Have you heard about this thing. It's called the Vision Pro. It's kinda expensive.
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's Decade of Development and 'Failure' Detailed in New Report
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe everyone doesn’t need a vehicle. Maybe the idea of Apple pumping millions more individual transportation devices into the market isn’t a net good. Maybe a better solution for most of this would be effective mass transit. Maybe that’s what Musk’s end game has been for some time: killing government investment in mass transit.
Maybe.
DJI is way more than a drone company. They own Hasselblad for example. Arguably they’re a camera company that happens to also make drones and stabilizers.
There is a lot of competition in the mid-to-upper range electric car market. I'd like to see some more competition in the lower end market. Of course, Apple isn't interested in that market. The lower end is more difficult because the cost of the battery takes up a greater proportion of the full cost on less expensive cars.
Apple is known for having higher starting prices than many of their competitors, but besides the Vision Pro, all their major product categories start at under $1000, so most people (well, at least most Americans) can get an Apple product if they really want to. But a $100,000 car? No.
Apple is known for having higher starting prices than many of their competitors, but besides the Vision Pro, all their major product categories start at under $1000, so most people (well, at least most Americans) can get an Apple product if they really want to. But a $100,000 car? No.
Bloomberg “reports” are a waste of time — sensationalist garbage that only appeals to small minds. That is why they hire small minds to write them.
The “failure” would have been to continue working on a problem that will never be solved anytime soon. Better to focus energies on the core of your business. It was a positive move.
The “failure” would have been to continue working on a problem that will never be solved anytime soon. Better to focus energies on the core of your business. It was a positive move.
The great thing about shooting the messenger is that no ammo is wasted.
It failed for the same reason everybody is failing on autonomous.
That and everybody piling into EV including the Chinese there will be a price war and Apple is smart to step out now and then back in after the blood letting of consolidation ends.
Classic Apple hubris: "We know better than all of you, we can do it ourselves"....proceeds to fail.
That's really what it boiled down to. What was the market for a hypothetical $89,000 Apple car?
At that price, you're talking about less than 25,000 cars sold per year when you look at BMW/Mercedes typical sales per month.
There's just not a lot of people buying new vehicles that approach $100k relative to those at $25-50k.
Kevin Lynch, the guy that ruined apple by getting nothing done. Jobs would have called him a Bozo and fired him a year after being there. When apple starts collapsing, blame this guy along with Tim Cook. What a horrible state apple is in. Milking the money will eventually end and then they'll be stuck in the shower with soap in your eyes as the water gets shut off.
I don't know, cars are getting expensive. My 2020 Ford Explorer Platinum - a nice ride, but not like getting a Ferrari-type mega-car - cost $70,000. Its hard to even find cars under $25,000. The average car cost in the US in 2023 was $48,000.
Forget self driving, all they needed to do is build a reliable cool looking electric car with good software - all the difficult pieces apple already has tremendous expertise - battery and software. This is a complete failure at the leadership that they kept pursing level 4/5 self driving then software only then cars again... instead of just making a regular EV that is reliable and has good software (which no-one really has even today, except maybe tesla).
Tim Cook has spent all the innovations steve job built, all Tim did was ensure efficient operations and iterate on steve's products. The ONLY meaningful innovation that happened on his watch is apple silicon and that is largely derived from iPhone's A chips and by the chip design team.
Even as a business suit not a product guy, he failed to make decisive moves - such as acquiring disney, arms, ev/car company at their lows which would added tremendous value to apple, or innovate and become the leader in battery tech (instead of the chinese) or as an "operation expert" move some of the manufacturing such as screen panels in-house instead of paying samsung their biggest competitor to make them. He did nothing, instead, kept the cash pile in the bank/share buybacks, and bought bunch low risk small companies to play safe, no balls.
The only reason Tim Cook is viewed as successful is because of the strong product pipe line steve built before he died that Tim is able to iterate for the last 10+ years, and lack of serious competitor / innovation to disrupt those products. I think Steve really made a mistake putting an operations guy instead of a product guy as the CEO.
Tim Cook has spent all the innovations steve job built, all Tim did was ensure efficient operations and iterate on steve's products. The ONLY meaningful innovation that happened on his watch is apple silicon and that is largely derived from iPhone's A chips and by the chip design team.
Even as a business suit not a product guy, he failed to make decisive moves - such as acquiring disney, arms, ev/car company at their lows which would added tremendous value to apple, or innovate and become the leader in battery tech (instead of the chinese) or as an "operation expert" move some of the manufacturing such as screen panels in-house instead of paying samsung their biggest competitor to make them. He did nothing, instead, kept the cash pile in the bank/share buybacks, and bought bunch low risk small companies to play safe, no balls.
The only reason Tim Cook is viewed as successful is because of the strong product pipe line steve built before he died that Tim is able to iterate for the last 10+ years, and lack of serious competitor / innovation to disrupt those products. I think Steve really made a mistake putting an operations guy instead of a product guy as the CEO.
Are you actually serious? Apple is many times more valuable now than it was when Tim first took over. Do you know how hard it is to pull the plug on something when you've invested over a decade and billions of dollars? Most companies would rather just put something out to at least have something to show for their efforts.
Acquiring an existing automaker would be anything but smart. Apple tossed away enough money in this endeavor and acquiring a failing automaker would be a recipe to lose a lot more.
No. They bought Hasselblad much later, and to be able to brand their drones cameras with Hasselblad.
Failed in-house modem
Failed Apple Car
Failed vision Pro (why didnt they just put a variable ND filter glass on front and closest to the face, a see-through OLED screen, those that are all over the place now? Huge amount of processing power would be freed. No lag, cause you would have actual see through. Morons.
Greedy **** prices for RAM and internal storage. Keep the 8GB sure but lower the entire line $200.
Why are there no startups aiming to kick them out, startups with their own SW and HW? Busting Apples ass is a low hanging fruit with huge reward.
Failed Apple Car
Failed vision Pro (why didnt they just put a variable ND filter glass on front and closest to the face, a see-through OLED screen, those that are all over the place now? Huge amount of processing power would be freed. No lag, cause you would have actual see through. Morons.
Greedy **** prices for RAM and internal storage. Keep the 8GB sure but lower the entire line $200.
Why are there no startups aiming to kick them out, startups with their own SW and HW? Busting Apples ass is a low hanging fruit with huge reward.
Last edited:
