Live data from Hacker News

How Apple Scaled Back Its Titanic Plan to Take on Detroit

bloomberg.com

81–90 of 118 posts

Re: How Apple Scaled Back Its Titanic Plan to Take on Detroit

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the path they would have followed? The battery in the EV1 was crappy and expensive, is the thesis that billions of automotive dollars would have accelerated progress in battery research? Is it useful to lose money producing electric vehicles while doing that research?

Usually you have to spend a lot on research to make advancements. You have to experiment with different materials.

Which GM did. The Chevy Bolt is the result. Pre-orders start today.[1] $37,495 before $7,500 Federal tax rebate. Claimed range 238 miles. Delivery in about 10 weeks.

This will change the auto landscape drastically. This is a product of the Chevrolet Division of General Motors. They're good at making and selling large numbers of cars. It may not be as cool as Tesla, but there will be millions of these things soon.

[1] http://gas2.org/2016/10/14/chevy-bolt-pre-ordering-begins-ca...

Re: How Apple Scaled Back Its Titanic Plan to Take on Detroit

#82

Good! Maybe they can get back to making some new laptops, and some desktops (Mac Pro, Mac Mini), that don't suck! We shall see what October brings.

Blame the stock market. Once a company has a solid product line in one area that doesn't suck, every publicly traded company is under tremendous pressure to move into new markets rather than iterating on previous successes, often to the detriment of preexisting products. The stock market for tech companies rewards growth and just about nothing but growth (and punishes a lack of growth), Amazon being a perfect example. In a way, Amazon's strategy since its inception could be characterized as playing to investor expectations of growth more than running a business.

Also, if you look at all the big tech companies (American ones at least) over the past 30 years, there's a recurring pattern of a company becoming preposterously successful, then spending a decade or more reaping the benefits of that success while repeatedly throwing money at the wall for different new projects to try and find something else that sticks. Meanwhile core businesses can lose focus and wither on the vine while huge piles of money and engineering talent get wasted on things that either go nowhere, or break even and fade away years later.

Until the last few years, post-1995 Microsoft was a perfect example of this. If there was a product category that was significant enough to be the basis of some other company's entire business (dialup Internet access or search engines or personal finance software, for example), they would spend many years and billions of dollars creating a Microsoft version of that product, based on the idea that they could siphon growth from a known and already-proven segment of the industry. I don't think this was due to a lack of vision or incompetence, I think that that just appeared to be the most effective way to meet investors' demand for growth and new revenue sources.

Google is in a similar bind. Think of how long it's been since they have effectively attained a search monopoly. They created a perpetual money machine (ads) that to this day provide the vast majority of their revenues. For 15+ years they have been expending titanic resources on trying to find a way to transition from a company that gets >= 90% of its revenue from ads, to a much larger company with many more revenue streams. They've had some great successes, but they have yet to break out of the trap of fundamentally being a company driven by ad revenue.

Re: How Apple Scaled Back Its Titanic Plan to Take on Detroit

#83
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure though. There would be the same or more total miles driven. So they'd have to replace the cars that much faster. Tldr: It should be a wash.

There's a lot of steel in today's cars that won't be needed if they're optimized for moving commuters around cities one or two at a time.

Even more than that, if cars don't crash, they don't have to be crashworthy. BMW's concept motorcycle concept makes that point: If autonomous vehicles mean that road crashes become very rare, as other rare as, say, accidental strangulation in bed, you won't need a helmet to ride. A vehicle could be an minimal as a motorcycle and still be much safer than an S-class Mercedes.

Re: How Apple Scaled Back Its Titanic Plan to Take on Detroit

#84
Did Apple ever really have a "titanic plan to take on Detroit?" There's no indication that they even built a prototype chassis. This may just be mis-reporting of autonomous vehicle R&D.

Apple's strength in automatic driving should be the development of better, and better-looking, sensors. Apple does electronics and small hardware well. Those Velodyne LIDAR things are rotating kludges, look awful, and cost way too much. There are better approaches known. (I'm a fan of the Advanced Scientific Concepts LIDAR, which works great but costs too much because it's made by PhD physicists in Santa Barbara.) Existing automotive radars are dumber than they could be. Those are straightforward engineering problems that Apple could solve.

Building cars is a low-margin business. If Apple became a successful car company, their stock would decline.

Re: How Apple Scaled Back Its Titanic Plan to Take on Detroit

#85
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple can flat out buy a huge car company. Ford is worth 47.26B, GM 50B apple could buy both with less than 1/2 of their cash on hand. Now buying Ford is probably not the way to go. But, Apple can skip a lot of the 'ramp up' if they ever wanted to get into the car business.

I agree, Apple could skip a lot of ramp-up if they buy a car company. But, then, what are they bringing to this hypothetical scenario? Does buying an existing car company make it easier for them to bring some kind of distinctive iCar onto the market? If so, what do we imagine is the distinctive iCar-ness that they're bringing? There are two things that I hear people say Apple is notably good at: 1. "Design." 2. Contr…

What Apple does well is integrating hardware and software.

I recently drove a car with lane following and adaptive curse control and it kind of sucked. Lane following needed great road conditions so it failed miserably. But, while adaptive cruse control was nice in heavy traffic, it was also clearly tacked on. The acceleration and deceleration was felt jerky.

People can generally drive really smoothly in traffic so why suffer a machines erratic behavior when you need to focus in case it fails. Sure, do the same thing but better seems obvious but iPhone was more a response to poor completion than a truly innovative product.

Re: How Apple Scaled Back Its Titanic Plan to Take on Detroit

#86
post #13
post #9

It's only when Steve isn't at the helm that we hear about internal projects that have no direction. It was good while it lasted.

I think the key words here are "we hear about". It seems like the Apple Iron Curtain is getting more permeable than it used to be.

That's exactly what I meant. A brand is based on what people know about it, and Steve's tight lipped management meant that projects that weren't yet baked didn't muddy the brand image. Now we have to wonder if Apple makes computers, phones, watches, cars, or not, or maybe they're just a bank? The lack of a unified vision drains the brand energy.

Re: How Apple Scaled Back Its Titanic Plan to Take on Detroit

#87
post #82

Good! Maybe they can get back to making some new laptops, and some desktops (Mac Pro, Mac Mini), that don't suck! We shall see what October brings.

Blame the stock market. Once a company has a solid product line in one area that doesn't suck, every publicly traded company is under tremendous pressure to move into new markets rather than iterating on previous successes, often to the detriment of preexisting products. The stock market for tech companies rewards growth and just about nothing but growth (and punishes a lack of growth), Amazon being a perfect example…

>Blame the stock market. Once a company has a solid product line in one area that doesn't suck, every publicly traded company is under tremendous pressure to move into new markets rather than iterating on previous successes, often to the detriment of preexisting products.

First of all, I'm not sure there's any evidence to support your claim that public companies are under pressure to diversify over iterate.

Second, public companies have chosen to go public. It doesn't just happen. So, blame them.

>lso, if you look at all the big tech companies (American ones at least) over the past 30 years, there's a recurring pattern of a company becoming preposterously successful, then spending a decade or more reaping the benefits of that success while repeatedly throwing money at the wall for different new projects to try and find something else that sticks.

In other words, luck is a substantial portion of success.

Re: How Apple Scaled Back Its Titanic Plan to Take on Detroit

#88
post #21

A couple of takeaways from this article: Apple has a problem with leadership. When managers aren't buying into a vision, mostly because it's murky at best, that is a big problem. SV hubris believing you can go into any industry and disrupt the incompetent incumbents is laughable. FB found this out with phones and it sounds like Apple and Google are now figuring it out with cars. The Netflix idea works here too: Apple…

> Apple has a problem with leadership. When managers aren't buying into a vision, mostly because it's murky at best, that is a big problem. That's the inverse of what would actually be a big problem: managers BUYING into a "murky at best" vision. > SV hubris believing you can go into any industry and disrupt the incompetent incumbents is laughable. Isn't that what people said about music players and then about phones…

> Isn't that what people said about music players and then about phones?

No.

Re: How Apple Scaled Back Its Titanic Plan to Take on Detroit

#89
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, Apple could skip a lot of ramp-up if they buy a car company. But, then, what are they bringing to this hypothetical scenario? Does buying an existing car company make it easier for them to bring some kind of distinctive iCar onto the market? If so, what do we imagine is the distinctive iCar-ness that they're bringing? There are two things that I hear people say Apple is notably good at: 1. "Design." 2. Contr…

What Apple does well is integrating hardware and software. I recently drove a car with lane following and adaptive curse control and it kind of sucked. Lane following needed great road conditions so it failed miserably. But, while adaptive cruse control was nice in heavy traffic, it was also clearly tacked on. The acceleration and deceleration was felt jerky. People can generally drive really smoothly in traffic so w…

I'm also not sure that I believe that there is a transferable organizational expertise between integrating hardware and software on mobile phones and integrating hardware and software on self-driving cars.

Seriously, what does that look like? What are the attributes of a person who is good at integrating hardware and software on a phone, and who also is good at integrating hardware and software on a self-driving car? Your example was jerkiness in acceleration and deceleration. The people who are good at mitigating jerkiness in acceleration and deceleration are presumably mechanical engineers and roboticists/AI guys. I don't think that any of those people have been involved in Apple's flagship, reputation-making products so far.

As you allude to, it's easy to say "do the same thing but better." If all you needed was a product guy who was like, "Hey, we should make this better," then it would already be solved.

Re: How Apple Scaled Back Its Titanic Plan to Take on Detroit

#90
post #84

Did Apple ever really have a "titanic plan to take on Detroit?" There's no indication that they even built a prototype chassis. This may just be mis-reporting of autonomous vehicle R&D. Apple's strength in automatic driving should be the development of better, and better-looking, sensors. Apple does electronics and small hardware well. Those Velodyne LIDAR things are rotating kludges, look awful, and cost way too muc…

> Building cars is a low-margin business.

So is building phones.

Post reply on HN