I think you mistake the Amazon model. Prices are not higher but they are finally turning a profit. Investing in infrastructure for 10 years is what led to losses. There were always operating profits to be had. This is the same with AWS and Tesla.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Abandons Car Plans 'For Now,' Sets Late 2017 Deadline to Decide Fate of Self-Driving System
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So you mean if Tesla just stopped developing the new cars they need to be profitable and the factories they need to build them in, they'd become profitable? Hmmm.
For Tesla to become profitable, they have to lower their prices, not increase. There are only so many people who can buy a $100k+ car. There are a lot of people who can afford $40k car.
For AI cars to really work, they need to become much more like automated trains in some cities.... all the cars communicate, the roads become more like tracks, etc.
The reason people think it's going to work is because of a belief in AI... i.e.: quntative vs qualitative. They believe in AI and think we just need more computing power and *poof* human minds become obsolete. It doesn't work like that. AI is *A* for artificial, which basically means human minds program it.
And, so long as there are too many obstacles, or any kind of real decision making and intuition involved in the process, computers can't do it. And, humans don't suck at driving at all... the problem is incapacitated humans. The solution is to remove them from the pool, not try to replace them with dumb machines.
I have nothing against Apple diversifying or moving into new product lines. I do have a problem with them shifting from UX and making the best products, to fashion and low quality consumer products. That's not new product lines, that's a fundamental shift in principals.
That's just the processor. I'm not expecting a landmark new machine each quarter or anything... just keeping up with what's available. And, it isn't exactly like they have to create a whole new product to make the incremental bumps.
But, in context of the discussion that spurred that comment, what's that got to do with Apple moving from 'desktops' to iDevices?
Also, the main problem with the Mac line isn't necessarily the hardware. While it's behind, it's kind of OK. The problem is mostly how macOS (OS X) has been going downhill and Apple's destroying most of the related software.
Exactly. Microsoft has tons of talent too, but with Balmer at the head, he nearly ruined it. They also were at the pinnacle in terms of momentum and cash, etc. Looks like Tim is going to M$ Apple.
That's not what I said. If they stopped developing for a brand new Model (3) and focused only on the Model S, they would be profitable today. They already sell more than Mercedes S and BMW 7 combined. But then they would remain a niche manufacturer. Their goal is to go mainstream which takes much more investment.
Well no CEO is worth their millions - especially when the kids they hire jump off buildings from work conditions - but I'll ignore that for a second because what you said after that is more thoughtful. I think the comment hints at the change in values at Apple. Building the strongest OS, with integration into an ecosystem of devices use to be the priority along with build quality and lasting value. Now that Apple is moving to soldered ram and 3yr cycles there's less lasting value. Yearly releases of iOS and OSX are consistently crap and not ready for show time meanwhile the integration features are left to wither. Once touted features like Siri or Maps are in disrepair. The value is on the short term and gimmicks (headphone jacks) masquerading as progress for a quick buck. Brand loyalty and status is fading as a result.
I don't claim to know what they really need to work but I made no "poof factor" arguments. It's an incremental problem that will require incremental solutions, and it appears to be doable given the basic human limitations when it comes to piloting automobiles safely. Human limitations can't be overcome, but technological limitations can be.
[doublepost=1476748874][/doublepost]
Actually, it is more or less what you said. Selling cars for $100k is not a sustainable business model. Already we see that the market is moving downscale on price very rapidly. Tesla knows they will be overtaken by the other players in the market if they don't go in that direction too and do it quickly. The point being, they can't avoid the capital intensive aspects of the business they've chosen to be in.
Plenty of hope for others. Smaller, more focused companies don't have all the corporate fat.
[doublepost=1476749095][/doublepost]
You hope.
[doublepost=1476749142][/doublepost]
Hopefully that never happens.
I am sure he can take risk, all his life, to be where he is today.
the question is does he have the vision and plan to execute?, like Steve Jobs.
Apple doesn't have an amazing UX? Apple doesn't make the best products? news to me - based on how I sell them every day, Apple has a heck of a lot more to offer than the commodity box makers, based on how I see them sell. And what's wrong with offering fashion? Too girly for you or something? Seriously. Apple makes the best, has for a long time, will for much longer.
But the processor is the heart of the computer. Common, if Apple released a new MBP tomorrow and stuck with the 5th Gen, would you be satisfied? No. Of course not. And with good reason. Apple is limited in what they want to do by the processors they are offered. Likewise I think most people would be annoyed if Apple released a 7th gen now, and in a year released a similar if not identical save cosmetics unit.
Updates in hardware of this cost should be meaningful, or you get marketplace confusion. Even with 4th and 5th gen products Apple outsells the rest of my hardware at my store by a meaningful number, especially on key markers like profit, add-ons, and services.
And I thought the problem was some quality control problem, or UX, now its macOS that's the problem? Make up your mind.
Apple's Macs are some of the best selling, most profitable computers on the market. They will continue to be for as long as Apple deems them worthy to be made -and I think that's safe to say for a long time to come. A mix of a lack of innovation by partners and a lot of investment in Touch OS has made MOS machines a bit state, yes, but they'll be updated soon. So stop whining about it - you know its coming.
It's not about cash, it's always about people. Sometimes solutions come out with very minor investments. Apple has one of the worst structures when it comes to creativity and breaking out ideas. The people who have taken their high ranked seats during the boom period have built a fortress between them and the rest of the employees and no one will get their jobs anytime soon. Just look at Ive he is still the one who signs off on product design, sure in reality his role is like traditional business manager but he constantly pushes his outdated design principles. He might have built a career on them but that was long time ago and like every designer in this world he had a peak period and after that it was all either the same stuff rehashed all over again or mediocre at very best. He knows that yet he still insists on having a final say in product design.
I know many gifted designers who work for Apple who will blow away Jonathan if given the chance but they are stuck at defining RGB values for nonsense iconography, once again established by Ive. And once again he blew it with UI design or should I say lack of design. Designers have spent months just arguing against his iOS7 monstrosity before anything was taken into consideration because he was so stubborn about it.
Porsche does it very successfully. Tesla could get Porsche level revenues at $100K ASP and gross margins in the high 20s.
But they want to be more like BMW.
I would venture to say the the legacy manufacturers have much more investment ahead than Tesla as they need significant R&D to catch Tesla as well as a high speed charging network.
See, that's just the problem: Porche doesn't do it either. Their cars start under $50k. I'd be shocked if it will be possible to buy a Tesla Model 3 for much less than $50k.
I would venture to say just the opposite. The legacy manufacturers have capitalized infrastructure to draw upon. This is precisely how GM managed to bring the Bolt to market so quickly. The car was designed in Australia and South Korea and manufactured in Michigan. I also would not assume that a private network of chargers is the key to success. I see that as a progressively less popular solution as DC fast charging stations become more common.
When the company culture is about margins, it sure will be hard as hell to make any marketable innovation in a new area.
Eek, Wired (there would go all credibility if it had been an article... but I guess it's just a marketing video).
Ok, so what's the point? Tesla is a 'big boy' that manufactures their cars like the other car makers? I guess I expected that. So, why can't they turn them out more quickly with all that automation?
It's not so much that they aren't worth their millions (if they really are doing an exceptional job), but if they aren't paying their workers fair wages. And, if we're talking other countries, then it's far more complex. It isn't like they can just force a factory in China to pay US wages.
That's not saying it's right, but it's a much bigger picture problem than high-paid CEOs keeping the foreign workers down. In fact, some of these US companies are doing much to bring the standards up and bring these countries into the broader world for scrutiny and opportunity.
Will AI-based cars improve? Sure. But, the concept of self-driving is a 'poof' idea. Computers don't think or reason, and they never will. The improvement is in terms of how well programmers can think of, and capture situations that might arise. It isn't a technological issue, so it won't be overcome with technology.
Apple used to have amazing UI/UX, and IMO, used to make some of the best products. Aside from some hardware capabilities, much of that has degraded to the point they are barely better, if they even are anymore. The software had gone to dung.
And, the problem with fashion is that it's fickle. Style ≠ fashion. Fashion is for people with too much money and time on their hands (and too little in the intelligence dept). It's the thing we long-time Apple folks have been fighting... the idea that we buy Apple products to be fashionable, rather than for their real benefits.
At this point, sure they should probably wait on the next MBP update (it will be interesting to see if they will). But, there are lots of other products, and GPUs often can be updated. Plus, much of the product line has degraded to dual-core at the same price as the previous quad-core models, and garbage like that.
Plus, your argument doesn't seem to stop them on coming out with a new iPhone each year. Why not the same for the Mac? (Yes, there's greater performance gain on the iDevice side, but little other innovation, anymore. That's not a bad thing... I'm just saying...)
Yes, quality control, primarily in terms of software, across the board. Poor features. Poor implementation. Poor UI decisions. Poor bug control and testing. That all makes for a poor UX.
And, then there are the purposeful things like putting too little RAM in (when it's now soldered) or too little storage (16 GB devices), or pulling features out of the software to make people buy the new services (iTunes/Music).
I'm not doubting there will be Mac updates coming. It's more the software side I'm worried about, along with the lack of pro equipment. On the bright side, at least with TB3, it might be possible to finally accomplish pro stuff with the design concept of the trash-can Mac Pro.
But, if the software continues on the current trajectory, it isn't going to much matter what they release in terms of hardware.
I take issue with your first example. I don't want ANYONE that can't pass the joke that is the current drivers exam behind ANY wheel, self-driving or not! Why would anyone in their right minds want more stupid lazy people on our roads, behind any wheel, 'self-driving" or not?
I take issue with your 3rd example as well, the human in the car will always be the party responsible, and I have no interest in a drunk being that person. Take a cab, uber, lyft, call a friend/relative, etc.
And your other examples have plenty of existing solutions, that won't encourage more dangerous, stupid and lazy behaviors. Cabs, Ubers, Lyfts, etc.
As I've said in other posts in this thread, I see self-driving tech to be a great enabling technology. For people who have a *medical need*.
Sadly, all I see is this technology being promoted as a way to further enable bad, dangerous, stupid, and lazy people and behavior.
As someone that volunteers my time as a driving coach for an advanced driving clinic, I find this disturbing.
It's entirely a technological issue and it will be addressed in increments, just as all technological issues are.
You are now carrying a supercomputer around in your pocket but it didn't just appear there by magic. Could you have imagined the implications of such a thing 20 years ago?
A computer a million times faster than the fastest computer on the planet today, can't think or reason either.
You're committing a category error and/or believing in sci-fantasy.
I agree with you it's a focus without much innovation.
Thinking and reasoning aren't required, so you are committing a logical error, as well as demonstrating an insufficient imagination.
Good points, but until Tessa delivers I remain skeptical. Tessa hasn't delivers 20k vehicles to date, bust must do so for 3 quarters to hit 80k in a year. Stating a goal is far different from hitting it; and any hiccup in supply can stall their plans. As for orders, until they are fulfilled they are simply a way to raise funds to stay afloat; and even so customers can cancel preorders if they get tired of waiting or an other option becomes available.
As for GM, if they told their suppliers they want batteries to build more EVs the suppliers would find a way to ramp up production. Absent such a commitment there is no incentive to create the capacity. It's a case of pull demand driving capacity, not the other way around. GM doesn't see the demand, yet, so they are unwilling to produce more vehicles they may not sell.