
| I would have real concerns about dilution of the brand by
| adopting a generic industry wide car UI, even if I also think
| Apple would probably do a great job. Maybe the carrot of Apple
| solving autonomy as part of the package might be enough to
| swing the deal, but even there, I think in time legacy
| automakers will work out who to aqui-hire to build their own
| systems instead of selling out completely.
|
| > https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/7/23157963/apple-carplay-
| nex...
| no_wizard wrote:
| I'm willing to bet that Apple will lay down some cash to get
| car manufacturers on board if they think it will increase
| lock-in for iOS (and therefore the iPhone and other devices)
| by a certain margin.
|
| Google I'm sure has its own incentives to do this.
|
| Too early to tell if this will be the case or not.
| TheCondor wrote:
| Making the iPhone more sticky seems like a solid play. Use the
| phone in place of a key. Keep maintenance records on the phone.
| Tap a few buttons on the app and give the dealer a virtual key
| to the car so you can get it serviced. States are already
| putting IDs in to apps and the wallet. etc.. Maybe use the
| phone for various road passes and such, that seems like an easy
| and natural extension.
|
| Around the time the self-driving craze sort of took off, the
| noise in the echo chamber was that Apple was terribly far
| behind in 2 main categories: services and AI/ML. Now, they're
| charging ahead with services and they've got custom ML hardware
| on every single device they sell. A car seems like too big of a
| project with too much hype to use as a forcing function for all
| that stuff.
|
| Seems like there are some strong health and safety plays as
| well. If you have a watch on, it already can do fall detection.
| Car crash detection is a logical next step, if all the
| passengers had watches on, they could start sending real-time
| telemetry to the paramedics, maybe encourage them to prioritize
| a passenger that was in greater distress. With the cameras and
| such, there is absolutely enough processing power in your
| iPhone to look for drivers falling asleep and with some other
| data they could probably make a pretty good guess if you're
| intoxicated.
|
| My concern was that Apple would make a car and it would be a
| McLaren or something, it would be coveted, look amazing, and be
| just about completely unattainable. Now if I could buy a Toyota
| or a Hyundai and just plug my phone in and it became the brain
| of the car? I'd talk myself in to taking a new car for a test
| drive to try it.
| chroma wrote:
| > Making the iPhone more sticky seems like a solid play. Use
| the phone in place of a key. Keep maintenance records on the
| phone.
|
| Apple already does this,[1] though not many car manufacturers
| support it (BMW and a few models from Kia).
|
| Teslas let you use any iPhone or Android phone as the key.
| You can also use your phone to turn on valet mode (which
| limits acceleration and max speed) and track and control the
| car (turn on heat/AC, lock/unlock, view through the cameras,
| etc). Lastly, you can book service or request roadside
| assistance from the phone app. It's all very handy, and I'm
| surprised more car companies haven't copied these features
| yet.
|
| 1. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211234
| nradov wrote:
| Almost every new car sold in the developed world has a display
| in the dashboard, but very few actually have a Heads-Up Display
| (HUD) projected in the driver's line of sight. It's mostly just
| premium models from GM and BMW that come with this feature.
| It's a shame that more cars don't have a HUD as it really does
| help to reduce driver distractions.
| dlandis wrote:
| > It's mostly just premium models from GM and BMW that come
| with this feature.
|
| Some Mazda SUVs (e.g. CX-3) had a HUD starting back in 2018
| or earlier.
| [deleted]
| criddell wrote:
| Volvo has a HUD projected on the windshield.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| This is by far the best feature of our BMW F10 (manufactured
| in 2014 IIRC). I _hate_ the distraction of constantly
| checking my speed in town, where there is a mix of dense
| traffic, many obstacles, outright stupid cyclists ignoring
| all traffic rules and aggressive motorcycles drivers and tons
| of radars that fine _hard_.
|
| I've noticed with my previous car (also BMW, E46 that I will
| remember fondly for the rest of my life as amazing car but
| not due to this) that if I looked at speed, my peripheral
| sight of whats happening on the actual road was almost 0. I
| _may_ notice break lights of car close to me if its newer
| car, or an atomic blast, but anything else simply no. Just
| something very bad waiting to happen.
|
| Its such a great safety feature even with minimal info
| (current speed, current speed limit, and if car navigation is
| on some basic directions, but maybe thats the key, don't
| clutter it with too much info) that I would make it mandatory
| if I were EU and subsidize it.
| bombcar wrote:
| I've often thought that we should use that massively huge A
| pillar for some simple gauges, such as speed
| nradov wrote:
| Gauges on the A-pillar would interfere with airbag
| deployment.
| spogbiper wrote:
| I think all the Genesis models have them
| lttlrck wrote:
| It seems Mercedes are not going that direction at all with with
| the EQ range. They've gone all in, the MMI is deeply embedded
| into the car, speech recognition runs locally, it can control
| performance mode, seat massagers, huge swathes of car specific
| functionality, via speech, that I think Apple would have an
| uphill to catch up with, universally, across all vendors.
|
| I doubt the upper tier of manufacturers would be happy with
| mere UI skins either.
|
| Cars that are more like appliances, shared cars, with user
| customization in your phone, maybe that could work?
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| > imagine car manufacturers are somewhat tired of always
| building HUDs and in vehicle control systems. So gradually
| standardizing on a way to take all the displays/touchscreens in
| a vehicle and let them be run by Carplay seems like the future.
|
| What is then remaining as distinctive feature of a car vendor?
| The design?
|
| With their custom entertainment system they can confront they
| driver with their own brand identity and differentiate how they
| integrate the different features.
|
| But with EVs the engines aren't as different as fossil fuel
| engines, they don't have their gear shifting with that
| adjustment anymore. Lots of brand vlauebis lost and becomes
| obvious to the buyer that cars are 95% the same across brands.
| dmonitor wrote:
| You say that as if it were a bad thing. I'd rather a good
| entertainment system than the shite that Toyota puts the bare
| minimum effort into.
| r00fus wrote:
| Toyota are so glaringly bad these days. Their horrible BT
| implementation on our age-old Sienna really ticks me off on
| a daily basis.
| cercatrova wrote:
| > _these days_
|
| > _age-old Sienna_
|
| Interesting dichotomy there. I have a modern Toyota and
| BlueTooth works just fine.
| misterprime wrote:
| My wife has a previous gen RAV4. I have a current gen
| Corolla Hybrid. The interface is VERY similar. However,
| she has a physical play/pause button on her RAV4 while my
| Corolla does not. This is INCREDIBLY frustrating because
| when you start the car, it MIGHT automatically resume
| your media. Sometimes this is OK, but other times, it is
| interrupting a conversation and losing your spot in the
| podcast you're listening to. A pause button is the
| perfect solution. However, in the Corolla, you have to
| wait about 30 seconds before you can tap the touch screen
| to switch to the audio touch controls, then wait a second
| or so before you can tap the touch screen pause button.
|
| TLDR: Toyota removed the physical play/pause button and
| it's really annoying.
| r00fus wrote:
| Same energy as complaining about not being able to provide
| customer with "dazzling box cover art design" because digital
| downloads made shelf boxes irrelevant.
|
| Cars have handling, space, looks... just about everything
| else other than the dash/touchscreen is meaningful
| competition space.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Yeah, we sold cars for the better part of a century without
| digital entertainment systems, so we can go back to that
| not being a differential.
|
| Particularly when it seems like none of these bespoke
| entertainment systems raise the bar, and instead the
| standard seems to be "not annoying and in the way."
| wil421 wrote:
| Not really my wife's BMW and my Jeep are both SUVs. They are
| pretty different and Jeep has started offering off road
| Hybrids. Eventually both companies will offer full EVs in
| existing lineups. The BMW is much better to drive but I
| wouldn't take it off road. EVs will continue to fill the
| niche gaps their consumers want.
| cercatrova wrote:
| Who buys cars for their HUD? I buy cars for their
| performance, miles per gallon (or electric equivalent), brand
| value, etc.
| noelsusman wrote:
| It's in my top 3 criteria along with reliability and energy
| efficiency. Performance is probably dead last for me,
| assuming some reasonable floor (i.e. I can safely merge
| onto the highway).
|
| It's something I'm going to interact with on a near daily
| basis, so it's important that it doesn't piss me off.
| dasil003 wrote:
| Not sure, but a car with good physical controls might jump
| to the top of the list.
| dagmx wrote:
| It was definitely a factor for us, especially as more cars
| move to all Software interfaces. A laggy or unintuitive
| system ranges from annoying everyday to dangerous.
| dionidium wrote:
| It was a significant factor for me when I last bought a
| car.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I've only test driven a few cars equipped with HUDs, but
| it's a super cool feature. I can see the value of a car
| that projects nav directions in addition to the more
| standard things like current speed. There's even phone apps
| you can use to simulate a HUD, if you keep your windshield
| clean.
| criddell wrote:
| Me. Just about any car is fine as far as performance goes.
| All I really care about are the creature comforts in the
| cabin and the infotainment system (or whatever they call it
| now) is a big part of that.
| robotcapital wrote:
| Another anecdote, but this is exactly how I chose my last
| car. I went to CarMax, filtered by CarPlay integration, and
| then chose from what was available. In fact, the lack of
| CarPlay integration is one of the main reasons I didn't
| consider a Tesla at the time.
|
| From basic things like a snappy interface and keeping my
| podcasts in sync, to suggesting the destination based on
| the recent maps search I did from my phone on the way to
| the car, the attention to detail makes it a better
| experience. I don't particularly get any joy out of
| driving. I just want to get to my destination safely and
| quickly, and CarPlay makes the process less taxing.
| smm11 wrote:
| Today I learned that people pick a car based on how well
| it integrates with a cell phone.
| mrkurt wrote:
| People use the infotainment in cars almost as much as the
| actual driving interface. It's not all that weird!
| bombcar wrote:
| I can see it especially if the various models are
| "similar" - I chose my last used car from Hertz from a
| field of two - based on how well the iPhone played music
| with the radio. Other than that the cars were
| functionally identical for me.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Cars are a very mature technology, if you're not a car
| hobbyist, and the different brands are not very
| different.
|
| The new-ish field of screen and cell phone probably has
| the most differentiation right now.
| dhosek wrote:
| The last few times I've rented a car it's had CarPlay and
| based on those experiences, the next time I buy a car, it
| _must_ have CarPlay. The experience without it is just so
| poor (and don't get me started on how ridiculously bad
| the experience of pairing bluetooth is in my parent's car
| which requires a mix of voice commands and button presses
| in a completely undiscoverable way).
| TylerE wrote:
| Once you get used to Waze on the big screen it's really
| hard to go back.
| dalyons wrote:
| yup! me too. Thats how i ended up buying a new car
| instead of a recent second-hand version of the same.
| Carplay was an absolute non-negotiable must have.
| ptmcc wrote:
| Cabin usability and ergonomics are a huge selling point.
| CarPlay & HUDs are just one piece of that, but it a
| critical piece of the overall usability experience.
|
| Getting into a car that has a pre-CarPlay infotainment
| system feels like stepping back decades in time even though
| the car may only be a few years old. Slow, unresponsive,
| buggy, and just extremely unpleasant and unnatural to use.
|
| IMO, cars that predate screen-based infotainment systems
| have aged far better than pre-CarPlay systems. OEMs are
| just disastrously bad and behind the times at building a
| quality infotainment system. Mirroring the smartphone that
| everyone already has is a fantastic solution.
|
| It's a very good thing that CarPlay shifts so much of the
| responsibility out of the car and into the smartphone,
| something that is much more easily and frequently upgraded.
| cercatrova wrote:
| I'm getting a lot of responses and it seems I can't edit my
| previous comment. To clarify, I mean who buys cars
| primarily for their built-in infotainment system that's not
| Android Auto or Apple CarPlay? If a car has either one,
| then I don't really care what it comes built-in with
| because I won't be using it. Beyond that, other factors are
| necessary too such as MPG as I mentioned.
| e63f67dd-065b wrote:
| Speaking as somebody who doesn't care at all about cars,
| the primary things that would drive my car purchase would
| be:
|
| - Cost (per unit distance in fuel, maintenance, etc)
|
| - Comfort (which includes integration with other software,
| ie Carplay)
|
| I don't care about "performance"; I don't even know what
| that means, and frankly I don't care. The car needs to get
| from my house to some other point on the map and back
| cheaply and comfortably.
| kingkongjaffa wrote:
| The only reason I'm considering upgrading my 2011 Audi to a
| newer one is the technology. The car itself is great but
| it's got crappy stop start features, crappy
| audio/infotainment tech, bad A/C etc.
| topkai22 wrote:
| It is relatively cheap to upgrade the infotainment
| systems on most cars. Apple and android compatible
| systems start as low as $350.
|
| I did a self install on a 2010 ford Escape after my kids
| killed the radio (by inserting pennies into the cd
| slot...). Between that upgrade and new tires it was like
| driving a new car.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| I didn't buy my Audi for the HUD (or other UI) but I'm
| unlikely to buy another one after:
|
| 1. The Android based entertainment system regularly
| crashes. 2. The non-android based digital center cluster is
| designed so poorly as to have the date in two to three
| places and fuel levels hidden by default. 3. Safety systems
| that will needlessly engage the brakes because it believes
| that driving past the backed up left turn lane on a gently
| curving road is an imminent head on collision.
|
| I've learned to work around these issues for the most part.
| Disabling all the wireless hardware reduces, but does not
| eliminate entertainment crashes. I memorized the steering
| wheel dial flicks to get the fuel gauge to display. I turn
| off the safety features.
|
| Most of the car is very nice. The software stack is
| honestly something Audi should have outsourced to a
| competent development team elsewhere in the automotive
| industry.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Well, I'd say there's a difference between HUD and
| infotainment. I might be influenced in a car decision by
| the actual HUD and its useful features (for example: the
| blind spot cameras on some new cars), but the infotainment
| screen between the driver and passenger is almost always
| just an annoying barrier between me and having the
| music/podcasts/whatever + maps from my phone playing in the
| car.
| agumonkey wrote:
| A good interface helps performance in a way. If I don't
| have the right information and have to work at it I get
| slower reflexes.
| thinkling wrote:
| I was thinking along those lines, but the majority of phones
| are Android and I can't see a car manufacturer tying major
| features of a vehicle to users of Apple phones.
|
| Do they get Google to implement equivalent Android features
| just as CarPlay and Android Auto are complementary now? In some
| ways that makes sense (you get the personal assistant you
| prefer instead of one provided by the car company) but it means
| differentiation must be limited because the car can't change
| _too_ much depending on what phone is plugged into it.
| paxys wrote:
| Can't say about building or selling an entire car, but they did
| have a _massive_ self driving division which went nowhere.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Is their self driving division still active?
| modeless wrote:
| More than ever if I go by how often I see their cars on the
| road. Three yesterday.
| als0 wrote:
| What do they look like?
| lucky_cloud wrote:
| Some photos here, although this is from 2017
|
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/04/27/apples-self-
| drivi...
| jedberg wrote:
| SUVs with car size iPhones on top. I see them almost
| every day here in Cupertino.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| > functionality everyone wants
|
| Depressing if manufacturers and users want more chip/software
| dependencies after the last two years of supply chain fun.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| For better or for worse (IMO _mostly_ better), users care
| more about features than the tech that goes into making those
| features work
| sytelus wrote:
| HUDs are the small part of the story. far more important thing
| is what sensors you have access to and what can you control?
| Car manufactures are notoriously behind and bad on properly
| expanding and standardizing both sensors and controls. So, it
| is impossible to deliver consistent experience and
| capabilities. Even in 2022, most manufacturer haven't still
| figured out how to do firmware update without using USB drives.
| You can't even use phone to unlock cars. These are not hard
| things, but car manufacturers just can't get around to do it
| given their ancient and inefficient supply chains and factories
| which are only optimized for price wars, not leap-frogging
| experience. CarPlay is great for music and may be some cute
| graphics of basic gauges but the real value ultimately lies in
| some level of self-driving, assisted features and holistic
| integration which cannot be enabled without having complete
| control of hardware.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > Car manufactures are notoriously behind and bad on properly
| expanding and standardizing both sensors and controls.
|
| Does Tesla make their own sensors and are they "ahead of the
| curve"?
| wwweston wrote:
| > Even in 2022, most manufacturer haven't still figured out
| how to do firmware update without using USB drives.
|
| This... makes sense to me? Physical access and automotive
| service go hand-in-hand. Over-the-air presents update hell
| and security issues.
| usefulcat wrote:
| I dunno, a billion dollars a year (for 8 years) for CarPlay
| skunkworks seems like a bit much even for Apple..
| MDWolinski wrote:
| Let's take a look at it. I'm sure Apple is getting paid in
| some way for CarPlay integration. Now if the next generation
| has higher level of integration that car manufacturers use it
| instead of their own built software, there's certainly money
| flowing to Apple.
|
| So, let's say that Honda starts integrating it into their
| vehicles. In 2020, 1.3mm vehicles. Of course, initially, not
| every car Honda sells will have CarPlay installed, but a few
| years out, let's assume every vehicle does.
|
| If Apple got 2% of the selling price of the vehicle. Across
| all Honda models, the starting MSRP averages out to about
| $32,091. So, on average, Apple would get $641 per vehicle
| sold. Over the course of a year (if every vehicle sold with
| it), just from Honda, Apple would get $833mm. Add in a few
| more larger manufacturers and it's not a bad investment.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| https://www.macworld.com/article/233855/carplay-faq.html
|
| > Whether it costs money to get CarPlay support in your car
| is up to its manufacturer. While Apple doesn't charge
| automakers a fee for the necessary software to integrate
| CarPlay, there are some costs associated with meeting the
| necessary hardware requirements.
|
| The only reason an automaker does not include CarPlay is to
| try and keep their product from becoming a commodity. It
| was disappointing to see Toyota be stubborn and refuse
| CarPlay for so many years.
| dmitriid wrote:
| That, and greed. Looking at how many features car
| manufacturers keep behind absolutely meaningless
| arbitrary levels and packages, it's just ... argh
| xxpor wrote:
| When you have that much cash on hand, is it really?
| boringg wrote:
| I mean how much of a return can carplay generate on an
| initial investment of 8 billion and on-going OPEX even if
| selling to all the manufacturers (which it isn't).
|
| I think the point is that it was unlikely their intention
| to be building solely for carplay and an actual car was a
| bonus. However if they wind down the hardware play of an
| actual car this could be something that soften those sunk
| costs.
| 32995844 wrote:
| Imagine a world where the car manufacturers no longer
| deal with software development for the vehicle, but
| instead you have a licensing agreement with Apple where
| CarPlay _is_ the interface. Similar to Volvo and Google
| and Android Automotive. A lot of car manufacturers are
| standardizing around Android in general (see Acura,
| Volvo, BMW). If Apple could get in with an A-series chip
| and a custom software stack, then that would probably be
| a decent amount of money through some hardware purchasing
| and software licensing. Look at how Cariad (the VAG
| stack) blew up schedules for upcoming Porsche and Audi
| models and early versions of it were laggy, missing
| features, OTA updates are slow /non-existant, etc. If
| Apple can get their foot in the door, it opens up new
| service opportunities for things like Apple Music
| alongside any licensing, which may be the bigger goal.
| spockz wrote:
| Given the thread on Volvo and polestar bemoaning all the
| issues with the new Android Auto versions, I'm not so
| eager to continue in that trend. Let the car companies do
| what they do best. Build an automotive grade car that
| does the car thing really well and leave the
| entertainment to the CarPlay. Getting hud and center
| driver console display driven by CarPlay would be awesome
| though.
| bombcar wrote:
| Looks like that might be coming in 2023 if the CarPlay
| site is any hint: https://www.apple.com/ios/carplay/
|
| >Next generation of CarPlay
|
| This next generation of CarPlay is the ultimate iPhone
| experience for the car. It provides content for all the
| driver's screens including the instrument cluster,
| ensuring a cohesive design experience that is the very
| best of your car and your iPhone. Vehicle functions like
| radio and temperature controls are handled right from
| CarPlay. And personalization options ranging from widgets
| to selecting curated gauge cluster designs make it unique
| to the driver.
| scarface74 wrote:
| If it convinced people to buy high margin iPhones a lot.
| Not to mention with the push into services, what's the
| lifetime value of an iPhone customer.
| a4isms wrote:
| The five pillars of revenue are:
|
| 1. Selling a thing.
|
| 2. Selling add-ons and upgrades to a thing.
|
| 3. Selling other things to people who bought one of your
| things.
|
| 4. Preventing people who are subscribing to your thing
| from switching to somebody else's thing.
|
| 5. Preventing your competition from commoditizing things
| and driving prices down.
|
| (There aren't really just five, there is no one "theory
| of everything," it's just a literary device.)
|
| CarPlay is obviously #1 "Selling a thing," manufacturers
| license it. But it could also be #4 "Preventing people
| who are subscribing to your thing from switching to
| somebody else's thing."
|
| If automobiles all have their own proprietary interfaces
| or worse, Android Auto, people who drive cars may end up
| buying phones that integrate nicely with their cars and
| ditching their iPhones.
|
| If my conjecture is correct, Apple is investing in
| CarPlay to protect the most profitable product the world
| has ever seen.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Apple refuses to fund development of their own apps and
| platforms, yet sinks a billion into Carplay?
| a4isms wrote:
| Something, something, "put the armour where the holes
| aren't."
|
| If you are selling a lot of phones and tablets and laptops
| with your apps and platforms as they are, you don't want to
| invest billions in making them better just to make your
| existing customers stop complaining. They bought your
| product anyways, clearly whatever they're complaining about
| wasn't a deal-breaker.
|
| You only want to invest in your own apps and platforms in
| areas where improvements would drive meaningful business
| outcomes. So you need to look at features that would cause
| someone who would otherwise buy a Samsung phone to buy an
| iPhone. Or you need to find people who didn't but an iPhone
| or iPad or AppleTV or OS X laptop and figure out if there
| is something that can be added to the product to get people
| to switch.
|
| In the case of a dominant player like Apple, those are hard
| to find in the mainline product. Big new sources of revenue
| are most likely to come from entirely new product areas
| (thus their investment in phones, watches, tablets, and
| set-top boxes) or from going down-market and making
| commodity products.
|
| They're allergic to cutting margins to the bone, so we're
| left with trying to find new markets, and that is why they
| invest so much in an automobile skunkworks while being much
| more careful about investing in the products that are
| already successful.
| davzie wrote:
| Imagine not being able to control basic aspects of your car
| like heating and stuff because you forgot or choose not to use
| a smartphone!
| [deleted]
| ericmay wrote:
| Is there a car on the market where this is the case? I'm not
| sure why that would be anything to worry about. I don't think
| any manufacturer except potentially Apple would require this
| for safety and competitive reasons.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| The competitive advantages of Apple are a strong brand, a huge
| stack of cash, world-class software and silicon engineers and
| second-to-none operations to build and sell millions of high-tech
| devices.
|
| They can make a car if they want to make a car. They could also
| make nice planes and boats...
|
| The question is, how competitive can they be in this market?
|
| I think they are too fat.
| aetherane wrote:
| I don't get why Apple's user experience keeps being repeated as
| "second to none". It really depends on what you are doing and
| used to. I personally find Android easier to use than iOS, but
| maybe I would feel differently if I haven't been using it for a
| while.
| PlsDntBan wrote:
| pGuitar wrote:
| Apple always had anti-consumer rules for their products... not
| sure why it finally took off.
| boxed wrote:
| Besides them inventing the modern smart phone and
| revolutionizing an industry?
|
| What did the romans ever do for US? :P
| pGuitar wrote:
| They did start the phones as we know them today.... but
| better Android ones with slide out keyboards came out soon
| after
| norin wrote:
| they gave us Nokia
| norin wrote:
| Nokia?
| davmar wrote:
| brought peace?
| smoldesu wrote:
| All Apple did is commodify the industry, and that business
| model has proven to be successful for them (same as it was
| with the iPod).
|
| At the end of the day, Apple's contributions to technology
| aren't chivalric acts of kindness. Their ultimate goal is
| the same as everyone, running a rent collection business
| and relying on their services to make consistent income.
| _That 's_ what I think we need to fix. Apple can continue
| to make phones, we just need to separate their services
| (the App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV, Podcasts, etc.) from
| their hardware business. If they did that, I might actually
| buy a Mac again!
| scarface74 wrote:
| A commodity is something by definition that is easily
| substitutable and you have to compete on price. Apple
| products are anything but a "commodity". This is kinda
| Econ 101.
| stevage wrote:
| Agreed. And just look at the debacles of their various mice and
| keyboards to see how much they actually care about delivering
| great user experience for everyone. They prioritise "design"
| and company image every time.
| [deleted]
| supervillain wrote:
| A suggestion for Apple.
|
| 1. Apple is worth $2.44 trillion USD; pay off the whole $240
| billion USD debt owed by the Philippines.
|
| 2. Establish Apple HQ facilities in the Philippines and employ
| the vast majority of the country's talented software engineers
| there.
|
| 3. Take advantage of the cheap labour, low costs, and high
| standard of living to ride the wave of unending profit.
|
| This is how you turn things around and switch the lightbulb.
| [deleted]
| barbazoo wrote:
| It's a fun thought experiment, I'm wondering though, what
| problem would that solve?
| zffr wrote:
| > pay off the whole $240 billion USD debt owed by the
| Philippines.
|
| Why do this?
| [deleted]
| endisneigh wrote:
| Apple already does (3) without (2) or (1). I expected a more
| interesting plan from a supervillain
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| _takes huge bong hit_ this is how you turn things around and
| switch the lightbulb
| bergenty wrote:
| Terrible idea, the Philippines is not known for innovation.
| paxys wrote:
| They can set up a facility and employ people in a country
| without paying off their debt. What exactly does Philippines
| have to offer that others don't?
| supervillain wrote:
| If the Philippine debt is repaid, you'll have established the
| new Silicon Valley, complete with a talent pool dominated by
| software engineers and a large number of blockchain and AI
| experts.
| danaris wrote:
| I think it would be a very bad move to do something like this
| right now, when the Philippines is still run by the close-
| enough-to-fascist-to-make-little-difference dictator Duterte.
| Just as _one_ example of why doing anything that even _appears_
| to legitimize and support him (or anything that puts you or
| yours in his power) is a bad idea, his way of dealing with
| "the drug problem" is just to kill drug users outright. To the
| tune of tens of thousands.
|
| I certainly feel for the people of the Philippines, and setting
| up a major Apple HQ there would likely improve their
| opportunities somewhat, but as long as Duterte or anyone like
| him is in charge there, there are just so many reasons not to
| make any significant commitments to the Philippines.
| [deleted]
| ncmncm wrote:
| They could have bought Tesla, once. Too late now.
| pryelluw wrote:
| I don't see the point of them selling a car. Expanding CarPlay is
| more realistic. Let the automakers produce the vehicle code and
| apple takes care of the screens and what nots. I'd love to be
| able to build iOS apps for my car. Though as someone who values
| consumer and ownership rights, it might not be a great idea after
| all.
| strulovich wrote:
| Tesla has a $886m market cap as of today, that's a third of
| Apple's.
|
| There's money to be made selling cars, a lot of money.
|
| If all Apple does is CarPlay, they don't get that money.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-27 23:01 UTC)