111–118 of 118 posts
Apple's move into auto seems to have been about recruiting. For a brief time some of the most talented young engineers were favoring Tesla over Apple because the mission was more interesting.
Has this stopped?
Speaking from Michigan and not Silicon Valley I've got to wonder which auto manufacturer would buy Apple's software? All the major manufacturers have announced programs for self-driving cars except Fiat/Chrysler. They mention Ford which has stated they will be in production by 2019. Now I would suppose if Ford, GM, Mercedes, Toyoto or any of the Chinese car makers were to have their software fail Apple might be an aw…
Apple's move into auto seems to have been about recruiting. For a brief time some of the most talented young engineers were favoring Tesla over Apple because the mission was more interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can name a few differences, even if I don't think it's impossible. Phones were ready for a natural complete upgrade from brick phones to smartphones. The mobile environment was there, all the network components were coming online to make it a really useful device, processors were getting to a good stage for mobile usage where it made sense to make the jump and the jump was right into what Apple already knew pretty…
Apple Car was and is a fundamentally bad idea. Limited/no cross-sale synergies with other products Massive up-front costs to establish a manufacturing network Massive up-front costs to establish a dealer and maintenance network Strong existing competition which will only get stronger with time No clear USP ("Made by Apple" is not a USP) The only way to crush the market would be to make a car that flies and to set up…
Given that the range of possible ideas you're talking about extends from better software to power autonomous cars, through to an entirely autonomous electric car which Apple manufactures in its entirety, and also incorporates potential partnership with another brand such as BMW, it seems hard to believe that someone could dismiss Apple car as "a fundamentally bad idea".
> Limited/no cross-sale synergies with other products.
CarPlay is a fairly good example of this not being true. And if cars become fully autonomous, there's unending cross-sale opportunity for Apple (since people will be doing in cars what they do with Apple products outside of cars).
> Massive up-front costs
Apple has not incurred, as far as any of us know, any costs related to manufacturing, dealer, or maintenance networks.
> Strong existing competition
Strong by what measure? AI? UX for in-car systems? Industrial design?
> No clear USP ("made by Apple" is not a USP)
It is when for many people that's a byword for simplicity, smart features, and elegant design. In any event, it's hilarious that someone's arguing that a car the company has never acknowledged existing "has no USP".
> The only way to crush the market would be to make a car that flies and to set up the infrastructure to make flying cars usable for domestic and work commuting.
Apple has never sought to crush a market. They seek to have the highest share of profit in a market.
> the absolute best anyone expects from Apple Car is a me-too car that looks a bit nicer and rounder than the rest. And is available in white, black, pink, and gold. And it absolutely has to self-drive, because that's where the competition will be.
Yeah, if you arbitrarily cut out user experience and the integration of hardware and software as a competitive advantage, then Apple's car will just get people from A-B in the same way as any other car.
> Me-too isn't enough to win in that market.
Nobody except you is arguing that the Apple car would be "me-too" and completely devoid of any unique advantages which other car manufacturers would seek to emulate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not for Apple.[1] Margins on iPhones are huge. [1] http://fortune.com/2016/04/04/apple-iphone-se-3/
But the cost of phones is a couple of zeros ( at least 1.x zeros ) off the cost of cars. What keeps people from buying more expensive cars is how much ( and what sort of ) financing they can qualify for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple products haven't been the high end of the market for a long time, they're mass produced, mass consumed, purely disposable tech.
Do tell us what the high end of the laptop and mobile device market looks like and what products occupy it.
My first Apple laptop, a Titanium Powerbook was almost 3 times that. Hard drive, keyboard, ram, battery were all user serviceable.
My point was the company isn't what it once was, it's not a high end tech company for the few but a disposable tech company for the many.
Making cars, while a hard problem, isn't as hard as making cars self driving. Seems sensible to master the second first.
Not only that but it positions them better. If they were to develop the defacto standard in autonomous driving systems they could then license it to anyone they want, use it in their own offering and even use the technology in other markets such as robotics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do tell us what the high end of the laptop and mobile device market looks like and what products occupy it.
My current Macbook Pro cost me about £1100. No part of it is user serviceable so it's disposable. My first Apple laptop, a Titanium Powerbook was almost 3 times that. Hard drive, keyboard, ram, battery were all user serviceable. My point was the company isn't what it once was, it's not a high end tech company for the few but a disposable tech company for the many.
In that sense maybe, but not in the "low quality" sense (which disposable also implies, e.g. disposable razors etc). Besides modern cars are not "user serviceable" like 70s cars for the most part either, but they are not "disposable".
>My first Apple laptop, a Titanium Powerbook was almost 3 times that.
The overall price for the high end laptops on the market dropped since the Titanium powerbook though, and modern MBPrs are still priced at the high end segment of today's prices.
You can't expect 1999 prices for a 2016 computer when the tech innovations make both low and high end products more affordable all the time.
>My point was the company isn't what it once was, it's not a high end tech company for the few but a disposable tech company for the many.
"High end tech company" does not necessitate "user serviceable".
The tech in the Mac, compared to the average laptop, is way higher, and the engineering process to build a new MacBook Pro Retina model (from the machining to the logic board, batteries, etc) is far more advanced. Hence, high end of the market.
Nor was the Mac ever "for the few" -- it was always intended as a mass market PC, for those with the money to spare, not just some tinkering propellerhead elite ("the computer for the rest of us"). Heck, they even sold cheaper models back in the day (the Mac Classic, the original iMac, etc).