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 Car Production Slated for 2024 With 'Next Level' Battery Technology
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Have to admit this has been one of the most entertaining threads on MR in a long time. A knee-slapper supreme.
It reminds me when Apple announced the iPhone and the reactions of the breathless, making sure everyone knew how stupid it would be competing against the telecom and handset industry giants of the time, Motorola, Ericsson, and Nokia, collectively known as MEN. Where are they now? Waiting for the reflexive yeah-buts...
Déjà vu all over again!
It reminds me when Apple announced the iPhone and the reactions of the breathless, making sure everyone knew how stupid it would be competing against the telecom and handset industry giants of the time, Motorola, Ericsson, and Nokia, collectively known as MEN. Where are they now? Waiting for the reflexive yeah-buts...
Déjà vu all over again!
Are you actually serious with this statement? You want these companies owned and run by the government? I’m sure putting them under the GSA will really push innovation forward. How much would it cost to give every citizen a car? How would our current road network even support every citizen having a car? Where would all the money come from considering we are already running a huge deficit. You might want to rethink this statement.
I understand how a mono-cell could be more efficient since it would contain way less materials. Less weight can increase range.
I remember a video from Apple showing how their battery design is superior than using the (round) battery cells inside a container. I'm not sure Apple can beat or start a factory with more output than Tesla without gaining a lot of attention.
As for different materials, Apple would start using them in Laptops and phones before thinking about using massive quantities inside a car.
Another "journalist" article.
I remember a video from Apple showing how their battery design is superior than using the (round) battery cells inside a container. I'm not sure Apple can beat or start a factory with more output than Tesla without gaining a lot of attention.
As for different materials, Apple would start using them in Laptops and phones before thinking about using massive quantities inside a car.
Another "journalist" article.
I agree the theory is compelling. (If it weren’t, auto makers wouldn’t be trying it.) But...
I just watched a video of a chemist experimenting with a dangerous reagent that was delivered in a can with a standard pull-tab top. The can came with opening instructions. One comment was that if you can’t figure out how to open a pulltab can, you have no business playing with dangerous chemicals.
Similarly, I think, perhaps as you’re saying, if you can’t commit to being an active participant in the basic functions of your vehicle you have no business behind the wheel. Like so many technologies the implementation is getting ahead of the wisdom. Too many people are tempted to surrender to the tech because it’s neat-o and indulges laziness and inattention, two things you don’t want to amplify in a driver.
If we really want to make cars safer, we will create a system that coordinates all of their movements. You don’t need computer-level braking reflexes, for example, if the computer is controlling all the cars. But we don’t (yet) live in the world of Minority Report.
Last edited:
More importantly, how is Apple going to deal with the fact that no one anywhere wants self driving cars? Oh its a fine proof of concept for car shows and other gimmicks. But at the end of day, no one is interested in having their vehicle replaced with something that drives for them.
Actually the technology is not ahead of the wisdom, only the theory is. We have lots of theoretical technology with implementations that are a shell of their actual potential.
Battery design is not something I would think of as an Apple strength. At least not in their phones. I think cheap, throwaway, and non-replaceable.
Lower energy density by a lot. The power density per unit mass is about half that of what Tesla is using, and a Tesla 100D battery pack weighs around 1400 pounds. They're already at or above the weight limit for many bridges. I don't think a vehicle weighing 1200 pounds more than a Tesla would ever be allowed to be sold as a passenger car.
And the energy density per liter is also about half-ish. So you'd have to raise the body of the car by several inches, which would reduce energy efficiency and require an even larger battery.
I mean yes, ostensibly, you could move some of the cells higher, but having the pack at the bottom is what gives Tesla industry-leading rollover stability. And thus far, with ~1.4 million cars on the road, in 2020, Tesla cars have seen only 5 occupant deaths worldwide, for a deaths-per-year-per car of only 3.57142 x 10^-6, versus a U.S. average of 3.241959 x 10^-5 for all cars overall, and although some of that 11x difference is because of Autopilot, the rollover safety aspect is also a big part of that.
If LiFePO4 were viable for cars, I'm pretty sure Tesla wouldn't have gone with the much more expensive LiNiMnCoO2 chemistry. So if Apple goes with that chemistry, it's more than likely a serious mistake. Just my $0.02.
Probably the same way Tesla does. Or they partner with an existing automaker. I would pick Mazda or Hyundai as a good partner.
Knowing Apple, they would probably solder the wheels and tires to the car frame, just so you have to replace the entire car to change a tire.
Not me. If an iPhone's software is bad, it means nothing in the real world. In a car, bad software means life or death. Apple's software standards are just not up to par for a car. The software problems are structural and not capable of being fixed in a company the size of Apple in less than a decade.
Will everybody be able to ride in the Apple car or will they have to be available through the app store? I don't think Apple QA will approve of my old brother. They may refuse to sign him up 
Tesla has “similar” ambitions. More like Apple continues to copy others and create a massive monopoly while the government is worried about Facebook only.
You shorted AAPL didn't you? How's that working out for you?
This
Its called lobbying and earmarking
it’s called lobbying/earmarking
Spot on. They are probably trying to justify the investment in research. The day the stock goes down it will be coins after so many splits.
Been reading about this rumor since 2015. I hope I don't need to put a smart cover on it to keep it in low power mode since there won't be an off switch.
Who says it will be self-driving? I suspect it won’t be, at least not in 2024.
