Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple officially canceled their car project in early 2024. Not long after Biden announced there would be a 100% import tariff on electric cars manufactured and imported from China.
I looked it up and you have the timeline wrong. Apple canceled the car project in January, Biden announced that later in the year in May
 
  • Love
Reactions: turbineseaplane
No... The Biden administration was taking about imposing 100% electric cars manufactured in China in 2023. Apple killed their EV in February 2024 knowing they were coming. The tariffs officially went into effect in May of 2024.

Foxconn ( one of Apple's favorite contract manufacturers ) bought a USA based , huge car manufacturing plant in 2022.


( and there a large LG battery factory located right next to the old GM Lordstown plant.)

There was no 100% need for Apple to make a car in China at all. ( extremely unlikely that even if Apple had done a car that it would be an relatively high volume one. Probably very expensive and not particularly needing anything more than a single factory site for a very long time. ). Likely this also has more to do with decreasing the Tax xubsidies for crazy expensive car ( i.e., mainly a rich person 'pork' ) to moving the subsidies to more affordable cars ( which Apple extremely likely was not going to make).


Apple cancels car project and now Foxconn sells huge plant that they bought.


Effectively leasing it back to do AI data. center equipment manufacturing.


P.S. Apple's car project likely more so died for two other reasons. First, they set their objective for a driverless car. So have to complexly solve the 100% autonomous car problem before can sell a car. That was Jony Ive, "painted ourselves into a corner' nonsense.

Second Apple's boondoggle payments from Google for doing next to nothing ( $10-20B/year ) were at creditble threat. It doesn't matter to spend a $1B a year on a "hole in the ground" when there is always a fresh pot of "blow the money like a drunken sailer on shore leave" coming in year after year.

In an era where Apple has to subsidize tariff payments even less so to hold onto boondoggle projects.

P.P.S. The glacier slow adiption of Apple Car Play Ultra probably has a "apple car" contribution problem also. Ford doesn't like buying critical parts from GM for good reason. Apple has problems being the dutiful subtractor and competitor at the same time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
Rayban display has a small display and it adds a lot of value.

In a single dimension. They also add 20 grams of weight just on frames alone. Carrying case is heavier and the wrist ban is obviously heavier (versus none. The Apple Watch 11 weighs ( 38g) less than the neural band (42g) .




).

Apple hasn't shipped a single glasses product yet. Doing two is dubious. If the audio control/response doesn't work right it isn't worth doing either one. ( Mac was just one model at first, iPhone was just model at first, iPad ... just one model at first. Apple watch really just one model with different finishes and accessories. The basic body and internal circuits ... exactly just one. Apple silicon transition kit ... just one SoC A14Z .. pragmatically Apple did the base M-series for years prior just as a iPad Pro model. They didn't start with three different dies entirely from scratch to launch Mac Apple Silicon product line up. )

Even Meta started off with just one model several years ago.


Gyro isn’t accurate enough for accurate small movements.

"As small as possible" gestures only add to the 'creepy' factor. (e.g. taking pictures of people with it it being obvious. Not really listening while doing something else. etc.)

Apple already has 10's of millions of watch owners (and a steady stream of new customers). Even larger with the AirPods. Throwing away that possible synergy is somewhat dubious. As point out the watch already weighs less than the band does. How many people are going to buy both ( in money and additional weight) ?


I think the glass definitely needs to display something, especially when meta rayban display is already on the table. They can have a cheaper version with audio only

Apple has to make to everything that everyone else makes is fundamentally flawed. Apple doesn't make a lot of products. No thicker gamer laptop. No dedicated server box, Affordable original SE phone price? Nope.

More than likely Apple's. display-less glasses will cost at least as much as Meta (likely) subsidized Display glasses do. (specially is slap a Apple Watch like SoC in there carrying baggage they the device doesn't use). ( Meta is following same approach where they try to 'buy' market share as they didd in the VR headset market. The subsidy is is in part to turn the customer into the 'product' (data feed for the advertising) ). Meta is also no dropping their original-display option. So yes, a substantive portion of the market is cost sensitive enough to need a lower priced product.
 
Wow I didn’t think of that. It would be worse than a Tesla

Funny you wrote this as I'm literally reading about their "more affordable" car, finally..

A $40,000 stripped to the bone Model Y

Includes a glass roof "covered by cloth".

Good luck with this offering against 2026 Ioniq 5's starting at 35k
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.