A couple months ago I was contacted by a recruiter from Apple on LinkedIn. He claimed my skillset was a great match for some new thing they were doing but wouldn't explain. I thought WTH, I'd been doing EVs for the last 6 years and non-EVs for longer than that. Maybe they need to get some official vague news out so they can actually hire the people they need?
Similar story here; they weren't recruiting but showed lots of interest in a certain device an eventually bought the thing, while we have no idea what on earth they are planning to do with it and they of course wouldn't tell.
So it seems that behind closed doors they are reseraching a lot of different areas, trying to figure out which one to explore/exploit. That sounds logical, Microsoft/Google/... do the same, but funnily enough I never looked at Apple that way - I always only saw the shiny end products. Must be their marketing.
Apple hardware is generally beautiful and feels extremely well built, but usually makes a few key compromises of function for the sake of form, with the result that some of their gear is prone to failure after a surprisingly short period of time. Take pretty much every Apple cable ever made for example. They lack stress relief and, hence, tend to fall apart where they are stressed. Some of this can be blamed on Steve Jobs. Reportedly, it was Jobs who hated the look of stress relieved cables so much that he prevented Apple from adopting sensible cable designs. Hopefully Cook is less dogmatic in pursuing form over function.
Even so, I'd be wary of a buying a new car from a first-time auto manufacturer, especially one with Apple's track record of compromised function. I'd be afraid that Apple, in trying to set their car apart from the competition, would build a car that is either unsafe or doomed to early failure. I'm sure people will line up to buy the iCar just like every other iProduct, but it may well prove sensible not to be amongst the first!
...be wary. Hell yes. This is a product that, with a hidden bug or quirk, will kill, maim or hurt you and others around you.
On the other hand, Apple has the capital to do this correctly. Even if they later decide to limit the scope of the project, it will pay dividends with their existing automotive control group. A project like this will take many years. But, with their best project managers, there's no doubt that they can do it. Who knows, with the kind of money they have now, I'd say even 5 years is doable.
But, be mindful that the existing existing players such as BMW, Ford, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes, Nissan, Tesla, Toyota and VW are all getting better too. Electric cars aren't rocket science, but with all the regulations and bureaucratic red tape surrounding the automotive industry, it may as well be.
Here's another kicker--Apple may be thinking about integrating some new thing(s) that are novel. It could be that Apple engineers have thought of some great way to combine X (and Y...) in some novel way with the automobile that will revolutionize the industry. If that's the case, you can expect even greater and more fanatical secrecy than the existing wall of silence.
Here's the nice thing about a project like this as I see it. Cars are fun. They're sexy and lots of kids dream about driving, building, fixing and/or designing them. This is the type of thing that gets the public eye and can rally existing employees and potential employees. Who wouldn't want to work on a car?
Lastly, just like the moonshot project of the 60's, you never know what technologies and ancillary benefits will come about because of something as complex and far-reaching as this appears to be.
I respect this sentiment and am not completely dismissing the analogy, but there are certainly more safety regulations and checks on cars than on low-voltage DC power cables.
I think eventually minivans will be a quite popular format for autonomous vehicles. Full size buses are inconvenient for suburban streets, while vehicles for single occupants may be priced out in on-demand situations for many trips.
Already, minivans are very popular in unofficial public transport systems in many less-developed countries. In Morocco, grand taxis are old Mercedes sedans that leave when full - they're cramped and reckless, and I bet minivans would be preferred if they were more readily available.
I think we'll see many people commuting in the near future by shared transport decided by efficiency algorithms and based on demand and prediction. Minivans could get 5-10 people into the CBD quite effectively in peak hour rather than the 1-2 people/car we see now, and without waiting for a bus or walking 3-5 blocks to the stop.
A minivan with swappable internal components could easy convert to sleep four people (a family on a roadtrip), or have bench seats facing a card table (like a train), or have four reclining seats (like a plane, watching movies on VR headseats).
I like your point about in-car leisure. As autonomous driving unlocks it in a new way, I would expect our for forays into autonomous vehicles to attempt to highlight the luxury of this. It certainly seems more appealing than tightly gripping the arm rests while you observe how the robot is doing.
I would add that interchangeable parts are probably not going to be a focus. The auto industries are pretty efficient at managing large supply chains to service several different models. If convergence was economically important it would happen more often.
I think a lot of it too is room for batteries. When you make an EV sedan you've got to either use a T battery, or use the entire width and breadth of the bottom 4 inches of the floor.
But, a minivan or SUV/CUV? Those things ride high as a preference. I bet you could put a full foot high of batteries under that design and no one would even notice a change. Look at the Outlander PHEV, for example. It's got 12 kWh of low-density batteries in the floor and they didn't have to compromise interior space at all. I've always wondered why those things weren't the first vehicles to get electrified.
Apple has done many great things but revolutionizing operations management isn't something I'd put on the list. How is their OM different from other software companies or electronics product companies? Their association with Foxconn comes to mind which I wouldn't exactly call revolutionary.
While I praise more competition in the ecar market - I do wish Apple would return to concentrating on build quality, stability and performance optimising OSX - 10.10 has been a nightmare and if it isn't fixed soon or if 10.11 is a repeat they'll lose their reputation for building high quality, stable products. I do worry slightly that they may be trying to do too many things.
Apple, I think, has seen the incoming wave of transformation for the transport industry and decided it would be worth getting prepared for it. The upcoming increase in automation on both passenger and commercial cars will open up new perspectives on what's valuable on a car. When you longer can appeal to a consumer about the pleasure or ease of driving, what else is there? Comfort, security, style and design. If Apple already has a good grasp on how many people create, manage and consume information and media, if they are making a move to shine new light on fitness and health, and on managing a smarter home, the missing link would be transportation.
He was asked in an interview not too long ago if he'd recommend to Apple that they get into the car business, and he said, "Yes, they should!" Odd response if he's expecting competition. I think an acquisition is much more likely, and it would also fall under the explanation of "we need a ton of money". I.e. we agreed to get bought by Apple because of their massive cash engine and operational expertise.
I'm a little miffed that people don't express more skepticism about self-driving cars on tech sites. Given what I know about AI research and the technical limitations of LIDAR etc., I find it unlikely that fully self-driving cars will be available at any scale in our lifetimes — if at all. I wish people wouldn't talk about them like they're already de facto the future of transport.
I think if Apple is working on a car, it's going to be a mass-consumer competitor to Tesla, not anything to do with self-driving.
That's unlikely given the hires that they've been making. I know of a number of engineers working on drivetrains, motor controllers, etc. who've been hired into that group.
Possible downside: Apple could end up bidding against Tesla for employees, factories, and rare materials; increasing the price of electric cars and slowing Tesla's production and growth, while not producing many cars itself for some time.
On one hand, Apple is clearly not in their wheelhouse when it comes to vehicles - even Google has more experience than them.
On the other hand, I would kill for an electric (or even hybrid) minivan. The Model-S with 2 extra seats just isn't enough room.
On the gripping hand, look at how Apple played the industry and pundits on sapphire. Where is WSJ getting their info - they didn't even describe their sources.
Google only has experience in vehicles because they started up a vehicles program. If apple wants to get into vehicles, they have to start somewhere too. "they haven't done it before" is not a good reason why they aren't doing it.
How did Apple play the industry on sapphire? They attempted it, put up hundreds of millions of dollars, and failed at attempting to bring a sapphire screen to market, which included bankrupting the manufacturer in the process.
Google has that experience because of their own research. There's nothing to say that any other company of large enough size can't do research of their own. This is especially important to consider when you think about the level of secrecy Apple has when starting an internal project. Despite all of that, it's super unlikely Apple would make a car. It's just too weird.
Did Apple play anybody on sapphire (except for the supplier)? The press rumors were mostly true in hindsight, Apple had big sapphire plans (and there's real estate to prove it), it just didn't work out.
My first thought as well, if anything I can think of two reasons why Apple would be building their own car:
1. Compete in luxury electric automotive market. Motivation is there, but I find it dubious that Apple will go for it. On the other had Apple does have everything they need to become strong player in this field (engineers, cash, supply chain, strong U.S. lobbying presence, and army of lawyers)
2. Get competence on how to build cars in order to be able to rapidly prototype integration of Apple products with car entertainment systems. Possibly design said entertainment systems for car manufacturers, or at least influence the design to give apple products an edge.
I agree that they phrase it oddly, but I would argue that cars are a product category with more user expectations about the particulars of functionality, and is thus less open to apple's typical refinements.
I dislike Apple, their products and their "you're unique just like everyone else" mentality but i honestly want them to make this move and do it well. They might make an over priced, marginally better EV but more importantly they will drive interest in the technology and the products, leading to faster and greater adoption as well as serious industry commitment which will push for research and development and massive improvements in the industry. Just like they did with mobile phones. I love Tesla but they're the Palm pilot or BlackBerry of EV. Trend setters who will maybe get overshot.
Could this be a form of concept car for Apple to test hardware/software on without any real intention of making their own car?
Maybe it's a demonstration platform to show partners what a well integrated system could feel like. Perhaps Apple wants to make the guts of the car control/infotainment system instead of just projecting an image over the OEM system.
Early reports on CarPlay from various vendors said that they varied widely in hardware speed/quality (I believe Ferrari's was said to be pretty bad). Apple doesn't like relying on third parties for their user experience (see: Moto ROKR).
This doesn't square with the report that says they are looking at manufacturing processes and materials. I agree with you though that this is the most likely explanation.
Yes. And now wait for Apple to do the same reciprocally... if only.
In reality, they are more likely to get a patent on some trivial detail, turn around, and start suing the pants off Tesla for having the temerity to steal their 'inventions' - slide to unlock, revisited.
1997-2000 showed us that having a lot of money is no guarantee you'll build something that anyone wants to use (or at least, that they want to pay for).
Also, given their hiring practices which include aggressive recruiting of people in autonomous vehicles, this car, or later versions of it is going to have significant autonomy. I say this would be a GREAT step for Apple.
[+] [-] phkahler|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stinos|11 years ago|reply
So it seems that behind closed doors they are reseraching a lot of different areas, trying to figure out which one to explore/exploit. That sounds logical, Microsoft/Google/... do the same, but funnily enough I never looked at Apple that way - I always only saw the shiny end products. Must be their marketing.
[+] [-] fiatjaf|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beloch|11 years ago|reply
Even so, I'd be wary of a buying a new car from a first-time auto manufacturer, especially one with Apple's track record of compromised function. I'd be afraid that Apple, in trying to set their car apart from the competition, would build a car that is either unsafe or doomed to early failure. I'm sure people will line up to buy the iCar just like every other iProduct, but it may well prove sensible not to be amongst the first!
[+] [-] Avitas|11 years ago|reply
On the other hand, Apple has the capital to do this correctly. Even if they later decide to limit the scope of the project, it will pay dividends with their existing automotive control group. A project like this will take many years. But, with their best project managers, there's no doubt that they can do it. Who knows, with the kind of money they have now, I'd say even 5 years is doable.
But, be mindful that the existing existing players such as BMW, Ford, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes, Nissan, Tesla, Toyota and VW are all getting better too. Electric cars aren't rocket science, but with all the regulations and bureaucratic red tape surrounding the automotive industry, it may as well be.
Here's another kicker--Apple may be thinking about integrating some new thing(s) that are novel. It could be that Apple engineers have thought of some great way to combine X (and Y...) in some novel way with the automobile that will revolutionize the industry. If that's the case, you can expect even greater and more fanatical secrecy than the existing wall of silence.
Here's the nice thing about a project like this as I see it. Cars are fun. They're sexy and lots of kids dream about driving, building, fixing and/or designing them. This is the type of thing that gets the public eye and can rally existing employees and potential employees. Who wouldn't want to work on a car?
Lastly, just like the moonshot project of the 60's, you never know what technologies and ancillary benefits will come about because of something as complex and far-reaching as this appears to be.
[+] [-] Hytosys|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prawn|11 years ago|reply
Already, minivans are very popular in unofficial public transport systems in many less-developed countries. In Morocco, grand taxis are old Mercedes sedans that leave when full - they're cramped and reckless, and I bet minivans would be preferred if they were more readily available.
I think we'll see many people commuting in the near future by shared transport decided by efficiency algorithms and based on demand and prediction. Minivans could get 5-10 people into the CBD quite effectively in peak hour rather than the 1-2 people/car we see now, and without waiting for a bus or walking 3-5 blocks to the stop.
A minivan with swappable internal components could easy convert to sleep four people (a family on a roadtrip), or have bench seats facing a card table (like a train), or have four reclining seats (like a plane, watching movies on VR headseats).
[+] [-] acgourley|11 years ago|reply
I would add that interchangeable parts are probably not going to be a focus. The auto industries are pretty efficient at managing large supply chains to service several different models. If convergence was economically important it would happen more often.
[+] [-] pkulak|11 years ago|reply
But, a minivan or SUV/CUV? Those things ride high as a preference. I bet you could put a full foot high of batteries under that design and no one would even notice a change. Look at the Outlander PHEV, for example. It's got 12 kWh of low-density batteries in the floor and they didn't have to compromise interior space at all. I've always wondered why those things weren't the first vehicles to get electrified.
[+] [-] yanose|11 years ago|reply
In the 1960's Toyota revolutionized operations management and it dominated the automotive industry.
In the 2010's Apple revolutionized operations management and ...
[+] [-] kriro|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fiatjaf|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrmondo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ido|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kpierce|11 years ago|reply
Click on the google news result to get past the paywall.
[+] [-] anarchitect|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Norante|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vermontdevil|11 years ago|reply
Said he would need massive amounts of cash soon. Maybe he knew what's going on with Apple.
Or just that he needs money for the battery factory.
[+] [-] kemiller|11 years ago|reply
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/1df875df-fb0c-4020-be...
[+] [-] imaginenore|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microbial|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] archagon|11 years ago|reply
I think if Apple is working on a car, it's going to be a mass-consumer competitor to Tesla, not anything to do with self-driving.
[+] [-] mcmancini|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] etrautmann|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Keyframe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leereeves|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droopyEyelids|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TulliusCicero|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r00fus|11 years ago|reply
On the other hand, I would kill for an electric (or even hybrid) minivan. The Model-S with 2 extra seats just isn't enough room.
On the gripping hand, look at how Apple played the industry and pundits on sapphire. Where is WSJ getting their info - they didn't even describe their sources.
[+] [-] notatoad|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dougabug|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caryhartline|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kryptiskt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] niels_olson|11 years ago|reply
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-is-gearing-up-to-challen...
[+] [-] calvintennant|11 years ago|reply
Don't electric cars fall into the category of consumer electronics?
[+] [-] TrainedMonkey|11 years ago|reply
1. Compete in luxury electric automotive market. Motivation is there, but I find it dubious that Apple will go for it. On the other had Apple does have everything they need to become strong player in this field (engineers, cash, supply chain, strong U.S. lobbying presence, and army of lawyers)
2. Get competence on how to build cars in order to be able to rapidly prototype integration of Apple products with car entertainment systems. Possibly design said entertainment systems for car manufacturers, or at least influence the design to give apple products an edge.
[+] [-] delecti|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbreit|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] larssorenson|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MBCook|11 years ago|reply
Maybe it's a demonstration platform to show partners what a well integrated system could feel like. Perhaps Apple wants to make the guts of the car control/infotainment system instead of just projecting an image over the OEM system.
Early reports on CarPlay from various vendors said that they varied widely in hardware speed/quality (I believe Ferrari's was said to be pretty bad). Apple doesn't like relying on third parties for their user experience (see: Moto ROKR).
[+] [-] es09|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pasta_2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Yetanfou|11 years ago|reply
In reality, they are more likely to get a patent on some trivial detail, turn around, and start suing the pants off Tesla for having the temerity to steal their 'inventions' - slide to unlock, revisited.
[+] [-] thirsteh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] click170|11 years ago|reply
Price may be the differentiating factor, but I think most ppl would choose the innovator.
[+] [-] melling|11 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8962872
Basically, Apple, Google, and Microsoft have so much money, they could take on a huge problem and "invent" the future.
[+] [-] Jyaif|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pj_mukh|11 years ago|reply