Apple Expands Company Trademarks to Cover Vehicles, but Similar Filings Date Back to 2003

[filmantopia]

Yeah you do realise that those are all PC's in some from? Something quite different from a car?

I do see them in a partnership, not as a sole manufacturer for anything that a regular person can buy ,

So you're just basing your prediction, in the face of a series of reports suggesting otherwise, on the notion that it's not a computing platform?

You're thinking too two dimensionally. First, we don't even know that the Apple Car can't be a computing platform-- what if the primary way to "communicate" with the vehicle becomes overall more computer-like than anything else? What if in the near future getting into a car is more like getting into your moving computer? Cell phones nor watches weren't widely thought of as computing devices before Apple popularized the ideas.

Secondly, Apple has been very clear about heir position: their goal is to make great products. They have never verbally restricted themselves to making any specific kind of product, such as a computing platform (which the original iPod arguably was not)-- they've only committed to making great products in markets where they feel they have something to contribute.

An Apple car makes a lot of sense to me, really. It's a highly profitable market in the realm of personal technology that is ripe for disruption and change. Cars have only offered the same experience for a long, long time. Their rate of development has been remarkably slow. It's also a market that could appeal to Tim Cook because of its world-changing potential (green, reduces oil dependency, safer, etc.) .We're reaching an age when vehicles will soon reach incredible levels of autonomy-- and that's the point when a major rethinking of 'what vehicles are and how we interact with them' will come into play, and who better to do this than Apple?

 

[percius1001]

I agree with you

It doesn't matter that Apple first had trademarks in this area going back to 2003. It's always possible that they had nascent ideas about cars back then too. It's also possible that just like the iPad, which was being developed as far back as 2001, they decided the technology wasn't developed enough for a successful product, and that people weren't yet ready for it.

But now, we're used to the idea of electric cars, just as we were prepared for an iPad after the iPhone. As its being said, it can take Apple five years to get a car on the road, if they are working on doing so. And, of course, the naysayers who are trying to point out how difficult this is, and the regulations Apple will have to wade through as so complex, that Apple won't have an interest in doing it, are ignoring one major thing, well, perhaps two.

The first, and the biggest, is that Apple would have an automotive partner to build this vehicle, and who would have a part in designing portions of it. This partner, being an auto manufacturer, would be very familiar with the complexities of the regulatory system.

The second is that many of the regulations involve pollution, and danger, from gas and diesel fueled autos. If Apple would be doing an electric auto, and I can't imagine anything else, then all of those regulations don't apply. Electric vehicles are also much simpler.

So while I don't pretend to know anything here, I can imagine that Apple would, at the very least, be looking into this in a serious way. Even if they don't plan to sell their own, they might be doing research into an actual car to see more intimately how the mechanical systems interact with the computerized ones. It's very possible, that even without an actual car, Apple may want more than just an entertainment system overlaying someone else's OS. Perhaps they want the whole thing, and only by building a car themselves will they understand it well enough.

I agree with you Friend.

I have heard all the arguments regarding if Apple are going to make a Car. I can not say yes or no, I can only say what I think. For what it is worth I think that they are. the reasons being as follows

1) Apple have been going on a hiring spree recently. They have been hiring people from Tesla, A123 Battery Systems and others including Mercedes Benz former Head of R&D and Ford. All these people, have expertise in the arena of Car Engineering..I.E they know how to design, create and Engineer a Car.
I know that people say Apple are simply doing something with Carplay or creating an accessory of some sort to interact with Cars in general. If that were so they would not hire Engineers but hire Software programmers(though they could just use their own). They already created Carplay so would not need to know how it(and other Software) would interact with a Car as they already know.

2) Apple have the vast cash reserves needed to create a Car. They in fact have too much cash. They can not do much with it without getting taxed a fortune on it so they in fact need to find ways to 'spend' some of it without wasting it for the sake of it.

3) Apple need to show investors and the Market as a whole that they can innovate still and deliver new products in new areas. There is a limit to what they can do in Consumer Electronics. The Smartphone Market is soon reaching saturation point and the pace of new innovation will slow down. this won't be comfortable news for investors and the Market as they expect too much from Apple. This is a case of Apple being too successful for their own good. A victim of their own success. So they need to diversify in other Fields. If you look at the top 5 Markets that dominate the FTSE100 or DOWJONES or any major Exchange then they are dominated by Oil and Gas, Automobile, Financial/Banking etc
Apple already is getting into the Finance Market with Apple Pay. So the Car business would represent a new direction for Apple and be a potential source of new growth.

3) Apple likes to disrupt existing Markets. They did this with the online Music business, the Phone business and many others, so why not the Car business

4) Apple's chief design Guru and assistant Jonny Ive and Marc Newson are both Car fans and are fed up with how Cars are at the moment, especially in terms of design. This would be an area they could be let loose with to disrupt things and shake it up somewhat.

5) Apple are good at vertical integration. A Car would be a good way for Apple to showcase that talent. The Car would be Electric because Apple like to be Environmentally friendly and show it's Green credentials. So an Electronic Car is a combination of Electronic Hardware and Software, This is what i am talking about, Apple do that so well.

6) Yes I know it is a Car and you doubters will say it means that Apple would not be good at creating a Car because it is not Consumer electronics. However it is as i say a combination of Hardware and Software so if they can apply their knowledge and expertise to a Car then i do not see why it would not be possible to create a decent Car.

7) Regarding the regulations. Yes Apple have never built a Car before but they never built a Phone before and had to learn the regulations involved in selling one. So they learned what they needed to know. They had never built many things before all of which needed to pass certain regulations so they went out and learned what they had to, or they simply hired people who already knew.
Eddie Cue Apple's Senior Vice president of Internet Services and Software sits on the board of Ferrari A CAR COMPANY! yes I know this may not mean much to you but it says to me that he has the contacts and expertise in knowing how to make sure a Car passes regulations in terms of making sure the right people are hired and what regulations needed to be passed. If Apple are making a Car then it would not be Petrol Car so would not compete with Ferrari so I could not see a problem with Ferrari having a 'quiet' chat with Eddie and telling him things he needed to know. He is after all a Director of the Firm

8) Apple have the structure set up to sell a Car. They have their Website and Apple Stores and 3rd part retailers such as Target etc. This means that although I can't see you popping to a local Apple Store and seeing the Apple Car on display to buy I does that Apple therefore have the expertise and experience of dealing with 3rd Parties in selling their products. So they hauled not have the issues of sorting out an agreement with Car Dealers. Thus not suffering the issues Tesla do in the States.

there are many more reasons I could list but it all starts to make sense to me.
At the end of the day though we will have to wait and see as to if they do not not.
i for one can't wait to see if they do or do not or what they have up their sleeve but let us not forget what Tim Cook said last year, that we have things in the Pipeline nobody knows about or have commented on
so anything is possible

 

[Antares]

Vehicles; Apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water; electronic hardware components for motor vehicles, rail cars and locomotives, ships and aircraft; Anti-theft devices; Theft alarms for vehicles; Bicycles; Golf carts; Wheelchairs; Air pumps; Motorcycles; Aftermarket parts (after-market parts) and accessories for the aforesaid goods.

They've curiously left out something obvious.....spacecraft. Or does that fall under the "Ships" category. But they also only mention land, air or water. Seems like a major oversight.

 

[melgross]

just by saying this single paragraph you have outed yourself at having little knowledge at all about what Tesla is.

Elon Musk, through Tesla invented the technology behind the rapid power charging technology that is a near requirement at this poitn for battery powered cards to even have a chance.

http://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/supercharger

And then, instead of draconian measures to limit and control who can use the technology, Musk gave free access to all supercharger patents for anyone who wants to create electric cars.

this has been a revolutionary step in the electric vehicle world and without it we'd basically be stuck with Chevy Volts.

this is just his work with Tesla. he's also head of SpaceX that is designing one of the first reusable, rocket based space exploration vehicles.

he was one of the leading drivers behind PayPal's near universal online payment systems back in the day.

From a purely technical knowledge standpoint, Elon Musk is a lot more technically knwoledgeable and proficient than Steve Jobs ever was. Remember, Job's wasn't the techie. He was the "visionary" who knew how to take the tech, give it a fancy veneer that people wanted and then selling them.

He was not actually a leading inventor of technology himself.

I know plenty about Tesla. I've been following it since he began the company. Quick charging was around long before he patented that specific implementation.
PayPal is the most successful implementation of payment systems that existed before. If EBay didn't buy it, and make it mandatory, it wouldn't be the big deal it is today.

I like the idea of SpaceX. It's great, but again, it's just the most successful (so far) of a number of companies in the field. Boeing was doing this decades ago.

The Tesla doesn't perform all that well. It's fast, yes, and as other electric cars, can accelerate quickly. But it has a 200 mile range only if you're wildly optimistic. He had a fight a couple of years ago, though it might have been last winter, I don't remember exactly, where the driver from the NY Times was disappointed with the performance. Tesla said not to use the heater, not to brake quickly, not to travel over 55mph, etc. No, I'm not particularly impressed by his overpriced cars. Or by the fact that he's losing money hand over foot. Or that some of the cars seem to have major problems that haven't yet been solved. Or that the mid priced model is running more than 6 months late, with no prospect of it being released anytime soon.

----------

I agree with you Friend.

I have heard all the arguments regarding if Apple are going to make a Car. I can not say yes or no, I can only say what I think. For what it is worth I think that they are. the reasons being as follows

1) Apple have been going on a hiring spree recently. They have been hiring people from Tesla, A123 Battery Systems and others including Mercedes Benz former Head of R&D and Ford. All these people, have expertise in the arena of Car Engineering..I.E they know how to design, create and Engineer a Car.
I know that people say Apple are simply doing something with Carplay or creating an accessory of some sort to interact with Cars in general. If that were so they would not hire Engineers but hire Software programmers(though they could just use their own). They already created Carplay so would not need to know how it(and other Software) would interact with a Car as they already know.

2) Apple have the vast cash reserves needed to create a Car. They in fact have too much cash. They can not do much with it without getting taxed a fortune on it so they in fact need to find ways to 'spend' some of it without wasting it for the sake of it.

3) Apple need to show investors and the Market as a whole that they can innovate still and deliver new products in new areas. There is a limit to what they can do in Consumer Electronics. The Smartphone Market is soon reaching saturation point and the pace of new innovation will slow down. this won't be comfortable news for investors and the Market as they expect too much from Apple. This is a case of Apple being too successful for their own good. A victim of their own success. So they need to diversify in other Fields. If you look at the top 5 Markets that dominate the FTSE100 or DOWJONES or any major Exchange then they are dominated by Oil and Gas, Automobile, Financial/Banking etc
Apple already is getting into the Finance Market with Apple Pay. So the Car business would represent a new direction for Apple and be a potential source of new growth.

3) Apple likes to disrupt existing Markets. They did this with the online Music business, the Phone business and many others, so why not the Car business

4) Apple's chief design Guru and assistant Jonny Ive and Marc Newson are both Car fans and are fed up with how Cars are at the moment, especially in terms of design. This would be an area they could be let loose with to disrupt things and shake it up somewhat.

5) Apple are good at vertical integration. A Car would be a good way for Apple to showcase that talent. The Car would be Electric because Apple like to be Environmentally friendly and show it's Green credentials. So an Electronic Car is a combination of Electronic Hardware and Software, This is what i am talking about, Apple do that so well.

6) Yes I know it is a Car and you doubters will say it means that Apple would not be good at creating a Car because it is not Consumer electronics. However it is as i say a combination of Hardware and Software so if they can apply their knowledge and expertise to a Car then i do not see why it would not be possible to create a decent Car.

7) Regarding the regulations. Yes Apple have never built a Car before but they never built a Phone before and had to learn the regulations involved in selling one. So they learned what they needed to know. They had never built many things before all of which needed to pass certain regulations so they went out and learned what they had to, or they simply hired people who already knew.
Eddie Cue Apple's Senior Vice president of Internet Services and Software sits on the board of Ferrari A CAR COMPANY! yes I know this may not mean much to you but it says to me that he has the contacts and expertise in knowing how to make sure a Car passes regulations in terms of making sure the right people are hired and what regulations needed to be passed. If Apple are making a Car then it would not be Petrol Car so would not compete with Ferrari so I could not see a problem with Ferrari having a 'quiet' chat with Eddie and telling him things he needed to know. He is after all a Director of the Firm

8) Apple have the structure set up to sell a Car. They have their Website and Apple Stores and 3rd part retailers such as Target etc. This means that although I can't see you popping to a local Apple Store and seeing the Apple Car on display to buy I does that Apple therefore have the expertise and experience of dealing with 3rd Parties in selling their products. So they hauled not have the issues of sorting out an agreement with Car Dealers. Thus not suffering the issues Tesla do in the States.

there are many more reasons I could list but it all starts to make sense to me.
At the end of the day though we will have to wait and see as to if they do not not.
i for one can't wait to see if they do or do not or what they have up their sleeve but let us not forget what Tim Cook said last year, that we have things in the Pipeline nobody knows about or have commented on
so anything is possible

All good reasons. Of course, we won't know until they do. And if they don't, we'll never know.

 

[k995]

So you're just basing your prediction, in the face of a series of reports suggesting otherwise, on the notion that it's not a computing platform?

No on basis that its totaly out of comfort zone for apple, in a highy competitive market that years and billions to even start in .

It costs around 1-6billion to develop a car for seasoned companies. You can double that with apple. Unlike computer tech, buying and assembling of the shelve hardware is a lot harder . Product and production cycles usualy last decades and you cant use foxconn to assemble cars. Although if apple put enough money on the table they wouldnt hesitate to do so.

You're thinking too two dimensionally. First, we don't even know that the Apple Car can't be a computing platform-- what if the primary way to "communicate" with the vehicle becomes overall more computer-like than anything else? What if in the near future getting into a car is more like getting into your moving computer? Cell phones nor watches weren't widely thought of as computing devices before Apple popularized the ideas.

Absolute BS. Cell phones and watches were highy computerised in reality as in fiction before apple even though about it, hell they probably got he idea from those themselves. Sorry I am not one to inscrive on the "apple invented everything"

And do tell how they would computerize a car engine, transmission? Tyres? Maintenance? Service stations?

Yes I see them designing the media/even drive itself part of the car. But people here are talking about a full car build alone by apple ,

Secondly, Apple has been very clear about heir position: their goal is to make great products. They have never verbally restricted themselves to making any specific kind of product, such as a computing platform (which the original iPod arguably was not)-- they've only committed to making great products in markets where they feel they have something to contribute.

An Apple car makes a lot of sense to me, really. It's a highly profitable market in the realm of personal technology that is ripe for disruption and change. Cars have only offered the same experience for a long, long time. Their rate of development has been remarkably slow. It's also a market that could appeal to Tim Cook because of its world-changing potential (green, reduces oil dependency, safer, etc.) .We're reaching an age when vehicles will soon reach incredible levels of autonomy-- and that's the point when a major rethinking of 'what vehicles are and how we interact with them' will come into play, and who better to do this than Apple?

Again to me apple is a company that takes of the shelve already formed idea's and makes them better . Its what they do best. Yes I see them partnering up with some car manufacturer and designing the media part or other already computerized sections and making it a lot better. Not really hard as most suck .

Cars are not like computers for a reason, not because they cant implement them but cars have different standards of operation then a regular pc, phone or watch. Its a bit more then slapping some samsung electronics together and loading a good OS on it .

I worked for a couple of years in the automotive sector and I frankly dont see apple doing this. There are so many different markets they could enter that would be a lot easier, more logic and probably with more profits then becoming a car manufacturer .

 

[IJ Reilly]

never seen the poison pill strategy before. interesting too

suffice ot say we're basically saying the same thing to these guys


A hostile takover isn't as simple as "why hasn't Apple just bought them yet"

there's way more too it than just having money

Poison pills are pretty much standard operating procedure now. In general hostile takeovers don't make much sense, if only because the company doing the taking over will have to pay a huge premium for the company, and will likely have a protracted proxy battle on their hands (both expensive and distracting). If companies don't agree to merge, it rarely happens. In fact I can't remember the last hostile takeover of any size.

 

[GRuizMD]

It's quite interésting how now macrumors is suddenly full of car experts, specially Tesla Model S car experts That probably have not even test driven one.

I have a Tesla Model S85. Just turned 2K miles. I can tell you that what you say about the car's performance and shortcomings is absolutely incorrect.

My S85 will run for an indefinitely amount of miles all the way from miami, my hometown to Vancouver and back. Why? Because Tesla built a national network of superchargers that will charge the car in 20 to 40 min for free for the life of the vehicle. No other electric vehicle is capable of a cross country trip as this one. No other company is even close.

For the day to day commute (35 miles day): I wake up to a fully charged car that can take me 243 miles on a single charge. I repeat, I wake up and my car is always fully charged. Range anxiety? 2K miles driven never had even thought about range.

Furthermore, in 2K miles, I have not paid a cent for energy as I charge at work on a provided EV charger. How's that for economy.

Do I think about not braking too hard or no accelerating? That's bs. I drive this car as it is, a performance sedan at the level of a Maserati or an Aston Martin. By pulling the foot from the"gas" pedal I brake the car and create regenerative energy that charges the battery: I drive my car in a spirited way with only one foot. Top that.

The car is so well constructed and secure that is nowadays probably the SAFEST luxury sedan in the market. No car in it's category in the world can outperform its frontal crash testing or its anti-rollover characteristics.

Reliability is way beyond that of any ICE car. Tesla's drive Unit has only one moving piece- compared that to a gasoline engine (ICE). It has no transmission either.

I have 100% torque available from 0 mph. Do you think that this particular characteristic invites to dull driving??. Go and test drive one. You will come back to stand corrected

It's also been praised worldwide and it has the greatest rating ever from serious car enthusiasts and consumer advocacy institutions.

This car is way beyond what ICE drivers could imagine. I could go on in pages praising this fine piece of manufacturing, but that's beyond the point.

So those comments from previous posters were probably applicable to a Prius or a leaf. Not to a Tesla Model S.

Can Apple build a Car? Certainly they can, will they? Only Mr. Cook and his team know. Being a Tesla owner puts me in a different perspective. The midel S just did not come out of Musk's ass. It's the product of almost two decades of research and development.

Tesla has been on the spotlight for its poor financial performance. That's true, however, consider this: They can not build the cars fast enough for the demand they have. I waited 3 months for mine. The Model X has 20K reservations. 20K People put $5K in advance without even seeing a physical prototype.

Tesla is building a Gigafactory that not only will decrease the value of the battery - the most expensive component of the car - it will also put through more batteries than the rest of the world manufactures combined, that will allow him to flood the market with a sedan priced at $35K. 500k units per year. That will change the world as we know it when it comes to transportation.

The model S is a market strategy. So wise that many people can't grasp the concept: Create a groundbreaking product, appealing at the luxury market that changed an industry for the first time since the Model T in more than 100years - a feat even more ambitious and grandiose than Apple's entry in the cellphone market- show them that you can build an innovative product that blows even the finest completion out of the water, create desire and market envy. then flood the consumer segment with an affordable Product that has the same brand. Tesla will be worth billions in 10years, the stakeholders know it and that's the reason they stay quiet when they work at a market lose, but savings worth billions in R&D.

Knowing tesla as I do, I think that Apple will get into the car business, will the manufacture a car? Hell no, they will sell the electronic components of a car that will function in a similar way to Teslas software. This module, based on an iPad like center console will be upgradable, why do they need people that know about car engineering? Because the system will integrate with the car in a much more intimate way than CarPlay which is only an infotainment appendage. This apple car will be the brains of a car, not the actual chasis - and you will be buying one every other year. For those who think I'm trolling, I attach d a pic of my Tesla App - depicting my car (yes that her name) and its current state of charge and location.

 

[Tech198]

There we go

How can they NOT trademark this.... there's been rumors left, right & center here.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Tesla has been on the spotlight for its poor financial performance. That's true, however, consider this: They can not build the cars fast enough for the demand they have. I waited 3 months for mine. The Model X has 20K reservations. 20K People put $5K in advance without even seeing a physical prototype.

In the midst of all this unrestrained gushing about Tesla (and we thought rabid Apple fans were bad), this statement jumped right out at me for its lack of realism.

The tough problem with the automobile business is achieving the economies of scale necessary to produce cars profitably. A car manufacturer can have customers lining up miles deep and still not survive if they can't produce in sufficient volume, and that volume and the infrastructure to support it costs money. Lots and lots of money. The lift for Tesla is even greater than a more conventional entry because of the need to create and support their recharging infrastructure, which may come to their customers at no additional cost, but is both a capital and recurring cost for Tesla.

Could this all work out for Tesla ultimately? Maybe. The jury is still out. One thing for sure though, many a company in this and similar businesses went under, and it wasn't for lack of interest in or demand for their products. It was because revenue could not be made to exceed expenses.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

They could also be coming out with a car stereo system.

I had emailed Steve Jobs quite a number of years ago wondering why Apple didn't pursue that market, as they already had the ability to wirelessly sync devices and it would make keeping a car head unit up to date pretty easy, not to mention a killer UI for it too.

I never got a response.

But it would be pretty awesome if they came out with a replacement stereo unit for cars. They could even do something with satellite one-way, or 2-way communication too. I know that some units now offer 'live' weather satellite displays, and 2-way is on boats.

The Onion had a blurb/swipe on an 'Apple Car'. Pointed, but funny. They didn't mention the people that would line up for blocks to drool on the display, and *maybe* drive out with one on release day...