Apple targets car production by 2024, eyes ‘next level’ battery tech: sources

Foxconn is actually making a car platform themselves

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automobiles/Foxconn-aims-fo...

Tesla and others are already using LFP as well btw.

> without any issue at all and become one of the most popular luxury car makers in the world.

I've followed Tesla since the Roadster days, and I lost count how many times they've almost gone Bankrupt. The only one here that is clueless is you if you think it was without 'issue.' Hell, I worked for Kimbal who is on the Board at Tesla and he openly talks about how many times Tesla almost went under in the few interviews/podcasts he's been on. What echo chamber do you live in to think there was no issue?

> This is such a clueless comment.

I've been in Motorsports with close ties to manufactures since I was 17, and then went on to work for Volkswagen Audi Group (the largest manufacture of cars by scale) and then to BMW and then back to VW because of Diesel-gate, then Nissan in various capacities from technician to supply chain. Then I tried my hand at Tesla during Model 3 ramp up and saw FIRST HAND why/how the delay in ramp was occurring in 2017 with 2 trips to the Fremont Factory before deciding to decline and focus on SpaceX instead.

What experience do you have in that Industry to call it clueless?

I know Apple cultists are as rabid as Elon worshipers, but the two combined are completely toxic.

> I doubt anyone here would say Apple couldn't make their own car, but the idea of Apple mass manufacturing a brand new car in four years is a bit crazy. In your example, Tesla took nearly a decade of focus and half a billion in capital to begin small production of the Model S.

In 3 years? A prototype to build hype and take pre-orders that still needs all the regulatory compliance to be on the road ahead of it, sure; a refined 49-1 street legal product that's mass produced with scaled production line, distribution channels and supply chain to accommodate domestic, let alone international, deliveries: HELL NO!

Money alone won't buy you that, especially if COVID is still shutting/delaying down so many factories, International supply lines and look at the distribution system Tesla had to INVENT because it refused to play by the dealership system.

You FAANG guys live in an unrealistic bubble and think because it works for mobile/computers, and I laugh when I say 'works' because look at India, it should work for several ton vehicles with way more complexity and red tape than you can possibly imagine.

You're comparing vastly different Industries that have little to nothing in common.

Nissan just announced that it will be making its EVs in Japan [0] instead of Sunderland, so unless Apple decides to detract from its business model built on slave labour in Asia, chances are it will not happen.

0: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nissan-picks-japan-over-sunde...

> it is Apple [...] track record of execution

Granted! My personal guess is this turns out much like Google Fiber: a capital- and regulation-heavy endeavor that Apple (and their investors, used to tech margins) aren't culturally or financially willing to commit to for a long enough haul.

But an effort which eventually pays off by frightening existing players into cutting better partnership deals with Apple.

From a quick peek, Apple runs ~25% pre-tax margins. For reference, Ferrari has ~20%, as the highest in the industry. And ~10% or less seems standard.

So in the end, if Apple is more successful than Ferrari at selling vehicles profitably, they'll still be making less money than they're used to on the investment.

That doesn't seem like something investors are going to be willing to let Apple endlessly torch cash in pursuit of, competing against firms with decades of experience, when the alternative is returning it directly to them via dividends, buybacks, etc.

And that's not even getting into the optics of labor-relations with manufacturing that Apple would have to very publicly expose, vs their more hidden technology supply chain.

The more I think about this, the more it seems like the only viable "Apple car" is a limited-volume halo project, built on top of an existing manufacturer's platform -- which would mirror their approach to technology, in many ways.

I keep coming back to this in my head, thinking about how superficial this counterpoint is. Sure, if your requirement is that you pass regulatory muster, then lighting is "simple" in that you can buy an off the shelf bulb, socket, and housing. But those aren't the requirements. In reality, table stakes are LED DRLs, high beams and lowbeams. Matrix LEDs or laser lights that can mask out other vehicles using onboard IR sensors are becoming more common. Additionally there are styling requirements, such as computationally driven welcome and farewell patterns for lock/unlock, and trends to follow like light bars, super thin OLED strips etc.

A phone light is just a little LED you could buy for a dollar and put on your keychain.

> Sure, if your requirement is that you pass regulatory muster, then lighting is "simple" in that you can buy an off the shelf bulb, socket, and housing. But those aren't the requirements.

Yes they are. You don't get to point to random fancy things and call them "requirements".

> A phone light is just a little LED you could buy for a dollar and put on your keychain.

You're taking "phones have lights" too seriously. It was a deliberately vague and useless rebuttal to a deliberately vague and useless point. The real answer is what I already said. Replicating the functionality of a bulb/socket/housing is not hard to such an extent that the only reason to bring up lights is for jokes. So the joke got a joke back.