
How Apple became a car company - senorswanky
http://www.fastcompany.com/3042538/apple-has-a-thing-for-cars
======
PinguTS
That article makes sense and is along those lines what I would expect. The
prediction is at the end and says to expect the car by 2025, which is 10 years
from now.

That would makes sense. A complete car development within the industry is
about 5 years with some companies shortened it to 4 years.

All those articles with "Apple has the experience" are non-sense. Because, if
Apple had the experience, they would not need to hire that many automotive
engineers. Apple has the money to buy in those experts and Apple has to money
to build things for years without the need to make profit on it.

~~~
_s
I think the bigger manufacturers are now pushing vehicle platforms from 7 to
10 years; with mid-cycle refreshes hitting every 3-5 years.

Full development includes a new platform / new engine. Mid-cycle refreshes are
only updates to the exterior / interior, with some potential refinements to
the platform and engines.

Theres finally been a shift to modular platforms too - VW's MQB/MLB is the
first that comes to mind and it covers pretty much their most popular sellers
in the entire group (Skoda through to Audi).

The smaller manufactures (Mazda, Suzuki etc) are definitely more aggressive,
new models hitting every 5 years with a refresh every other or third year.

It's also a bit more complex because the development of engines / platforms /
vehicles isn't always synchronised; so what does happen very often is that a
brand new vehicle is release, then some time later it comes with additional
engine / transmission options, followed by a facelift, followed by a platform
update, and so on; so you never truly get an "all-new from the ground up"
vehicle that often.

------
m_st
Do you really 'love' or even just 'like' your car? I quite like mine, but only
because there are no better alternatives. For my taste there are so many
aspects that could be made easier to use or even just plain removed if you
start with a fresh design.

Years ago I've read that Jobs himself drives a BMW. Driving a top model BMW
series 3 on a job myself, I couldn't believe Jobs would not feel the urge to
create something better than this. Then there were stories (maybe around 2008
or later) about a famous Audi designer now working for Apple. At this moment I
was sure we'd get a car from Apple. Then Jobs died...

So I'm very happy now to read that Apple may be working on a car.

~~~
ryandvm
If you think working on modern cars is difficult enough, wait until you have
to book an appointment at the Apple Grease Bar to replace your floor mats.

I'm sure Apple could bring some design panache to the auto industry, but with
their history of Vader-gripping their ecosystem, they are the last company I'm
inviting into my garage.

~~~
m_st
While I agree with you regarding the PC and smartphone industry, this can't be
said about the auto industry today.

Does Mercedes license their engines for others? Can you install the BMW system
software on any other car brand?

You can buy third party tires just as you can buy third party iPhone and
MacBook cases. You can replace your brake discs with third party or original
parts just as you can get your iPhone/MacBook battery replaced in a third
party shop or the official Apple Store.

So in my opinion, even before the arrival of Apple, the automotive industry is
already in such a lock-in mode. If history repeats itself you will however be
able to buy an Apple car or a Google car ;-)

------
qq66
The "fast-followers" in the electric car business trying to play catch-up with
Tesla are mostly existing fuel car companies, and they have a lot of assets in
their favor: huge teams of experienced car designers, manufacturing and
distribution facilities, dealerships, etc.

It will be interesting to see whether Apple has sufficient resources (not just
financial, but people/cultural) to get a home run or even base hit as a fast-
follower.

One thing is certain, consumers should certainly benefit from all this
competition.

~~~
PinguTS
Which fuel car company do you think is a "fast-follower".

Daimler is prototyping electric cars since the 1990. Some based on battery and
others based on fuel cells, which is basically hydrogen. The original A-series
was supposed to be all electric, but just before going public those plans
where canceled.

BMW has an heritage on electric cars into the 1980.

Renault sold mid 1990 small sized electric cars.

Remember, the electric hype started with the Prius at about a time when Toyota
was about the cancel the Prius. They did not, because it happened that oil
became very expansive and so many US Hollywood stars and following many US
citizens bought one. With that the idea of the electric car was "born".

~~~
socialist_coder
All those 100% electric efforts were basically complete failures. Tesla showed
them all that it is possible (and profitable) to manufacture electric cars.
Without Tesla leading the way, do you really think any of those fuel car
companies would have given electric cars another try?

~~~
PinguTS
Nope. All they worked, but none had a sustainable, payable battery solution.
Just to remember you, the car companies develop their cars to work in Alaska
as well as in Mohave under almost any circumstances. That is something Tesla
does not really delivers. Because Tesla does not really sell to the Average
Joe. Tesla sells to the Tech Bubble, to people who are interested in Tech.
Originally, Tesla sells a car with a price tag of a BMW 5series, Mercedes
E-class, Toyota/Lexus and alike but does not deliver the same interior
experience neither the same comfort features in terms of driving experiences.
The later one just added because of the cooperation with Daimler.

Btw: I don't see a huge 17" touch screen with an UI of a early 2000 website
feeling as an interior experience. And in cockpit design the 17" does not fit
at all. A smaller one may would have benefited the cockpit design much more.

------
adventured
"Cupertino has the cash, the momentum, the expertise, the retail network, and
the global experience to position itself as a car company"

I'm seeing essentially the same arguments over and over again for why Apple
should obviously get into the car business. They all try to make the case that
it's complimentary to what Apple already does, or that Apple has natural
expertise to build a luxury car brand, and so on.

Well here's why Apple shouldn't do it: the margins suck.

Apple may do something like $60 billion in profit the next four quarters. In a
good year, BMW can generate $5 or $6 billion in profit; Toyota, the world's
largest automaker, just managed $17.7b in profit on $249b in sales.

If Apple does everything right, in 15 years they might be able to match BMW's
profit and scale.

Why should Apple want to enter a low margin, capital intensive business, when
they own one of the greatest high margin businesses in history?

Put another way, through extreme effort and investment, if they're really
fortunate, one day they might get a $5 or $6 billion profit business out of
it. Approximately equal to boosting their iPhone business by 10%-12% today.

------
aceperry
While Apple revolutionized some industries in the past, I wonder if
manufacturing cars makes any sense for them. Under Steve Jobs, Apple has
completely changed computers, the music and entertainment industries, cell
phones and mobile devices. They did all this to sell hardware.

I don't see how they can revolutionize the car business anymore than Google or
any of the other large companies doing autonomous cars. They're going to have
to bring something to the table other than a car. All of the large car
companies have autonomous vehicle research programs. They can spin out a
product, as they've done when Toyota's Prius became a commercial hit. On the
lower end of the scale, there are cars coming from China, possibly India and
other nations which are due to hit the US soon. Getting into the auto market
against the high end Mercedes, Audis, BMWs, and Italian cars would be a tough
market. They would also be competing against well established and loved
brands. Not sure what part of the market they would fit in or even target.

~~~
lucozade
These are all very good reasons for not bringing out a mobile phone. There
were well liked and established brands: Nokia, Motorola, Erickson, Blackberry.
There was a glut at the cheaper end.

I have no idea if Apple are working on a car or not. I doubt they would
revolutionise the car business any more than they revolutionised the phone
business.

But for Apple to make a big dent in a sector that is highly technical but with
significant brand and aesthetic factors? That doesn't strike me as being very
far fetched at all.

~~~
aceperry
"Nokia, Motorola, Erickson, Blackberry. There was a glut at the cheaper end"

None of the dominant phones had what Apple's iphone had. Apple is clearly not
catering to the low end/margin business either.

"But for Apple to make a big dent in a sector that is highly technical but
with significant brand and aesthetic factors?"

Not sure what you're saying here. But in the past, Apple introduced some major
changes to the marketplace around their products. They would have to do that
if they want to be competitive in the automotive space.

------
nl
I know they won't do it, but I _wish_ Apple would build a personal transport
device instead of a car.

Some combination of an electric bike/scooter/skateboard/Segway -like thing
that had the thing that made people _need_ to have one.

The technology is pretty much there, and Apple could do a wonderful job of
building this.

~~~
duncanawoods
Yep I can imagine a pretty good techno bicycle that wouldn't need much new
invention. iPhone slot for navigation, logging, fitness, cadence measures etc.
maybe even recharge it off a dynamo.

A good opportunity for a well designed piece of carbon fibre \ aluminium
loveliness that would sell well to their urban base with good margins at the
$1500 range. If they really want to demonstrate their design chops then try
for a radical fold-up design which have great practicality for combined use
with public transport. Current incarnations are expensive, pretty heavy and a
bit weird.

If thinking fancifully, then a pop stand and artificial resistance and for
dual use as indoor exercise equipment would be pretty cool. Stick a macbook
stand on the handle bars and maybe its a new type of "sitting but active"
desk.

"Bicycles for the mind" after all.

------
Intermernet
> Ive is a car snob of the highest order, applying the same kind of withering
> put-downs it’s easy to imagine his former boss would toss out. "There are
> some shocking cars on the road," he says about the Toyota Echo, adding that,
> "One person’s car is another person’s scenery." He refers to the same car as
> "nothing … just insipid." Later he expresses his disgust at the fact that
> another senior Apple executive drives a Toyota Camry.

Jony Ive was one of the few high level people at Apple I respected. Those
comments just lost him most of that respect.

There's being a snob, and there's being a dick. Seriously, _" disgust"_? At
someone driving a _Camry_? From someone who _" totaled" a DB9 a month after
getting it?_ Maybe he should get a Camry...

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "At someone driving a Camry?"

His disgust is not with the driver/owner but with the design.

~~~
Intermernet
The one non-subjective aspect of design (other than cost, obviously) is
functionality, and the Camry is one of the more functional cars on the road.

Every other aspect of design is subjective. One person's Porsche is another's
Ferrari. One's BMW is another's Merc.

Also, the article (although possibly misquoting), states that Ive's disgust is
with the exec driving the Camry, not the Camry itself.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "Also, the article (although possibly misquoting), states that Ive's
disgust is with the exec driving the Camry, not the Camry itself."

Here is the text direct from the source article - the New Yorker profile -
(that this article is referencing):

"Jeff Williams, Apple’s senior vice-president of operations, drives an old
Toyota Camry. Ive’s verdict, according to Williams, is “Oh, God.”"

------
greatabel
OSX/ios may not be able to tuned into an real-time systems for iCar(if it
existed);and considering the quality of Apple's software in recent years,I
would say:there is still a long journey.

~~~
matthewmacleod
This has literally – _literally_ — no relevance. No car would ever run a
Darwin stack, except perhaps on some kind of user interface, where the demands
are totally different.

~~~
greatabel
Tks.

------
violentvinyl
I genuinely hope this works out well.

I purchased an iPhone 3G because it was among the first phones to support fast
internet connectivity and there was nothing like the App Store at the time.
I'm not sure I could afford or would even want an iCar, but if it's
successful, it paves the way for a revolution in the auto industry (bring on
rooted ECUs with a marketplace of modules, and 3D printed replacement parts
and after market upgrades!)

~~~
jarek
> I purchased an iPhone 3G because it was among the first phones to support
> fast internet connectivity

You're joking? The _original_ iPhone was mocked for not having 3G because that
was a pretty standard smartphone feature by 2007.

~~~
soylentcola
Yeah, I mean...it's sort of silly to "hate" on Apple over iPhone features
these days since the major stuff is common across similar platforms but when
the iPhone came out it was missing a huge chunk of the things that made a
smartphone "smart".

They clearly made up for it in a smart manner by offering the things the
competition wasn't offering (ergonomics, responsive interface, etc) rather
than trying to match them feature for feature. But I confess that as a
smartphone user I was a bit baffled at how they expected to sell a smartphone
that didn't have 3G, GPS, third party apps, MMS, copy/paste, multitasking, or
even a front camera for video calls or streaming on wifi.

Granted, in retrospect all I did was show how little I understood about
consumer markets and demands because to people that hadn't been using whatever
fancy-pants HTC TyTn was out at the time, it was a huge jump up from their
feature phones and wasn't as off-putting to the new user.

But yeah...lack of 3G was one of the things I just couldn't deal with after
having it for the previous couple of years.

------
prof_hobart
> Ford O21C concept car for the 1999 Tokyo Motor Show. Resembling one of the
> bulbous, multicolored first-gen iMacs,

It resembles an Orange Austin 1800 [1] to me.

[1] [http://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/photos-
tatton0804/austin_1800...](http://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/photos-
tatton0804/austin_1800_mk1_76.htm)

------
code_duck
If Elon Musk and Tesla can do it, Apple can. My guess is Tesla-style is the
type of positioning they're looking at in the market.

------
dandare
Mentioning that Jobs's father was auto mechanic is very cheesy argument.

------
marze
Steve Jobs was Apple's parents. Apple is realizing that their parents are
gone. No rules, they are starting to realize they can do anything they want.
Within the limits of their $0.2T cash on hand, of course.

------
comrade1
As an Apple investor I'm not sure what to think of this.

On the one hand Apple has so much cash on hand that they can do just about
anything that they want.

On the other hand I can see developing a car being a huge time and money sink
with very little payoff in the end. Apple has huge margins on their
computers/idevices while the automakers have razor thin margins on their cars.

I think I would feel better about this if they spun off a separate company to
do this.

~~~
m_mueller
As an Apple investor I'm not sure what to think of this.

On the one hand Apple has so much cash on hand that they can do just about
anything that they want.

On the other hand I can see developing a phone being a huge time and money
sink with very little payoff in the end. Apple has huge margins on their
computers/idevices while the mobile phone manufacturers have razor thin
margins on their products.

I think I would feel better about this if they spun off a separate company to
do this.

~~~
adventured
At the rate Apple is going, within another two years they're going to have a
balance sheet with $100 billion in debt.

They're already at $61 billion, stacked against $178b in cash.

I'll play devil's advocate: they absolutely do not have so much cash that they
can do whatever they want.

Another scenario is: via shareholder pressure, they keep upping their
commitments to investors. Meanwhile they boost debt to $100 billion, while
cash rots to $150 billion. Then they start investing billions into a low
margin car business that won't see large profits for two decades. It's
actually the setup for a disaster if anything happens and the iPhone loses
favor in the market.

