Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Honestly .... who wants a self-driving / self-thinking car from Apple .... imagine having not only to listen to SIRI, when once again she cannot answer a question put to "her" via iPhone, but now she would also be driving the car telling you all the oh so interesting news of the day, while she has auto-locked the doors so you cannot escape ...
"Siri - take me to the emergency room"
"I found 14 emergency rooms. Whuch one would you like?"
"The clsoest one."
"I'm sorry, I see none named Kloosests One. Bye"
NO THANKS, please let me keep a car that I drive and where I shift the gears using a clutch = yes, stick is the way to go (drive)!!!

A dying art; though clutchless shifting is the way to go; and a tow saver if a master cylinder dies. Match revs and keep moving. Best to learn on someone else's car, though.
 
Are you sure you want a battery based car from an industry leader in a sector that ... has so many issues with battery depletion and overall charge cycles?

Sorry, you've driven your iCar too iMuch.
You're driving it wrong.
80% capacity is expected to be typical operating capacity after that initial road trip to Wally World.

If a dead dinosaur powered car had a gas tank that shrank a little each time it was filled up...
Talk about a Gas Trick Bypass.
 
Elon wasn't "over ambitious," he was lying, just as he always does. There can't be ANY autonomous vehicles without legislation from Congress. Tesla is practically broke, it doesn't have the money to lobby fifty state legislatures and wait for them all to agree to allow self-driving vehicles. The only way this happens is through Congress...and Tesla doesn't have Apple money. The wealthiest lobby wins.
Congress? You mean the US Congress right? They only have jurisdiction of the US which is only 5% of the world's population. The real market for cars is China. After that, for EVs it is Europe. North America is perhaps #3.

If you look way into the future, 25 years perhaps, the market is very large with the bulk of in outside of the US.
 
Well that's great and all, have you ever driven a Durango, a Challenger? How about a Ram or an F-150. I find it hard to believe your Sonata is the best car you'd ever own.

Kia and Hyundai are the same company... They build cars with plastic interiors, charge $5/month if you don't use autopay, and I've never seen a brakes erode so quickly than in the cars these two brands build.

They are all trucks and SUVs. Have you driven a Sonata N? There are folks out there who make comparison to Audi S3 and Mercedes CLA 35 which cost $10K-$15 more. Kia Telluride and Hyundai Palisade are also the class leading vehicles in the 3 row family SUVs segment. I wouldn't recommend a Durango over those two, unless you need a towing capacity of 5,000lb or more. Their interior is far better than Durango's, and often compared to rivals' Luxury SUVs that cost $10K-$20K more.
 
Last edited:
Safety and quality are two different things; however, by your metric a Hyndia Genesis is as high quality as Tesla.

BTW, I never said Tesla was crap or unsafe, however Elon Musk did admit they have issues with QC. Perhaps since or to qoute TFAA "engineering consultant Sandy Munro, who tears apart and reverse-engineers cars to assess quality, issued a brutal appraisal of the Model 3 citing "flaws that we would see on a Kia in the '90s."


Not really. Take out those credits and their profit goes poof and they have a loss about equal to the profits they reported. The question is not can Tesla survive, which they probably can in some form, but are they worth their sky high valuation?

Besides car companies ramping up EV and Hybrid production which will reduce the demand for credits; credits are a political action that car manufacturers may press their governments to change the requirements or penalties as they ramp up; or if paying the penalty is less than paying Tesla they'll simply pay the penalty since it is less and hurts a competitor as a bonus.

As i said, Tesla's challenge is getting sales up and costs down to the point that they are profitable without the credits.

well, you are in the past - NOW, model 3 has great quality.
Now Tesla makes profit on cars (some models) BUT not overall. Tesla is an energy Business, too.

yes, i agree - and elon said himself, they need to get even more profitable - well so what?

and Tesla still improves on every metric, they have just started with 500.000 cars, sorry for you 499500 cars a year!
 
I thought a big step up in battery technology for Apple could be had by producing a battery with a 500 mile range, surprised to see that Lucid Motors already has one at 514, visit their website, the interior seems to be miles ahead of the Tesla in luxury quality, couple that with 0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds and a battery recharge time that also beats the competition, Lucid might have something special.

Everybody has their own opinion, I'm not a fan of the one Ipad screen Tesla dashboard, I prefer the dash setup of BMW's electric Mini Cooper, the Tesla interior looks cheap, obviously you disagree.

everybody has the same tech, nowadays. Tesla will soon build a roadster with 1000mle battery, who cares ...

yea, everyone should buy the brand which appeals to him

lucid has just a glossy prototype and aims for luxury - telsa aims for all of us!
 
From the state of the rumor mill and some napkin math it's clear that if Apple is going into the auto market the first vehicle won't be out until 2027 - 2030. Here's a take on the "napkin":

1. 2021: Discussions with all potential partners, develop terms and process framework
2. Start 2022: Partner choice
3. 2022: Detailed process plans, requirements, etc
4. Start 2024: Design complete, all preparations for rolling to mfg complete. Final set up of production, tooling, etc
5. Start 2025: Factory ready. Mfg ready for initial tests. Create units for testing (safety, quality, process, etc)
6. Start 2026: Refine processes/products/vendor subcomponents/etc for full production
7. Mid 2026: Announce vehicle for 2027 model year
8. 2027 We're driving Apple Cars!

Note this is assuming the design is close to done now (the above is based on vendors/partnerships, and those aren't clearly done)... you can assume some slippage hence the +3 variance.

I'd like to be proven wrong... been without a car for 15 years, but will jump back in for an Apple Car.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Romeo_Nightfall
well, you are in the past - NOW, model 3 has great quality.

Consumer's Report is not so sure about Tesla's recent overall quality, however. It ranked last in JD Power's 2020 survey, Kia was second, BTW. Its TSB's are interesting - missing bolts on suspension components, using a body hammer to realign parts. The Model 3's paint issues (and here or on FB) had Musk advising people not to buy them.

Now Tesla makes profit on cars (some models) BUT not overall.
However, overall profitability is what counts in the long run. If you leave out the non-production expenses it appears the cars are profitable; but once those are included in net profits it's red ink without the credit sales.

Tesla has shown that, for some models, it can sell them for more than it costs to make them. But that's not enough. Tesla needs to be able to ramp up while controlling the rise in non-production costs to become profitable.

Tesla is an energy Business, too.

If it proves to be profitable a spinoff may be in order so that Tesla can focus on that and stop building cars if they can't make a go at it.

yes, i agree - and elon said himself, they need to get even more profitable - well so what?

Because that is the only way they will be viable long term once credit sales dry up. Otherwise, at some point, he will run out of money and investors will not be willing to continue to dump money into a money losing enterprise.

It will be interesting to see if Tesla can start making a net profit as a company on cars alone with credits being merely an added bonus.

Apple looks to avoid the high costs of setting up production facilities and the QC learning curve via a partnership. Amongst the ways that reduce's Apple's risk is that teething problems from build a brand new production facility, training workers, etc. should be less since the manufacturer already has processes on place for QC, etc. Tesla started from scratch which meant problems needed to be sorted while trying to push out as many cars as possible. No matter what happens to Tesla long term, it was a pretty amazing accomplishment to start a whole new car company and produce a large number of cars relative to what other startup car companies have done.
and Tesla still improves on every metric, they have just started with 500.000 cars, sorry for you 499500 cars a year!

Tesla needs to fix its quality issues; ship now and fix later works for software but risks ruining a car makers reputation; especially amongst buyers who don't have to have the latest hot item. Tesla's window of opportunity to establish itself long term gets smaller as the other manufacturers bring out more EVs and hybrids.

he could build cars, but not win wwii

Actually, the Germans were better at selling them than making them. Germans could buy a VW by buying stamps and when the book was full trade it for a car; none were delivered, however.
 
Last edited:
Consumer's Report is not so sure about Tesla's recent overall quality, however. It ranked last in JD Power's 2020 survey, Kia was second, BTW. Its TSB's are interesting - missing bolts on suspension components, using a body hammer to realign parts. The Model 3's paint issues (and here or on FB) had Musk advising people not to buy them.


However, overall profitability is what counts in the long run. If you leave out the non-production expenses it appears the cars are profitable; but once those are included in net profits it's red ink without the credit sales.

Tesla has shown that, for some models, it can sell them for more than it costs to make them. But that's not enough. Tesla needs to be able to ramp up while controlling the rise in non-production costs to become profitable.



If it proves to be profitable a spinoff may be in order so that Tesla can focus on that and stop building cars if they can't make ago at it.



Because that is the only way they will be viable long term once credit sales dry up. Otherwise, at some point, he will run out of money and investors will not be willing to continue to dump money into a money losing enterprise.

It will be interesting to see if Tesla can start making a net profit as a company on cars alone with credits being merely an added bonus.



Tesla needs to fix its quality issues; ship now aand fix later works for software but risks ruining a car makers reputation; especially amongts buyers who don't have to have the latest hot item. Tesla's window of opportunity to establish itself long term gets smaller as the other manufacturers bring out more EVs and hybrids.
They make too many changes too soon. No other automaker will change parts and software mid production run like Tesla does. I am interested to see if Ford does with the Mach E. They ship eye tracking hardware that doesn’t do anything in the vehicles currently. They have said it will allow Level 3 with a software update but we will see if that is true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Romeo_Nightfall
Consumer's Report is not so sure about Tesla's recent overall quality, however. It ranked last in JD Power's 2020 survey, Kia was second, BTW. Its TSB's are interesting - missing bolts on suspension components, using a body hammer to realign parts. The Model 3's paint issues (and here or on FB) had Musk advising people not to buy them.


However, overall profitability is what counts in the long run. If you leave out the non-production expenses it appears the cars are profitable; but once those are included in net profits it's red ink without the credit sales.

Tesla has shown that, for some models, it can sell them for more than it costs to make them. But that's not enough. Tesla needs to be able to ramp up while controlling the rise in non-production costs to become profitable.



If it proves to be profitable a spinoff may be in order so that Tesla can focus on that and stop building cars if they can't make a go at it.



Because that is the only way they will be viable long term once credit sales dry up. Otherwise, at some point, he will run out of money and investors will not be willing to continue to dump money into a money losing enterprise.

It will be interesting to see if Tesla can start making a net profit as a company on cars alone with credits being merely an added bonus.

Apple looks to avoid the high costs of setting up production facilities and the QC learning curve via a partnership. Amongst the ways that reduce's Apple's risk is that teething problems from build a brand new production facility, training workers, etc. should be less since the manufacturer already has processes on place for QC, etc. Tesla started from scratch which meant problems needed to be sorted while trying to push out as many cars as possible. No matter what happens to Tesla long term, it was a pretty amazing accomplishment to start a whole new car company and produce a large number of cars relative to what other startup car companies have done.


Tesla needs to fix its quality issues; ship now and fix later works for software but risks ruining a car makers reputation; especially amongst buyers who don't have to have the latest hot item. Tesla's window of opportunity to establish itself long term gets smaller as the other manufacturers bring out more EVs and hybrids.



Actually, the Germans were better at selling them than making them. Germans could buy a VW by buying stamps and when the book was full trade it for a car; none were delivered, however.

I agree with one thing you have mentioned indirectly - i highly doubt elon is the right person to transform from startup to enterprise! And i am kinda excited to see how (not if) Tesla goes thru this transformation.

In general i think Tesla is more like amazons than apples approach - the will not make profit for some time but when the turn the lever - there will be huge profits.

I think in opposite to you that the cars already have good quality by now or at least end 2021 but i also think that it really doesn’t matter that much anymore - its kind a marketing perversion started ways back in the 80s when quality was really an issue - today its only greed and price.

Honestly what matters most is the software inside and the FSD - majority of people - maybe not Americans buy android Handys and there the cheaper versions not flagship.

As i said - you seem to me like a shortseller or some kinda guy - because Tesla has already more than a million cybertruck orders and truck orders - so the demand for their tech is insane.
There is hardly no company or car company that has ever achieved that kind of consumer trust even before delivering a vehicle.

(... i was referring to the war machinery back then ... but it was more of a joke)
 
As I said before, there's a lot of sharing in between car manufacturers, you sometimes see the base of a standard car shared with a luxury car, I do not have any examples here but I do know it as a fact.

Got one, IIRC the key fob of a Aston Martin is from Volvo, peel away the outer shell and it reveals the Volvo part.
Now, Volvo isn't really a cheap car but quite a bit cheaper than an Aston Martin.

Even the chassis of vehicles are used across luxury brands from their counterpart. The Honda Pilot and Acure MDX used the same chassis, but the suspension was more refined in the MDX. Same goes for the Accord and TL at one point.

A lot of people think Honda or any car manufacturer makes everything and that’s far from true. Honda for example really just makes engines and transmissions and assembles the rest of the car. Even at that, some components (electronics/sensors are made by others). Their radios come from Bose, Pioneer, Alpine, etc... as do their speakers. Their fuel pumps come from Nippon or Bosch. Their seatbelts from Takata, etc...

The quality of the Apple car would be the same if Kia or Ferrari made it.
 
I agree with one thing you have mentioned indirectly - i highly doubt elon is the right person to transform from startup to enterprise! And i am kinda excited to see how (not if) Tesla goes thru this transformation.

Yea, it seems to be more of one of his hobbies than something he is fully engaged in; but at any rate he adds some excitement to a relatively boring industry in terms of how the approach the public.

In general i think Tesla is more like amazons than apples approach - the will not make profit for some time but when the turn the lever - there will be huge profits.

I am not sure Amazon's approach will work for an industry where manufacturing and inventory costs are a large part of the costs, and some Tesla unique GSA costs. For example, Amazon carries inventory for 3rd party sellers but it only costs them warehouse space; Amazon pushed much of the last mile delivery costs and risk on its ADP's. As a result, it can grow faster than its costs due at some point.

Apple seems to be taking a similar risk mitigation approach to the Apple car.

I'm not saying Tesla won't be profitable at some point, just it faces several significant challenges to get there and stay there.

I think in opposite to you that the cars already have good quality by now or at least end 2021 but i also think that it really doesn’t matter that much anymore - its kind a marketing perversion started ways back in the 80s when quality was really an issue - today its only greed and price.

To a certain extent I agree, but a number of Tesla's issues go beyond just minor quality problems.

Honestly what matters most is the software inside and the FSD - majority of people - maybe not Americans buy android Handys and there the cheaper versions not flagship.

Tesla's play may be in the technology and not as a car manufacturer long term.

As i said - you seem to me like a shortseller or some kinda guy -

I have no position in Tesla, I'm just interested in it from a strategy and finance POV.

because Tesla has already more than a million cybertruck orders and truck orders - so the demand for their tech is insane.

Musk estimated 500 - 600K have placed $100 deposits late last year, it looks like 650k by end of December; the question remains how many can he deliver and when, as well as how many will actually turn into paid orders. It's not even clear when full scale production will start; if it is in 2 -3 years as the article implies it will face competition from Ford and Gs; whose owners tend to be brand loyal. GM already is getting ready to sell the new Hummer, for example.

In addition, the Cybertruck is a US market only model, and Tesla is trying to get those with deposits to leaseanother Tesla until the truck can be deklivered in the 2021-2023 timeframe.

There is hardly no company or car company that has ever achieved that kind of consumer trust even before delivering a vehicle.

Tesla has gotten a lot of hype and Musk knows how to excite consumers; but you have to move from early adopters. It's true he gets lots of preorders, but for $100 if you are interested why not take a shot?

The eMustang is popular, but dealers aren't taking orders they know they can't fill.

(... i was referring to the war machinery back then ... but it was more of a joke)

and tried to conquer too many markets...
 
Last edited:
From the state of the rumor mill and some napkin math it's clear that if Apple is going into the auto market the first vehicle won't be out until 2027 - 2030. Here's a take on the "napkin":

1. 2021: Discussions with all potential partners, develop terms and process framework
2. Start 2022: Partner choice
3. 2022: Detailed process plans, requirements, etc
4. Start 2024: Design complete, all preparations for rolling to mfg complete. Final set up of production, tooling, etc
5. Start 2025: Factory ready. Mfg ready for initial tests. Create units for testing (safety, quality, process, etc)
6. Start 2026: Refine processes/products/vendor subcomponents/etc for full production
7. Mid 2026: Announce vehicle for 2027 model year
8. 2027 We're driving Apple Cars!

Note this is assuming the design is close to done now (the above is based on vendors/partnerships, and those aren't clearly done)... you can assume some slippage hence the +3 variance.

I'd like to be proven wrong... been without a car for 15 years, but will jump back in for an Apple Car.
I work in the industry, and that doesn't sound terribly unreasonable, though there are some assumptions in there that people may not like.

The investment bill for a completely unique, ground-up Apple vehicle would likely be over a billion dollars, assuming there's a plant/supplier park/logistics chain ready to go. That said, I don't see any Apple car being a ground-up, unqiue vehicle for Apple. It'll likely be based on a platform like Volkswagon's MEB (Which Ford are getting access to for their own vehicles), or a skateboard like Rivian's (Which Amazon are using for their vans). In the new electric car world, there isn't such a differentiation driven by the powertrain, as it's mostly motors from companies like Bosch attached to batteries from companies like LGChem or Samsung, so unless Apple wants to really go into that rabbithole, they'll do well to have a top hat on top of an already established platform and differentiate through look & feel and software.
 
Are you sure you want a battery based car from an industry leader in a sector that ... has so many issues with battery depletion and overall charge cycles?

Sorry, you've driven your iCar too iMuch.
You're driving it wrong.
80% capacity is expected to be typical operating capacity after that initial road trip to Wally World.

If a dead dinosaur powered car had a gas tank that shrank a little each time it was filled up...
Talk about a Gas Trick Bypass.

That’s chemistry.

Tesla has the same issues, which is why none of us fully-charge our cars unless we really have to.
 
That’s chemistry.

Tesla has the same issues, which is why none of us fully-charge our cars unless we really have to.
Indeed.

It's been interesting to see the different approaches companies have taken.

Some will charge up 100% of their battery with every charge, whilst some only to 80% or so of their capacity in order to cycle the cells getting charged, and be able to provide a longer warranty (xx% of charge over xxx cycles).

The big question I have with regards to an Apple car is "What do Apple bring to the table?". Software integration and UI are their strong suits, and that's something difficult to do on another automakers already existing platform, so aside from the sort of people that frequent this platform (No offense intended), what is it that Apple can do to justify the additional expense over another vehicle that's likely built on exactly the same platform?
 
Indeed.

It's been interesting to see the different approaches companies have taken.

Some will charge up 100% of their battery with every charge, whilst some only to 80% or so of their capacity in order to cycle the cells getting charged, and be able to provide a longer warranty (xx% of charge over xxx cycles).

The big question I have with regards to an Apple car is "What do Apple bring to the table?". Software integration and UI are their strong suits, and that's something difficult to do on another automakers already existing platform, so aside from the sort of people that frequent this platform (No offense intended), what is it that Apple can do to justify the additional expense over another vehicle that's likely built on exactly the same platform?

Apple’s specialty is “design.” They find the annoying little friction points that most of us take for granted, remove them, and then make you think “how’d i ever get along without that?”

What that means in terms of a car, I don’t know. But it will be neat to find out.
 
Another one who thinks he's smarter than Apple's automotive engineers (Many of which came from Tesla).
If you know better than Apple's entire automotive team, then why aren't you working at Apple? Hell, they should fire their entire automotive team and give all their pay to you!

Apple has far more resources than you to hire a team of engineering experts to determine which manufacturer can produce quality parts. Does it upset you that they came to a different conclusion than your preconceived notions?
It may not have to do with smarts. You assume all manufacturers are queuing up to be part of Apple’s Titan project. Kia may very well be the best of the available options, if not the only one.
 
They are all trucks and SUVs. Have you driven a Sonata N? There are folks out there who make comparison to Audi S3 and Mercedes CLA 35 which cost $10K-$15 more. Kia Telluride and Hyundai Palisade are also the class leading vehicles in the 3 row family SUVs segment. I wouldn't recommend a Durango over those two, unless you need a towing capacity of 5,000lb or more. Their interior is far better than Durango's, and often compared to rivals' Luxury SUVs that cost $10K-$20K more.

Decent point. Does the Telluride come with a. 5.7, 6.4, or a 6.2L Hemi? The backlights on the Durango are pretty sick too, and definitely the front end too.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.