It makes sense Apple expand into the car market. It would be fantastic, however, I do think that it's current product line has felt the impact. It's product just feels weak.
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 R&D Spending on Track to Top Record $10 Billion Amid Electric Vehicle Rumors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple does not play well with others. However a Rose Gold Corvette would be sexy as all hell.Why not partner with an existing manufacturer and just release a Rose Gold car?
Actually on balance, stepping back and looking at the really big picture, are these electric cars really any more eco friendly than regular cars? Their computers need rare earth materials, the mining of which is not eco friendly. The building of the infrastructure needed to support public charging stations requires energy and raw materials. I'm not educated enough to answer one way or another. I am genuinely curious about this. There is always a price to pay for every option.
Another thing that Apple must be working on is VR. I suspect one of the reasons it dropped TV is that they realized that VR is going to replace TV sooner than folks realize. A few VR headsets exist. But would it surprise you if in four years those headsets were half the size, half the price and much much more powerful? I don't think that would surprise anyone.
Now considering the experience the headsets can deliver right now, the VR headsets four years from now are going to be "must have" items. If a company gets serious market share in a new industry that ends up being used by nearly everyone, much in the way that smartphones are now, that is going to be serious game changing money. And a VR headset is so much more up Apple's alley that they must be working on this full speed ahead.
Now considering the experience the headsets can deliver right now, the VR headsets four years from now are going to be "must have" items. If a company gets serious market share in a new industry that ends up being used by nearly everyone, much in the way that smartphones are now, that is going to be serious game changing money. And a VR headset is so much more up Apple's alley that they must be working on this full speed ahead.
Apple does not play well with others. However a Rose Gold Corvette would be sexy as all hell.Why not partner with an existing manufacturer and just release a Rose Gold car?
You're assuming they haven't tried to do just that. Musk is playing the longest game of them all. He's not concerned with quarter to quarter results or making a few billion here or there.
IMO, going the headset route for VR or AR is an approach that will only hit niche markets. To go mass market, you need a projection systems where little if any head-mounted equipment exists. This way, multiple people can witness a VR or AR experience with only a select few in the group controlling the experience. That is where I'm placing my money.
[doublepost=1463074057][/doublepost]
Not really, that is the fun part of this forum.
Yes, they are much more eco friendly. As you point out they aren't free from effect. Not by any means. But the not burning oil everyday is just such a huge eco friendly thing that having a battery and a more powerful computer doesn't even compare. And as our electricity sources switch to renewable, the cars will actually get more eco friendly after they are purchased.
This is certainly one way to look at it, and quite valid. There are other ways to look at it, too. Communications and transportation are two sides of the same coin - both take you beyond your human limitations. Sometimes you need to be there physically, sometimes you can stay put. Come/go vs. push/fetch.
I'm looking beyond "computers" per se to artificial and distributed intelligence. It's about the way we interact with and control the world about us. If it is to be a seamless experience, then the companies that deliver that experience have to be everywhere - transportation is a substantial piece of "everywhere."
Does Apple necessarily have to manufacture cars to do that? Of course not - they can do that in a more limited sense via Car Play. But for a moment, think of motor vehicles as androids/autonomous robots - they must move in order to fulfill their function, but they can't perform that function without intelligence. Intelligence will transform our relationship with the vehicle, just as intelligence has changed our relationship with the telephone. Apple can both deliver the systems that other car makers use and produce a more limited quantity of vehicles that will project the Apple brand as a paradigm. Software, services, and hardware.
I have no way of knowing what Apple will do, but one of the possibilities is that Apple isn't approaching this as a "car" project, but as a transportation project. Personal transportation (private vehicles) is often at odds with public transportation/mass transit. Autonomous vehicles will integrate nicely into the public/mass transit picture. They'll be substantially less expensive than an Uber or taxi. The same vehicle can deliver either private or shared ride, capacities can range from one to hundreds of passengers... Then there's delivery - constant electronic surveillance, TouchID verification of the recipient's identity prior to unlocking the package compartment. The same vehicle may deliver a pizza then moments later, pick up a passenger...
Perhaps Apple's vehicles will be available as a premium-quality service, rather than as a retail product?
They absolutely should buy Tesla, and make Musk the CEO of apple.
He'd probably go for it if they offer to fund space X as well.
Tim can retire.
Will never happen. Elon is his own man and rather do his own thing than be a corporate b---h like Tim.
And it's also a very stupid move because the Space X project will bleed Apple out fast. Apple doesn't have that particular expertise and experience in that realm. They would have to go through stricter fed regulations for the private space race.
Tim should just simply go because the longer he stays there, the more damaging his presence will be for the company. And if you think Williams is the right replacement for him, think again.
He's not.
Ok, let's play your fun game. If you don't think Hololens is the future then you must have entered the dementia stage 2-3. I'd suggest to keep your money in the bank, they surely will better handle it than you.Not really, that is the fun part of this forum.
Hope it's fun enough for you.
And the sad truth is that, as far as visionaries go, Musk is more reminiscent of Jobs than Cook is by a long shot. Cook is a master of supply chain management. Apple's recent lack of ingenuity and innovation is a reflection of that with only Ive at the creative helm.
I'm actually surprised Apple hasn't tried to buy Tesla yet. Seems like a good fit, if that industry is indeed where Apple wants to pivot to.
Apple R&D = $24bn over 3 years. Some context - CERN annual budget $1.1bn (to discover how the universe works and make Nobel prize winning discoveries & a bunch of real-world-relevant advances in materials and high performance computing). NASA annual budget $19bn (to explore solar system, observe the earth, undertake manned spaceflight, sustain a space station and innovate across the aerospace domain). Total cost to build ITER fusion reactor circa $15bn (to take major steps towards a revolutionary commercial power source).
Apple management should be ashamed of themselves - pathetic really how little there is to show for those R&D dollars. Conservatively if I got the noughts in the right place that has to be the equivalent of circa 25k person years of effort EVERY YEAR. It's a heroic feat to spend that much a year (especially to end up with nothing but a dropping share price to show for it). Maybe it's just an accounting trick to generate even more tax write downs?
How many truly innovative, life enhancing, job creating start-ups could that $10bn a year from Apple fund? Or maybe they could just pay their fair share of taxes around the world to fund innovation that way?
Apple management should be ashamed of themselves - pathetic really how little there is to show for those R&D dollars. Conservatively if I got the noughts in the right place that has to be the equivalent of circa 25k person years of effort EVERY YEAR. It's a heroic feat to spend that much a year (especially to end up with nothing but a dropping share price to show for it). Maybe it's just an accounting trick to generate even more tax write downs?
How many truly innovative, life enhancing, job creating start-ups could that $10bn a year from Apple fund? Or maybe they could just pay their fair share of taxes around the world to fund innovation that way?
Last edited:
You should not expect to see stuff that they spent serious R&D cash on in 2015 until sometime in 2017. The R&D is early stage activities and then there is probably a year before the tech gets into the manufacturing process. Maybe R&D on a watch band gets out into the market in less than a year. But the watch bands would be the fast and easy stuff that doesn't cost huge amounts of R&D. The real stuff (like Touch ID, true tone, or 3D touch) probably takes two years to get out of the lab and into our hands. You have to figure for something to go from new tech to being something the manufacturers can make millions per week of takes a long time. So I really don't think we know what they've spent the last two year's of R&D on. And we certainly haven't seen what they spent last year's R&D money on. That hasn't hit the market. And since a lot of the money is for Titan, we know it won't hit the market for years.
[doublepost=1463076552][/doublepost]
Well arguably Jobs wasn't as much of a visionary as Musk. Musk is a crazy ambitious guy. He is just off the charts. Automated cars, space exploration, solar power, all being done at the same time. Jobs never tried anything that ambitious. So comparing Tim to Musk isn't entirely fair.
Now that makes sense. A lot of sense.
However, looking at how massively regulated the car industry and the transportation industry is I don't see it ending very well in the short time period....
Fair comment re the lead time to see R&D output in the market. However spend in 2013 and 2014 totalled over $10bn so the ought to be a lot of tangible benefit out there by now. Also the IT market moves very quickly up and over the adoption curve so flash to bang on R&D spend needs to reflect that pace of change?