Apple Car's Decade of Development and 'Failure' Detailed in New Report

[Numbah One]

A key quote - "The project was also a failure, at the highest levels of the company, to settle on one thing and do it."

Changing requirements is a sure way to doom a project.

 

[B S Magnet]

I would’ve rather liked to have seen a car over a headset, personally.

Apple at their core — pun unintended — are, still, a computing design corporation. Without that, even their wildly successful services, like the App Store and iCloud, would lack the mooring to do well.

An established company comes to a point during their mortal lifetimes when they reach a road with a fork.

One fork is the path of sticking to two or three core competencies and continuing to do the very best work they can do with those and meet all the customers where the customers work and live.

The second fork is a path of expanding laterally across a myriad of competencies and to deliver those along a spread between “poorly” and “adequately”, but almost never are any of those many areas going to be their very best work — no matter how flush with capital they are to be able to try anyway.

This second fork is the age-old corporate folly of ancestor industrial giants from the U.S., all realizing — eventually — how they must pare back in order to stick at what makes them still worth every bit of their brand value (IBM, GE, GM, and so on), or they will winnow to a ghost of their former selves (Eastman Kodak, RCA, Sears, and so on).

Apple may not realize it, because they’re worth a lot right now. These are not, however, forever things or forever assurances. Shareholders will find better growth and value in other places and will move money to where the growth is.

Jobs returned, spent time at the fork, and chose to pare the company back to those core competencies.

One of those was rolling out generally well-built, well-designed computers using commodity parts. He presented the “grid of four” on the roadmap to getting the company back to what they did well. It did them very, very well. Another was the operating system, bringing over a solid platform adapted from open source roots. A third, frankly, was the handheld mobile appliance device — the iPod, the iPhone, and even iPad.

The iTunes Music Store and the App Store was the start of their drift. It was a “nice-to-have” which fortunately for them, for almost twenty years of enjoying nearly no regulation and locking out most competition, scored them a lot of cash. That gold rush is now winding down and being reined in by badly-needed regulation to facilitate better competition for app developers to market their apps. And then there are the other products which stray far from those core competencies.

Apple would do well to return to that old fork in the road for some introspection. Find a nearby inn at the fork to stay for a few weeks and think over how they ought to go forward now: to continue being spread too far and too thin; or, to find two or three core competencies they know they’re (still) good at and which they know will continue to win over the widest spread of users so long as they stick to those and spin off those which, well, aren’t.

That isn’t a sign defeat or shame, but rather, the mark of a long-term corporate maturation in the face of becoming an old spectre lurking in the shadows of yesterday.

 

[CrysisDeu]

Everything points to Cook

 

[Sevendaymelee]

All the better. Tesla is the Apple of the automotive industry now, and by that, I mean the Jobs-led version of Apple. They are so far ahead of everyone else that competing with them directly is a death sentence. Apple was wise to halt this nonsense. They are not that company anymore.

 

[B S Magnet]

All the better. Tesla is the Apple of the automotive industry now, and by that, I mean the Jobs-led version of Apple. They are so far ahead of everyone else that competing with them directly is a death sentence. Apple was wise to halt this nonsense. They are not that company anymore.

Considering how BYD overtook Tesla in EV sales worldwide last year and also have their own battery manufacturing, I’m not sure there’s a suitable computer tech analogy to be made for either.

Possibly the closest analogy is also automotive: Tesla are this century’s Ford, right down to the media organ each principal control/controlled and in their expansion strategies. Even the Ford of then fell second to GM in North America in 1931.

 

[Oilbrnr]

So glad Apple didn't buy Tesla for whatever reason.... They would have completely neutered the cars and made them as plain and blah as possible.

More plain and blah than they are now? Is that even possible?

 

[bigjnyc]

More plain and blah than they are now? Is that even possible?

I think you're confusing minimalistic for plain and blah... an SUV that can do 0-60 in 2.9 seconds with gull wing doors, a 17 inch screen in the front and 8 inch screen in the back, PS5 level gaming amongst many other things is anything but plain and blah.

 

[marstan]

After reading this it confirms for me that Tim Cook is not a true leader. He is merely a manager who was promoted above his level of competence. His true colors seem to be indecisiveness and caution. Most of his success as CEO was riding on the momentum of established products and technologies. AVP appears to be an exception but even there Cook may have pushed it out prematurely out of desperation from nothing else in the pipeline. Cook is essentially a finance/numbers guy. No wonder he loves AI; he is very much like AI - all numbers and data. It is ironic that he loves Apple Vision Pro so much because vision is the vey thing he lacks.

 

[sjperformance]

Apple...go buy Rivian.

 

[Churchman]

Wow. I’d suggest you’ve missed the whole point of all of those movies. None of the fictional companies you mentioned are intended to be aspirational. They’re WARNINGS about how EVIL companies like that can get.

Nope.

I did not miss the point of those movies.

Do you recall a company that was birthed with the mandate of: Don't Be Evil.

That was Google.

Google discarded that guiding principle many years ago and proceeded to become .... Evil.

It is the tendency of many companies, governments, institutions... if there is a human running it, it will most likely become evil.

Skynet is a cautionary tale about... don't create an A.I., and if you do, don't let its capability and access to greater networks outstrip your ability to control it. Oops! That's is exactly what humanity is doing right now.

Jurassic Park was a cautionary tale about... Scientists being so preoccupied with whether they could do something that could result in the extinction of humanity, they didn't stop to think if they should do it. Oops! Humanity does that every day of the week: scientists are investigating genetic engineering for humans and animals (dinosaurs included). Scientists are literally designing more pleasing and superior organisms, and trying to design "better" babies. Nothing could become evil from that right?

We are creating ever more advanced iterations of A.I.... which will kill us.

We are creating neural inks to network our brains to the interwebs so we who can afford it, can transfer consciousness to the cloud and live forever.... which will create 36 flavors of evils.

My point is Humanity is all about "Danger! Danger!", then proceeding to do exactly what should never be done. People are going to do what is evil anyway. If it is going to happen, make it interesting.

 

[dead.cell]

All the better. Tesla is the Apple of the automotive industry now, and by that, I mean the Jobs-led version of Apple. They are so far ahead of everyone else that competing with them directly is a death sentence. Apple was wise to halt this nonsense. They are not that company anymore.

To add to this, it's worth noting what Tesla is doing as well. They're not just making EVs, they're taking some truly innovative approaches to how they build their vehicles. The Cybertruck, for better or worse, definitely has some interesting feats worth checking into, like how they do steer-by-wire.

Of course, there's still room in the market, as companies like Kia are really making a name for themselves by pushing feature-rich EVs. It makes me wonder how long it will be before people will go from "oh but it's a Kia..." to "Oh, that is a Kia?!" if they're not already.

 

[Harry Haller]

Apple...go buy Rivian.

Rivian, Fisker, Polestar, Lucid, et al are one trick ponies.
Apple could buy all 4 and have a smaller market share than Tesla
or less EV manufacturing capacity than Hyundai/Kia and Asian producers.
Apple has no business in the car manufacturing business, imo.

 

[grjj]

I think you're confusing minimalistic for plain and blah... an SUV that can do 0-60 in 2.9 seconds with gull wing doors, a 17 inch screen in the front and 8 inch screen in the back, PS5 level gaming amongst many other things is anything but plain and blah.

Gulwing doors are, from a practical standpoint, idiotic. The number of failure modes where you cannot get out of or into the car is unacceptable.
Even most modern supercars have abandoned the fad and moved on to complex hinge vertically pivoting doors.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I think you're confusing minimalistic for plain and blah... an SUV that can do 0-60 in 2.9 seconds with gull wing doors, a 17 inch screen in the front and 8 inch screen in the back, PS5 level gaming amongst many other things is anything but plain and blah.

Sounds un-fun to me. What Apple was working on sounds like a people mover for the airport, not a car for the road. The whole idea that you’re just going to be a passive presence in a car that’s hurtling down the road is basically insane. The computing power isn’t there to make this a reality. And why would anyone want it anyway? If you’re going to be completely passive like that the better option would be mass transit of some kind.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Rivian, Fisker, Polestar, Lucid, et al are one trick ponies.
Apple could buy all 4 and have a smaller market share than Tesla
or less EV manufacturing capacity than Hyundai/Kia and Asian producers.
Apple has no business in the car manufacturing business, imo.

Judging by the hires, fires and acquisitions they’ve made over the last decade, they basically HAVE purchased a whole EV startup, just in bits and pieces.

Thing is, if Apple were really going to make a car, they’d do it just like they do everything. They’d provide the designs and the specs. A contractor or partner would build the vehicles. And that partner would likely be Toyota or Volkswagon. That’s the only way it works. Apple doesn’t manufacture anything. It designs things.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Nope.

I did not miss the point of those movies.

Do you recall a company that was birthed with the mandate of: Don't Be Evil.

That was Google.

Google discarded that guiding principle many years ago and proceeded to become .... Evil.

It is the tendency of many companies, governments, institutions... if there is a human running it, it will most likely become evil.

Skynet is a cautionary tale about... don't create an A.I., and if you do, don't let its capability and access to greater networks outstrip your ability to control it. Oops! That's is exactly what humanity is doing right now.

Jurassic Park was a cautionary tale about... Scientists being so preoccupied with whether they could do something that could result in the extinction of humanity, they didn't stop to think if they should do it. Oops! Humanity does that every day of the week: scientists are investigating genetic engineering for humans and animals (dinosaurs included). Scientists are literally designing more pleasing and superior organisms, and trying to design "better" babies. Nothing could become evil from that right?

We are creating ever more advanced iterations of A.I.... which will kill us.

We are creating neural inks to network our brains to the interwebs so we who can afford it, can transfer consciousness to the cloud and live forever.... which will create 36 flavors of evils.

My point is Humanity is all about "Danger! Danger!", then proceeding to do exactly what should never be done. People are going to do what is evil anyway. If it is going to happen, make it interesting.

I can’t get with this weird worldview. Sorry. Most of the things you mentioned are either 1) not actually happening 2) blown way out of proportion or 3) fringe nonsense that’s going nowhere.

 

[CrysisDeu]

All the better. Tesla is the Apple of the automotive industry now, and by that, I mean the Jobs-led version of Apple. They are so far ahead of everyone else that competing with them directly is a death sentence. Apple was wise to halt this nonsense. They are not that company anymore.

They were until Elon “abandoned” the company. The model s and model x, when they launched, were very apple like. But at this moment, no. If he truly cared about the cars he produced. The cars could have electromagnetic suspension, rear wheel steering, soft close doors, automatic doors, etc. on all models.

These are inexpensive add-ons which improves the car experience by a lot, and traditional car companies ask for a lot of money for upgrades.

 

[Surf Monkey]

They were until Elon “abandoned” the company. The model s and model x, when they launched, were very apple like. But at this moment, no. If he truly cared about the cars he produced. The cars could have electromagnetic suspension, rear wheel steering, soft close doors, automatic doors, etc. on all models.

These are inexpensive add-ons which improves the car experience by a lot, and traditional car companies ask for a lot of money for upgrades.

Instead you get a rusty, overly heavy, under powered, prone to getting stuck in non-challenging situations, fly by wire steering and breaks that are prone to glitch, ugly, crumbling resale price, “Cybertruck.”

The best car Tesla ever made was the roadster.

 

[Churchman]

I can’t get with this weird worldview. Sorry. Most of the things you mentioned are either 1) not actually happening 2) blown way out of proportion or 3) fringe nonsense that’s going nowhere.

It’s ok surf bro.

I don’t need you to get with anything.

You do you.

 

[HiVolt]

Thing is, if Apple were really going to make a car, they’d do it just like they do everything. They’d provide the designs and the specs. A contractor or partner would build the vehicles. And that partner would likely be Toyota or Volkswagon. That’s the only way it works. Apple doesn’t manufacture anything. It designs things.

It would have been a chinese company, they're the only one able to do it cheap enough to warrant Apple's markups, just like with everything else.

Chinese are basicaly offering turnkey EV platforms for any "Brand" that wants one.

 

[Surf Monkey]

It would have been a chinese company, they're the only one able to do it cheap enough to warrant Apple's markups, just like with everything else.

Chinese are basicaly offering turnkey EV platforms for any "Brand" that wants one.

But that’s problematic for Apple since they’re trying to minimize their footprint in China. That’s why it would have to be Toyota or Volkswagen, and that’s why it probably can’t ever happen. Both of those companies would want input on the product. Apple won’t have that.

 

[bigjnyc]

Gulwing doors are, from a practical standpoint, idiotic. The number of failure modes where you cannot get out of or into the car is unacceptable.
Even most modern supercars have abandoned the fad and moved on to complex hinge vertically pivoting doors.

Not my experience at all. They are marvelous for me as I have little kids that I have to load in and out, not having to bend down to do so is a life changer. In 2 years of ownership I only had an issue with them opening once and it was because I was in a garage with a low ceiling

 

[bigjnyc]

Sounds un-fun to me. What Apple was working on sounds like a people mover for the airport, not a car for the road. The whole idea that you’re just going to be a passive presence in a car that’s hurtling down the road is basically insane. The computing power isn’t there to make this a reality. And why would anyone want it anyway? If you’re going to be completely passive like that the better option would be mass transit of some kind.

And that was their mistake. They were way too ambitious in thinking they can make a fully autonomous people mover. We are years away from that technology. Had they taken the approach of making a vehicle first and developed the fully Autonomous software as they went along, this project might have worked

 

[B S Magnet]

Judging by the hires, fires and acquisitions they’ve made over the last decade, they basically HAVE purchased a whole EV startup, just in bits and pieces.

Find in the historical record an established, major company to have started automotive operations by a cadre of mini-acquisitions to constitute, from the outside-in, à la carte manner, a monster of Frankenstein of a product resembling an automobile which entered into production.

I’ll save you the work: there hasn’t been one.

Every production automaker, successful or since folded, started their operations by building the first generation of horseless carriages, safety vehicles, steam-powered vehicles, racing vehicles, heavy-utility vehicles, and electric vehicles (lead-acid a century ago and nickel- and lithium-based in the last quarter century), from the inside-out.

These automakers invented the platform they stuck with. They didn’t parachute in. They brought together rudimentary, extant, off-the-shelf mechanical components and, in scrappy form, assembled a working vehicle (frequently farming out to coach builders for design duty). Or, they were established already as engineers and builders of equipment ultimately necessary for vehicles, such as heavy industry (Subaru, Mitsubishi); farming implements (International Harvester and Lamborghini); and core engineers (Honda).

None was a corporate or industrial titan from another sector which, casually, pieced together a bunch of other startups’ technologies to “design” a patchwork of a working, viable vehicle — and bring it to production — successfully. Apple are not special in this sense.

It takes a certain corporate hubris to believe a tech company, started when they designed and — yes — built a computer, to do an end-run and to conduct a “start up” in the automotive industry. It takes a certain hubris to have that “start up”, automagically, leapfrog over nearly 150 years of steady, accumulated mechanical engineering knowledge. That knowledge is cumulative, not bought.

A couple of folks earlier defended Apple as a “design company”. They’ve also been an engineering company (and have been such for decades).

What they engineer, however — their engineering know-how — runs far, far afield of what goes into a roadworthy production motor vehicle which complies with a well-regulated, worldwide industry. Regulatory oversight has largely, not touched tech titans the way it has with auto makers. That’s a transition Apple have not shown themselves to be ready to enter.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Find in the historical record an established, major company to have started automotive operations by a cadre of mini-acquisitions to constitute, from the outside-in, à la carte manner, a monster of Frankenstein of a product resembling an automobile which entered into production.

I’ll save you the work: there hasn’t been one.

Okay? Doesn’t really have anything with what I said. I’m just pointing out that when you look at what and who they acquired it adds up to an EV startup and then some.

Every production automaker, successful or since folded, started their operations by building the first generation of horseless carriages, safety vehicles, steam-powered vehicles, racing vehicles, heavy-utility vehicles, and electric vehicles (lead-acid a century ago and nickel- and lithium-based in the last quarter century), from the inside-out.

Never disputed it. But let’s not forget: Apple doesn’t manufacture anything. They design things and have them manufactured by partners like FoxCon.

These automakers invented the platform they stuck with. They didn’t parachute in. They brought together rudimentary, extant, off-the-shelf mechanical components and, in scrappy form, assembled a working vehicle (frequently farming out to coach builders for design duty). Or, they were established already as engineers and builders of equipment ultimately necessary for vehicles, such as heavy industry (Subaru, Mitsubishi); farming implements (International Harvester and Lamborghini); and core engineers (Honda).

Great! But the fact that something was done one way in the past doesn’t preclude the possibility that it gets done differently in the future.

None was a corporate or industrial titan from another sector which, casually, pieced together a bunch of other startups’ technologies to “design” a patchwork of a working, viable vehicle — and bring it to production — successfully. Apple are not special in this sense.

And AGAIN, this has NOTHING to do with what I said. And if you scroll back in my comments on this you’ll see that I believe Apple would need to partner with Toyota or Volkswagen to make it happen to their satisfaction.

It takes a certain corporate hubris to believe a tech company, started when they designed and — yes — built a computer, to do an end-run and to conduct a “start up” in the automotive industry. It takes a certain hubris to have that “start up”, automagically, leapfrog over nearly 150 years of steady, accumulated mechanical engineering knowledge. That knowledge is cumulative, not bought.

Pure opinion on your part, but I’d remind you that Apple was not a phone handset designer at one time. Nor did they design headphones. Just a couple examples.

A couple of folks earlier defended Apple as a “design company”. They’ve also been an engineering company (and have been such for decades).

Uh… engineering can be considered a kind of design. In fact, interactive designs are not possible without engineering. The point is that Apple doesn’t actually build things. They provide the designs. Designs for both things like interfaces and for things like silicon chips. Things like phone handsets and laptop computers. There’s no distinction in “difference” you’re attempting to point out.

What they engineer, however — their engineering know-how — runs far, far afield of what goes into a roadworthy production motor vehicle which complies with a well-regulated, worldwide industry. Regulatory oversight has largely, not touched tech titans the way it has with auto makers. That’s a transition Apple have not shown themselves to be ready to enter.

I’m not sure you actually know that as a fact. After all, they had municipal approval to test the early builds on roads.