Apple Abandons Car Plans 'For Now,' Sets Late 2017 Deadline to Decide Fate of Self-Driving System

[Dmunjal]

57/3 is about 17k per quarter. They might be able to increase production by 50% but I will believe it when I see it.

Each quarter is growing over the previous. They just did 24500 in Q3. They only need to do 26000 to hit 80K. They just now announced AP 2.0 is already in production so that should stimulate demand even more.

Except Tesla is just one company that can make batteries. If the demand is there others will ramp up. It takes more than angigafactory to take market share in the car business. Tesla lacks the dealer and service network, let alone the charging stations to make long trips viable, which may prove to be bigger constraints than battery production to grow to any size that actually matters in the car industry.

They already have a nationwide charging network. People have been driving cross country for a couple of years now.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Alternatively, they don't see demand for more than 50k cars a year.

Alternatively, if GM does sell that many Bolts, it will double their EV sales to about 100k a year, a number that coincidentally would be twice as many as Tesla now sells.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I think Apple developed a whole bunch of autonomous driving technologies that may be of interest to automakers. I wouldn't be surprised both BMW and Mercedes-Benz--both of whom have research labs in Silicon Valley--to be wooed to use Apple's autonomous system.

 

[Dmunjal]

Alternatively, if GM does sell that many Bolts, it will double their EV sales to about 100k a year, a number that coincidentally would be twice as many as Tesla now sells.

Tesla will sell 80K this year and is planning on almost 200k next year. Tesla confirmed that they now have over 400K reservations for the Model 3. I don't see how GM has the battery capacity to build that many.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Tesla will sell 80K this year and is planning on almost 200k next year. Tesla confirmed that they now have over 400K reservations for the Model 3. I don't see how GM has the battery capacity to build that many.

Tesla plans a lot of things they have a difficult time delivering, so I will believe it when I see it, and reservations don't count as sales. You're right, though, GM doesn't have the batteries to build that many, but apparently their battery supplier LG does.

 

[jlc1978]

They already have a nationwide charging network. People have been driving cross country for a couple of years now.

The problem is scaling that to handle more cars so long distance travel remains viable and doesn't get constrained by chargers being in use, thus adding potentially significant time to a trip. Right now, having a few chargers at a station can handle demand because so few Teslas are driven long distance, and even now their are complaints about people abusing charging stations by tying them up for extended periods. In addition, right now you have to follow Tesla's route for log distance trips, and find a way to charge at the other end.

A strong repair network is needed so when something breaks there is a place to get it fixed combined with a supply chain to ensure ready availability of repair parts.

All of this can be overcome but the incumbents has so big advantages in terms of scale and network externalities.
[doublepost=1476979121][/doublepost]

Tesla plans a lot of things they have a difficult time delivering, so I will believe it when I see it, and reservations don't count as sales. You're right, though, GM doesn't have the batteries to build that many, but apparently their battery supplier LG does.

I wonder how many of the reservations will turn into sales as time passes with no car and they buyers find out the 30K price is just the starting point and bolt as a result..

I am pretty confident if GM want to build more electrics they'd find a way to get the needed batteries.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I wonder how many of the reservations will turn into sales as time passes with no car and they buyers find out the 30K price is just the starting point and bolt as a result..

I am pretty confident if GM want to build more electrics they'd find a way to get the needed batteries.

I am certain Tesla isn't counting on anywhere close to all of their reservation deposits becoming actual sales since in the end it costs nothing to hold a place in line. The advertised starting price for the Model 3 is $35k but that's only a tentative price and with any sort of backlog at all it seems unlikely that anyone will be able to buy one for very close to the entry level price, and not before late 2017 at the very earliest. In the meantime, the competition isn't picking their collective noses. The GM entries may not be as sexy but they are real, and that will matter.

Look, I hope Tesla succeeds, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion. They are dealing with all the problems you'd expect them to encounter in this very capital intensive and highly competitive business.

 

[Dmunjal]

I am certain Tesla isn't counting on anywhere close to all of their reservation deposits becoming actual sales since in the end it costs nothing to hold a place in line. The advertised starting price for the Model 3 is $35k but that's only a tentative price and with any sort of backlog at all it seems unlikely that anyone will be able to buy one for very close to the entry level price, and not before late 2017 at the very earliest. In the meantime, the competition isn't picking their collective noses. The GM entries may not be as sexy but they are real, and that will matter.

Look, I hope Tesla succeeds, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion. They are dealing with all the problems you'd expect them to encounter in this very capital intensive and highly competitive business.

Looking at yesterday's autopilot 2.0 announcement, I'm wondering why Apple with all their resources couldn't do this.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware

 

[IJ Reilly]

Looking at yesterday's autopilot 2.0 announcement, I'm wondering why Apple with all their resources couldn't do this.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware

I suspect this is precisely the kinds of technologies Apple is actually working on, not the rumored Apple-branded car. I notice in the announcement that Tesla is saying only that their new cars will be equipped with the necessary hardware, with the software coming later. Hardware is the easy part. Software is tough, as Tesla has already discovered.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

Great news. Cars are boring and even full EVs are little more than an incremental step. Self-driving, like voice-recognition assistants, will be disappointing at first and improve very slowly. The real future is in better urban land use and mixed transportation solutions, none of which Apple or Silicon Valley in general know anything about.

Agreed.

And from the environmental side of things: The only real way to fight emissions and pollution is to do exactly this, and collapse cities inward.

Even when EV's become viable, there's also the matter of generating electricity for all of them. Depending on where you look, about 67-73% of electricity in the US is produced by fossil fuels. And in the case of coal-fired plants, emissions are worse than gasoline (or so I've read). With things being as they already are around the topic of climate change, I can see EV's eventually leading to backlash from environmentalists.

The only way EV's become cleaner than gas is with a lot of nuclear, wind and then solar supplementing it. Wind is not viable everywhere, solar is not viable everywhere, and nuclear... well, nuclear needs to be both expanded upon and our existing fleet of reactors needs to be replaced outright at the same time.

The next question is... how are all of those materials used in the batteries mined, and what happens to them after the batteries expire?

It seems like there's a lot of unsure items regarding EV's. I'd love to step into the future and make my commute across town in something more futuristic and better than my gas-powered vehicle, but... as you said, better urban land use and mixed transportation is the future.

 

[SteveW928]

My point all along is that computers don't need to "think like we do" to solve a specific set of problems more effectively than humans do.

I think that's the crux of it... I don't think driving is a specific set of problems (at least not with a mix of AI and human driven vehicles on the road, current road systems, weather, animals, pedestrians, etc.).

That supercomputer you carry in your pocket today would've been science fiction less than 20 years ago. Just something to keep in mind as we talk about what's possible.

Again, that's scale. The problem is the code, not CPU speed.

People thought we hit peak oil 30 years ago too, and people in the 50s thought everything would be nuclear powered.

And, that the earth was cooling... and that genes determined outcome... and Junk DNA... etc, etc. The 30-yr peak oil was more, IMO, like global warming... scare mongering. And, we probably *should* be using more nuclear!

 

[8281]

I think that's the crux of it... I don't think driving is a specific set of problems (at least not with a mix of AI and human driven vehicles on the road, current road systems, weather, animals, pedestrians, etc.).



Again, that's scale. The problem is the code, not CPU speed.



And, that the earth was cooling... and that genes determined outcome... and Junk DNA... etc, etc. The 30-yr peak oil was more, IMO, like global warming... scare mongering. And, we probably *should* be using more nuclear!

I don't think global warming is fear mongering at all. I think it's a scientific and public policy issue with massive implications that has been politicized by people with interests in maintaining the fossil fuel industry. Do we need to run around with our hair on fire and start living in tents? No, but the position of conservatives in our government are embarrassingly ill informed. Who wouldn't want a cleaner and sustainable economy? Counties in Florida are already having to spend money to better equipment their cities to manage rising water levels. Eventually the conservative fever dreams about the liberal climate change conspiracy will meet with reality.

 

[SteveW928]

I don't think global warming is fear mongering at all. I think it's a scientific and public policy issue with massive implications that has been politicized by people with interests in maintaining the fossil fuel industry. Do we need to run around with our hair on fire and start living in tents? No, but the position of conservatives in our government are embarrassingly ill informed. Who wouldn't want a cleaner and sustainable economy? Counties in Florida are already having to spend money to better equipment their cities to manage rising water levels. Eventually the conservative fever dreams about the liberal climate change conspiracy will meet with reality.

I'm just looking for the actual evidence. I'm open to being convinced. Sure, the earth is going to warm a bit from changes in the sun until the next ice age. It seems there has been a bit of warming in a relatively short window of accurate measurement, that seems to have leveled off in the last decade or so. The big tell, IMO, is how this is being handled. When a given intellectual party is in the right, they usually welcome questioning and scrutiny. When they aren't, there are often various forms of pressure, censorship, name-calling, etc. brought upon dissenters. (I've witnessed this trend in several disciplines.)

But, the big issue, IMO, is that the models on which the fear mongering was based have been quite dramatically wrong. We have a very low understanding of the impact of clouds and aerosols. We have pretty weak data that's only slightly reliable for a short, recent time period. Most of the models don't take solar trends into account, or provide a very reliable picture of the complex reality. And, they include HUGE fudge-factors, like climate sensitivity. (For example, if you double the CO2, does the temp rise 1° or 5°? Huge difference!)

I'm all for reducing any kind of pollution and keeping the world a better place. That's just good environmental care. And I think electric cars will play a role in that (possibly some other tech as well). But, there is also a lot at stake here in terms of developing countries.

If the global warming alarmists are correct, some coastal areas might eventually be changing. That will certainly impact some people groups, especially in island areas. But, it's not going to happen quickly... they won't just wake up one morning under water. Other impacts are much more concerning, IMO. But, again, that's if it is indeed warming substantially due to human causes. (If it's warming due to other causes, we'll just have to adapt.)

But, if the the global warming alarmists are wrong, policy to limit developing nations from using easily accessible energy sources might just be a method to keep them in their place, while the economic powers who can afford the technology will be able to keep thriving. It's the world's poorest that will be impacted by efforts to limit man-made global warming (and far more than just some costal areas)... so we'd better be darn sure about it, and be willing to help the poor concerning the impact.

 

[8281]

I'm just looking for the actual evidence. I'm open to being convinced. Sure, the earth is going to warm a bit from changes in the sun until the next ice age. It seems there has been a bit of warming in a relatively short window of accurate measurement, that seems to have leveled off in the last decade or so. The big tell, IMO, is how this is being handled. When a given intellectual party is in the right, they usually welcome questioning and scrutiny. When they aren't, there are often various forms of pressure, censorship, name-calling, etc. brought upon dissenters. (I've witnessed this trend in several disciplines.)

But, the big issue, IMO, is that the models on which the fear mongering was based have been quite dramatically wrong. We have a very low understanding of the impact of clouds and aerosols. We have pretty weak data that's only slightly reliable for a short, recent time period. Most of the models don't take solar trends into account, or provide a very reliable picture of the complex reality. And, they include HUGE fudge-factors, like climate sensitivity. (For example, if you double the CO2, does the temp rise 1° or 5°? Huge difference!)

I'm all for reducing any kind of pollution and keeping the world a better place. That's just good environmental care. And I think electric cars will play a role in that (possibly some other tech as well). But, there is also a lot at stake here in terms of developing countries.

If the global warming alarmists are correct, some coastal areas might eventually be changing. That will certainly impact some people groups, especially in island areas. But, it's not going to happen quickly... they won't just wake up one morning under water. Other impacts are much more concerning, IMO. But, again, that's if it is indeed warming substantially due to human causes. (If it's warming due to other causes, we'll just have to adapt.)

But, if the the global warming alarmists are wrong, policy to limit developing nations from using easily accessible energy sources might just be a method to keep them in their place, while the economic powers who can afford the technology will be able to keep thriving. It's the world's poorest that will be impacted by efforts to limit man-made global warming (and far more than just some costal areas)... so we'd better be darn sure about it, and be willing to help the poor concerning the impact.

None of the first part of what you wrote is true and the evidence you say you're open to is widely available online.