What if the whole deal behind all of this media stuff is just that mainstream journalists have figured out that iOS requires software engineers, and hardware engineers, but they can't wrap their head around the idea that iOS also requires battery engineers?
I'm not saying Apple isn't making a car. I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool if they were. I'm just saying that if you're at all familiar with the history of how the media has always interacted with Apple - if you read Daring Fireball, for instance - then something that mind-bogglingly stupid might actually seem completely typical, in context.
There is definitely a bias in the media to write the most interesting story, even if it is less plausible.
Having a car in the works is more interesting than needing better batteries for existing/announced product lines. Much better batteries would be a strong advantage for apple watch, for example.
An anecdote: I recently went to a conference where a senior member of Foster+Partners, the architecture firm close to Apple (the studio behind Apple's new HQ, many new stores), presented the design for an autonomous vehicle, which resembles more the "Apple minivan" concept that is being mentioned by the press, here is that part of the presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUH63c1n0c&t=14m32s
I think the minivan concept makes a lot of sense. The demographic that is likely to own a minivan is likely to have their own garage, which makes charging no hassle. A family with a minivan most likely has a second car they could use for long-distance driving, making range anxiety less of a problem. And they are likely to have the disposable income to invest in an electric car in the first place.
Apple is smart to be grabbing A123 engineers. While people seem to remember A123 for its auto pursuits, it also produced batteries for things like tools from Black & Decker.
The problem with cars was that no auto manufacturer wanted to make themselves dependent on a single source for batteries. If someone built a car around A123's batteries, that put them in a bad position. If A123 had difficulty producing the volume needed, there wasn't an alternative. Similarly, it would give A123 incredible pricing power at the end of the contract term.
For a company like Black & Decker, they could offer a premium tool line based on the batteries, but they would still be selling lower-cost tools with less battery life or more weight. With a vehicle, altering the range or weight is a much bigger deal.
If Apple can increase the power density of the batteries in iPhones or MacBooks, that's a big win for them. "Solving" transportation is a very attractive problem and everyone seems to want that. But better batteries have much easier applications. Apple may be working on a vehicle, but if Apple can increase its battery power density by even 30% that gives them a huge advantage in their core markets (phones, tablets, and laptops). That's a much more modest increase than A123. If Apple's battery efforts work well in their current devices, one can see how an electric car might eventually happen. But hiring people from A123 can directly help the markets where Apple makes so much money today. Maybe electric cars are in Apple's future, but even if they aren't, batteries definitely are.
I'm pretty skeptical about the Apple Car rumor (Jean-Louis Gassee wrote a nice debunking piece http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/02/15/the-fantastic-apple-car...), but when the NY Times suggests that Apple specializes in mobility and electronics it seems to make the car seem more likely.
In "Being Digital" Negroponte made the insightful assertion that the wired / wireless world was flipping -- TVs were becoming wired while phones and computers were becoming wireless (TVs have kind of flipped again since then). The next shift is that we may ourselves become unshackled from our homes.
In City, Clifford Simak has people living in flying houses and they simply park where-ever they want to live for a given period. Well, flying is impractical, but mobile seems to be coming.
Battery technology is the #1 problem pervading tech right now. From robots to iPads, we need about 10x battery storage for the same weight as we have now.
Having said that, it's shame to see all of this work in cars. I get the feeling that Apple is just going for a huge "me too" play, hoping to make the car into the next iPad.
But if that's what it takes for us to finally see progress? Count me in.
Excellent point about the importance of batteries, especially re robots. If Apple's building a car, what that really means is that they're building a robot.
Cars are currently sized for human occupants. A robot car could be almost any size. In the first Star Wars, there's a tiny robot car which scuttles around the Death Star. The future probably holds millions of those things.
Since the iphone all Apple seems capable of doing is playing the "me too" card. Their innovations have stalled and they've gone from being that awesome company that makes great dev/design laptops and really cool smart phones into Microsoft 2.0. Tim Cook == Steve Balmer??
The key thing to remember is that Tesla's battery competence has its foundation in their work with Matsushita/Panasonic - who are supplying the tech for the battery farm in Arizona. The main reason is that manufacturing and QA of the battery is critical. It will be interesting to see if Apple will work with Panasonic in this space.
That said, Apple of course may be able to sell at higher margin and be able to endure higher manufacturing cost.
So is it illegal for companies to approach people about different job opportunities? Or is it the tactics used by Apple that give A123 the right to sue them?
No, poaching is legal. Apple also got sued for no-poaching agreements with other tech companies.
I think poaching is good in many cases, since hiring someone away from their current company usually means a higher price for their services. This means that you're moving developers to where they're most productive for the market as a whole.
The problem is this:
> in violation of their employment agreements
It's very possible to break an employment contract by leaving to go work somewhere else. These might not hold up in court (depends on the state), or Apple might just pay whatever fine the court levies.
> So is it illegal for companies to approach people about different job opportunities?
No, the opposite.
> Or is it the tactics used by Apple that give A123 the right to sue them?
The text seems to indicate this is related to some sort of non-compete clause (" The engineers jumped ship to pursue similar programs at Apple, in violation of their employment agreements"). I don't think it would fly in CA (where NCC requirements are rather stringent) but no idea for Mass.
Rather than evidence of developing a car, one boring possibility: Apple is trying to develop large-scale battery systems to more directly harness its solar farms' ability to power its datacenters.
Or: large-scale battery systems in cars have innovations that might be scaled down for use in computers, phones, and watches.
And, more importantly, how many of those Former Tesla Employees are actually Former Apple Employees who became Tesla Employees, and then decided they would rather go back to work for Apple?
From the article: A123 Systems is a pioneering industrial lithium-ion battery maker, which was backed by a $249 million U.S. government grant. It filed for bankruptcy in 2012 and has been selling off assets.
So, they take taxpayer money, go bankrupt, and then attempt to block former employees from getting jobs?
Why is it when a sports team goes after another player, it us a trade. But when a company goes after an employee, it is poaching?
Yeah I get that the sports guy is under contract. But the word "poaching" has a negative conotation and it makes them look like a big bad evil company. When in reality it is a win for the employee.
[+] [-] tessierashpool|11 years ago|reply
I'm not saying Apple isn't making a car. I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool if they were. I'm just saying that if you're at all familiar with the history of how the media has always interacted with Apple - if you read Daring Fireball, for instance - then something that mind-bogglingly stupid might actually seem completely typical, in context.
[+] [-] tfinniga|11 years ago|reply
Having a car in the works is more interesting than needing better batteries for existing/announced product lines. Much better batteries would be a strong advantage for apple watch, for example.
[+] [-] MiguelRus|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bpodgursky|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arepb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdasen|11 years ago|reply
The problem with cars was that no auto manufacturer wanted to make themselves dependent on a single source for batteries. If someone built a car around A123's batteries, that put them in a bad position. If A123 had difficulty producing the volume needed, there wasn't an alternative. Similarly, it would give A123 incredible pricing power at the end of the contract term.
For a company like Black & Decker, they could offer a premium tool line based on the batteries, but they would still be selling lower-cost tools with less battery life or more weight. With a vehicle, altering the range or weight is a much bigger deal.
If Apple can increase the power density of the batteries in iPhones or MacBooks, that's a big win for them. "Solving" transportation is a very attractive problem and everyone seems to want that. But better batteries have much easier applications. Apple may be working on a vehicle, but if Apple can increase its battery power density by even 30% that gives them a huge advantage in their core markets (phones, tablets, and laptops). That's a much more modest increase than A123. If Apple's battery efforts work well in their current devices, one can see how an electric car might eventually happen. But hiring people from A123 can directly help the markets where Apple makes so much money today. Maybe electric cars are in Apple's future, but even if they aren't, batteries definitely are.
[+] [-] Tloewald|11 years ago|reply
In "Being Digital" Negroponte made the insightful assertion that the wired / wireless world was flipping -- TVs were becoming wired while phones and computers were becoming wireless (TVs have kind of flipped again since then). The next shift is that we may ourselves become unshackled from our homes.
In City, Clifford Simak has people living in flying houses and they simply park where-ever they want to live for a given period. Well, flying is impractical, but mobile seems to be coming.
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|11 years ago|reply
Having said that, it's shame to see all of this work in cars. I get the feeling that Apple is just going for a huge "me too" play, hoping to make the car into the next iPad.
But if that's what it takes for us to finally see progress? Count me in.
[+] [-] puranjay|11 years ago|reply
Poor battery capacity is one of the biggest reasons for slow adoption of electric vehicles.
Improve batteries and you will drastically improve EV sales. Combine that with Apple and Tesla's investments in solar, this means reduced pollution.
Surely, cutting emissions and weaning the world off its oil addiction is more important than robotics and iPads?
[+] [-] tessierashpool|11 years ago|reply
Cars are currently sized for human occupants. A robot car could be almost any size. In the first Star Wars, there's a tiny robot car which scuttles around the Death Star. The future probably holds millions of those things.
Technically, this is a robot car:
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/incredible-hospital-robot-savin...
[+] [-] UUMMUU|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julianpye|11 years ago|reply
That said, Apple of course may be able to sell at higher margin and be able to endure higher manufacturing cost.
[+] [-] freshfey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tfinniga|11 years ago|reply
I think poaching is good in many cases, since hiring someone away from their current company usually means a higher price for their services. This means that you're moving developers to where they're most productive for the market as a whole.
The problem is this:
> in violation of their employment agreements
It's very possible to break an employment contract by leaving to go work somewhere else. These might not hold up in court (depends on the state), or Apple might just pay whatever fine the court levies.
[+] [-] masklinn|11 years ago|reply
No, the opposite.
> Or is it the tactics used by Apple that give A123 the right to sue them?
The text seems to indicate this is related to some sort of non-compete clause (" The engineers jumped ship to pursue similar programs at Apple, in violation of their employment agreements"). I don't think it would fly in CA (where NCC requirements are rather stringent) but no idea for Mass.
[+] [-] skywhopper|11 years ago|reply
Or: large-scale battery systems in cars have innovations that might be scaled down for use in computers, phones, and watches.
[+] [-] 0942v8653|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cha-cho|11 years ago|reply
June 2014 is right around the time of Tesla's "All Our Patents Belong To You" announcement: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-yo...
[+] [-] nastygibbon|11 years ago|reply
I can't tell - is this a lot or hardly anything?
[+] [-] ghshephard|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] o0-0o|11 years ago|reply
So, they take taxpayer money, go bankrupt, and then attempt to block former employees from getting jobs?
[+] [-] AVTizzle|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrismcb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] njloof|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hga|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajays|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bborud|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] illumen|11 years ago|reply
People are not owned by companies, it's the other way around.
They are not illegally hired, so poaching is incorrectly used.
[+] [-] d_theorist|11 years ago|reply