Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple R&D Spending on Track to Top Record $10 Billion Amid Electric Vehicle Rumors

Col4bin said:
Funny you say that. I'm still rocking my 2011 iPad 2 that's very slow running iOS 7. Been reluctant to upgrade since it's only a web surfing/Youtube tablet for my kids.
Click to expand...
I always buy the highest GB size available , as it tends to take about 3 years to be the lowest.
(Apple takes it's sweet time to increase GBs as we know)

If you have a 2nd Gen 64GB iOS 9.3 is fine.

Also, just surf with it, soccer highlights, magazines, newspapers, youtube and some games. Does all of it well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Col4bin
techconc said:
I'm not sure that I understand the rationale behind this comment. Apple is damned if they do nothing but continue to work on their legacy products. Simply throwing more money at them doesn't really advance them any faster. Apple is sitting on a cash horde and it is their responsibility to see where they can move the company next. While moving into the automotive segment may prove to be a mistake, I can't help but think that not even trying for the next big thing would be a bigger mistake.

As for Steve Jobs' plan, he has always talked about not dwelling on past accomplishments but to move on to the next big thing.
Click to expand...
IMHO Apple is losing focus. They earned their reputation as a computer company. Yet in recent years, has neglected their computer line. Tim saw big $$ in being a phone company and it was like he was distracted by a shiny thing. Then there was a shift toward being a fashion company. While there is nothing wrong with making an attractive computer, one can't forget that it is first and foremost a production and communication tool.

Apple had built a loyal base for their computers. And although MACs didn't generate as much $$ as phones, the profit margins were still excellent.

If Apple wants to play with cars maybe they'd be better off creating a completely separate company or just buy a stake in Tesla. Just like with the watch and iPad pro, they seem to be going after niche markets rather than expanding their appeal to the broader markets. As far as the eye can see, people still need computers. They should play to the strengths that built the company, not abandon them.
 
To me this chart says they used to be able to get much more bang for the buck in R&D. I'm sure inflation plays a piece but I don't think it explains all of it.
 
newdeal said:
I would have more faith in an Apple car if we were in the "just works" era and not the "sorry your wifi doesn't work properly, maybe it will be fixed with a software update" era
Click to expand...

We are sorry your car directed you into a ditch, it will be inevitably fixed with a software update.
[doublepost=1463158806][/doublepost]
goldenboy48 said:
You say that now.
Click to expand...

The leap between a car an iPad/computer is massive.

iPad has what at its heart:

A processor,
Memory,
Motherboard
Storage Device
etc.

What does the computer have at its heart:
A processor,
Memory,
Motherboard
Storage Device

What does a car have at its heart:
A drive train,
A transmission,
A suspension

Even the Tesla, at its heart is the above, but it has a computer added to it.

Apple Car project is a money losing proposition which is destroying the company. Before you point the finger at Google, might I add, Google admits that the Car project is just a money loosing hobby venture like many of its other such as Google Fibre.
 
Last edited:
Thunderhawks said:
I always buy the highest GB size available , as it tends to take about 3 years to be the lowest.
(Apple takes it's sweet time to increase GBs as we know)

If you have a 2nd Gen 64GB iOS 9.3 is fine.

Also, just surf with it, soccer highlights, magazines, newspapers, youtube and some games. Does all of it well.
Click to expand...
So you spend a fortune more on the highest GB model, and from the sounds of it, barely use any of it? Sounds like a waste to me..
 
Amacfa said:
You should know that the CEO Mr. Travis Kalanick intends on replacing drivers with fleets of autonomous vehicles.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. But I think my point is right that going from an app and coordinate company, to a company that has to buy capital investments and maintain them, is a huge pivot. Adding driverless cars to the fleet means spending billions and millions per city. The cars then compete against your existing fleet of drivers. The cars have to be maintained and cleaned (and I shudder to think what the insides of a driverless car will be like after months (or years) of picking up passengers who are in there unsupervised (and don't tell me there will be cameras recording every spot of that car and that customers will go for that)). They devalue over time. You have to fuel them (presumably electric, which means you need a place to store them during the hour or two they take to recharge) which is cost and time. You have to make back the upfront cash outlay over years. It is just a much different process.

Yes Uber saves on the amount that the driver would have been paid. But you can't raise prices or you won't get customers. You have to compete against folks who own their own driverless car and no longer have to take a cab home after a night out drinking. You aren't delivering mainly a hassle free driving service where someone else drives for you as customers already have that available to them in their own driverless car. So you have to compete on price vs price of ownership. So your customers trend to the price sensitive portion of society as opposed to current business model which sells convenience and sells to folks who aren't that price sensitive (see business consumers who bill back to their company and who don't care what an Uber costs). So now you are competing with public transit which is really cheap and is subsidized by the state.

The transition just seems very very hard.
 
TallManNY said:
Yes, I know that. But I think my point is right that going from an app and coordinate company, to a company that has to buy capital investments and maintain them, is a huge pivot. Adding driverless cars to the fleet means spending billions and millions per city. The cars then compete against your existing fleet of drivers. The cars have to be maintained and cleaned (and I shudder to think what the insides of a driverless car will be like after months (or years) of picking up passengers who are in there unsupervised (and don't tell me there will be cameras recording every spot of that car and that customers will go for that)). They devalue over time. You have to fuel them (presumably electric, which means you need a place to store them during the hour or two they take to recharge) which is cost and time. You have to make back the upfront cash outlay over years. It is just a much different process.
Click to expand...

These hypothetical problems are already solved. See Zipcar, Enterpise Car Share, Car2go. These cars are used, shared, cleaned, and fueled.


The transition just seems very very hard.
Click to expand...

Virtually every uber-type service is switching to autonomous fleets (China and US) It's cheaper than contracted drivers.
 
admob71 said:
So you spend a fortune more on the highest GB model, and from the sounds of it, barely use any of it? Sounds like a waste to me..
Click to expand...
No, as the music library grows, as the unerased emails and photos grow, more apps, puzzles) etc.etc., I use up the GBs. Don't do cloud.
It also enables me to have many apps open all at the same time.

Let's just say I have been doing that since 1984 with all my Apple stuff (as long as I could afford it) and it works for me:)
 
Amacfa said:
These hypothetical problems are already solved. See Zipcar, Enterpise Car Share, Car2go. These cars are used, shared, cleaned, and fueled.




Virtually every uber-type service is switching to autonomous fleets (China and US) It's cheaper than contracted drivers.
Click to expand...

I think those are different situations than a cab that runs around and picks people up for shorter rides. The traffic is just much higher. Those cars you reference get driven by one person per day. Maybe two or three per day for the short term rentals. And they do a credit check on you before you can join those services (or at least they used to). And the car you picked up in your neighborhood was likely to be the same car you'd get next week. You are basically a member of those services. A cab is having 25 to 100 users per day. And every night that cab will be picking up drunk people in a way that the shared cars aren't (or at least the driver of the shared car isn't sloppy drunk).

These services may all be talking about autonomous fleets but obviously none are switching to it. Now I'm a big believer that we will have autonomous cars. But are we five years away or are we 10 years away, I don't know. And when they come they are going to be new tech. Is Uber going to spend a billion dollars to buy the first generation of these cars? And is this going to be cheaper than the drivers who are supplying their own car and only pulling down $20 per hour?

If the tech is there and the cost of these autonomous cars isn't too much, then this can be done. But it is still going to take enormous capital outlay to buy these cars. And spending that kind of money and then making it back over time is just a different model from Uber just "turning on" its app in a city. I know it isn't as simple as that as they have to hire drivers. But most of their infrastructure is just software and rented data center. That was the genius of these services. It becomes a different model if the have to buy a fleet of cars. Then the car rental companies might be better suited to dominate this space than the "app guys".
 
sober2ndthought said:
We are sorry your car directed you into a ditch, it will be inevitably fixed with a software update.
[doublepost=1463158806][/doublepost]

The leap between a car an iPad/computer is massive.

iPad has what at its heart:

A processor,
Memory,
Motherboard
Storage Device
etc.

What does the computer have at its heart:
A processor,
Memory,
Motherboard
Storage Device

What does a car have at its heart:
A drive train,
A transmission,
A suspension

Even the Tesla, at its heart is the above, but it has a computer added to it.

Apple Car project is a money losing proposition which is destroying the company. Before you point the finger at Google, might I add, Google admits that the Car project is just a money loosing hobby venture like many of its other such as Google Fibre.
Click to expand...

Good grief, Apple sells experience, not a product. Get a clue.
That you think Apple is about "tech" tells me you don't actually get Apple at All.

That Apple started in computers is just incidental, nothing else. Jobs wanted to get into car a long time ago.
 
Thunderhawks said:
I use up the GBs. Don't do cloud.
It also enables me to have many apps open all at the same time.

Let's just say I have been doing that since 1984 with all my Apple stuff (as long as I could afford it) and it works for me:)
Click to expand...

Brilliant, a mac user since 1984, and thinks storage size has something to do with how many apps you can have open. Lol you should be a poster boy for Apple my friend. You are so their target audience!! Lol
[doublepost=1463208748][/doublepost]
Keirasplace said:
That Apple started in computers is just incidental, nothing else. Jobs wanted to get into car a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Lol, so what you are saying is that 40 years ago jobs decided that his way into the cat industry was to start selling computers, to make enough money to build music player, to make enough money to build phones then tablets, then and only then, when he had enough money, to start building a car. Wow, talk about playing the long game...
 
But it is still going to take enormous capital outlay to buy these cars. And spending that kind of money and then making it back over time is just a different model from Uber just "turning on" its app in a city. I know it isn't as simple as that as they have to hire drivers. But most of their infrastructure is just software and rented data center. That was the genius of these services. It becomes a different model if the have to buy a fleet of cars. Then the car rental companies might be better suited to dominate this space than the "app guys".
Click to expand...

I think if a company like Tesla can create electric vehicles and begun a disruption - then a company like Apple can continue it. If any company was in a position to do so, it's Apple.

I have a theory that Apple is using C4's mapping technology to build a 3D world which will form the basis of their autonomous operations. They've done scans of the sky and used it for Flyover, but with unmarked minivans making rounds around the US - it seems clear they are laying a foundation.

If that's the case (which it seems like it is, as partnerships with VW and BMW fell through because of Apples need for heavy 'iCloud' integration) then the autonomous operations will all be Apple side. Companies like uber and Didi... will only need to purchase or lease the fleet from Apple - and not have to touch a single thing as far as how the vehicles operate. It's a much more profitable and safer model.
 
Oh man....my apple car isn't working. I"m glad I got Apple care plus. I'll just go ahead and take it to the store and hopefully they'll replace it. th.jpeg

"Sorry, sir. You just drove it wrong." -Apple staff.
 
admob71 said:
Brilliant, a mac user since 1984, and thinks storage size has something to do with how many apps you can have open. Lol you should be a poster boy for Apple my friend. You are so their target audience!! Lol
[doublepost=1463208748]/QUOTE]

Obviously not, but agreed, not well explained by me trying to respond quickly at work:)
Both sentences relate to different issues.

I always buy the highest GB "size" really means "configuration" of whatever Apple product I buy (as long as I can afford it)

Bought a 2014 MBP 16GB memory 512GB ssd, as I know the measly 4GB memory Apples starts with is not enough for multitasking.
Or, when it was still possible to upgrade Macs, I'd start out with what I could afford, knowing where I would end up maxed out. (add chips or ssds etc.)
Click to expand...
 
actinide said:
A car contains computers, however the process of designing a car is not as simple as designing a computer or smartphone.
A couple of reasons:
(1) An iphone and macbook serve the same function: displaying information which can be reprogrammed or edited to deliver a desired result. That cannot be said for a car.

(2) If a unit or component fails in a mac or iphone, then your whole product fails:
- the cpu fails, well goodbye iphone or macbook,
- the hard disk fails, up to the repair shop,
- the gpu fails, too bad, get a new one.
Thats because all units are installed in serie.
That is completely different with a car. A car is build as such that when one component fails, another component will take over the assignment. Such systems are designed in parallel and proper insight is required (safety, product specs, environmental issues, etc.).
If not properly designed, consequences can be disastrous (deaths).

(3) then there are the legal implications especially considering self-driven cars. Who is to blame for an accident (the car / or the passenger). This debate is ongoing.

I applaud apple for taking this risk, but if all their efforts are put into this project,....

Making an analogy between cars and iphone/macbooks/etc. is wrong, and just proves how much jibber-jabber is written on this forum.

As an endnote: The rumours of designing a car was well before they started hiring professionals of GM, Tesla etc at a speed. Its pretty obvious that this is a cry for help.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone is suggesting that a car is just a bigger computer, but the biggest advances being made in cars have more to do with the computer system than the engineering. That was my point. The way cars go has been relatively unchanged over the last few decades. What's changed is everything else. And that's why Google, Apple and Tesla are all trying to step in.
 
iShater said:
Whatever you do, do NOT put iOS 9 on it. If you think it is slow now ... :eek:
Click to expand...
Yeah, agree. It's slow enough and laggy on iOS 7 as it is, and yet is only utilizing about 1/3'rd of its total available storage. The time to upgrade is getting closer... Maybe next year. :cool:
 
Serban said:
Mercedes or apple car ?? hmm
Click to expand...
A fine German automobile with a rich storied history. Currently selling fast, refined, well proven luxury motorcars.

Apple car? Following in the shadow of the overrated, over hyped, battery powered Tesla, the Cupertino companies venture promises to be an interesting way to waste millions in R&D money.
 
Sometime in the future, Tim Cook at an Apple Event:

"Today we change the world. Today we introduce four new products:
An iPod. A Phone. An Internet Communicator. A car.
An iPod, a phone, an Internet communicator and a car. An iPod, a phone … Are you getting it?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back