Apple Watch Chief Kevin Lynch to Work on Apple Car Development

[matrix07]

I hate this. Let him concentrate on watchOS!

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Apparently a perfect vita for a car developer

 

[Alan Wynn]

Err, you're accumulating the years to make it sound better than it really is.

Not really. You listed 3 features that have been cut over 6 years. Whether they were all cut in the first 3 years, does not change that there have not really been wholesale changes in WatchOS year after year, and I would hardly call 3 many.

Glances was in the initial version and was removed by WatchOS 3.0. Time travel was removed after 2-3 years.

Yup a feature from a new product in a new area that gets cut after 2-3 years seems pretty reasonable.

Averaging 2-3 years of axing a feature is a slap in the face to developers who have to spend their precious engineering hours supporting a new feature.

No. Things get tried with new products that do not necessarily work. One sometimes needs to see how some features are received by the real world and not all will work. The real skill is knowing to cut bait when needed.

 

[allenvanhellen]

Kevin Lynch didn't get Apple Watch right the first time around. He's had to axe so many features because they were useless.

This doesn't look good for Apple Car.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The problem with the first Apple Watch was its processor. The original software would have been great on a series 2. I really miss Glances and Time Travel. Also, Walkie Talkie and some other features were announced before launch and probably had to be cut due to the limitations of the hardware.

 

[amartinez1660]

Could it be that they are just borrowing key members time to drive work on the Apple Car depending on which part of the production, design, evaluation, brainstorming, etc phases the development is at?

Finding it weird to think that it’s changing ownership hands so often, feels deliberate by now.

 

[HarryWild]

Will Apple Car stay with the half circle vehicle design or will it try to look sexy and luxurious with a more appealing look?

 

[MacManiac1]

Apple should buy Lucid and put their software into the car.

 

[mannyvel]

Fine, replace "synergy" with "expertise" or "experience" or "commonality". My point still stands. Apple is a design company and cares very much about the specific hardware and customer experience. It is not interchangeable in their eyes. When you think about it, the entire philosophy of Watch is to get in and out in only a few seconds. Any car will hold your attention for many minutes if not hours while you arrive to your destination. Completely different experience and approach.

As I said before, the car is a known quantity. It really isn't that hard to make relative to other things. Just look at all the electric car companies in China that have started in the last few years.

I mean, it's beyond most people, but it's not rocket science. You can buy the expertise you mean, you don't have to figure it out from scratch.

 

[Someyoungguy]

Breaking: I have obtained pictures of the car’s user interface that attempts to mimic the diversity and cohesiveness of inputs from the Apple Watch.

 

[Byron Ladias]

Mansfield came back to deal with the car project, and he's left again...and they left the AI guy in charge. That's bad, because the AI guy never ships anything. AI is not a product, it's a technology in search of problems.

The AW dude at least shipped a product that iterated its way to success. Really, they weren't quite sure what the AW was supposed to be - they thought it would be more of a social thing at first. They quickly pivoted when the market told them something different.

With a car, well, the requirements for a car have been known for decades. The only real questions are execution and "what extra does Apple bring to the table?"

john giannandrea oversees the car. he doesn’t lead it. just like jeff williams oversees design but doesn’t lead it. doug field (ex tesla executive), leads the apple car project.

 

[Byron Ladias]

I'm sure he learned a lot but there's zero synergy between Apple Watch and Car engineers. Apple TV engineer would have made more sense since most of the Apple Car will be about content consumption for users.

maybe he’ll lead software

 

[Byron Ladias]

Is Bob Mansfield still there, or did he actually, legit, 100%, retire, retire already?

I thought he was working on the car project.

100% retire. doug field (ex tesla chief engineer) leads the project now, with john giannandrea overseeing it.

 

[Byron Ladias]

Would like to know if he has ever (personally) RE-built an Engine for ANY of his cars in his lifetime.

That is the single-most-important Data Point !

Same goes for John Giannandrea, their car lead.

giannandrea is not their car lead. giannandrea oversees the car project just like jeff williams overseas design. doug field, ex tesla chief engineer leads the car project
and the engine point u made is completely irrelevant to anything

 

[farewelwilliams]

I wholeheartedly disagree. The problem with the first Apple Watch was its processor. The original software would have been great on a series 2. I really miss Glances and Time Travel.

Not many developers adopted time travel. If so few developers adopted it, it's not much of use to the broader audience.
Glances doesn't make sense as complications pretty much covers that. If the watch had enough ram and processing power to power glances, it has enough resources to power complications.

Also, Walkie Talkie and some other features were announced before launch and probably had to be cut due to the limitations of the hardware.

Unrelated.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Not really. You listed 3 features that have been cut over 6 years. Whether they were all cut in the first 3 years, does not change that there have not really been wholesale changes in WatchOS year after year, and I would hardly call 3 many.

You're using a useless metric. It's like saying 4 features were cut in a span of 10 years when really 3 were cut in 6 months and 1 took 10 years. No point.

Developers like myself are frustrated at the constant axing of features that took precious engineering hours that we'll never get back. Less technologically capable users are frustrated at relearning how to use the watch.

Yup a feature from a new product in a new area that gets cut after 2-3 years seems pretty reasonable.

Disagree.

No. Things get tried with new products that do not necessarily work. One sometimes needs to see how some features are received by the real world and not all will work. The real skill is knowing to cut bait when needed.

See Samsung when they released 4-5 new smartwatches in a span of about 1 year. This isn't a great idea for users or developers.

Agree to disagree.

 

[wigby]

As I said before, the car is a known quantity. It really isn't that hard to make relative to other things. Just look at all the electric car companies in China that have started in the last few years.

I mean, it's beyond most people, but it's not rocket science. You can buy the expertise you mean, you don't have to figure it out from scratch.

When has Apple ever bought IP or a company and not rebuilt it from the ground up to make it fit their own brand? Why would anyone want an Apple Car if it didn't have some innovative software and hardware integration that made it stand out from a dozen Chinese clones?

 

[Byron Ladias]

Apple has made consumer electronics before. Not a vehicle. Can they keep making them until they get it right? Certainly. Are companies like Toyota, GM, Ford, Volkswagen perfect when it comes to car designs? No. And for each I can think of situations where they designed something unsafe and their initial response was to deny that they were at fault.

Tesla is the only company in the US I can think of that has started a car company up from scratch here in the US. They initially were very high end cars($$$), they had manufacturing problems and in fact with body fit they still do, and I heard that they are having problems with their autopilot software right now. But they look like they are going to be around for a while. The basic premise and engineering are pretty good. But I don’t know if they have achieved profitability yet. And if they have it wasn’t 5 or 6 years ago it was something a lot more recent. There are other new manufacturers also planning to sell EV’s. Apple probably has the money to undercut and wait out some of them but not all of them.

I live in a state where snow and ice are common in winter, and road maintenance is difficult to get approved. Trying to talk my state into providing a self driving car navigation aid isn’t going to fly here, at least not for a few years. So a self driving car that can handle winter weather and has self driving technology that doesn’t rely on a government funded system for self driving is what would have to happen for EV’s to try to compete here.

I don’t think ANYONE has the car/truck yet that meets those qualifications. Most of the central and Great Plains states would also be a hard sell. Cutting out 1/3 of the market isn’t a recipe for success.

tesla has achieved profitability. they have very thick margins on their cars which is great. also, their manufacturing technology is top notch. a lot more efficient than everyone, even tho they have some fit and finish problems, these have been decreasing significantly and their new factories have great quality control. they don’t appear to make a huge profit since their goal isn’t to please short term investors but to invest in their future. they could have been profitable years ago they started if they didn’t invest this heavily in new factories and processes and acquisitions

 

[Byron Ladias]

I still dont believe this story, as much as i would love to see an Apple car, i really doubt it is such an Open secret! I mean it makes no sense Apple working on a car.

it makes total sense

 

[Byron Ladias]

When has Apple ever bought IP or a company and not rebuilt it from the ground up to make it fit their own brand? Why would anyone want an Apple Car if it didn't have some innovative software and hardware integration that made it stand out from a dozen Chinese clones?

apple has bought more than 100 companies. including companies to make face id, touch id, their processors, self driving cars, apple music, cameras, etc etc etc

 

[Byron Ladias]

I still remain unconvinced that Apple are making a car at all. This whole project looks like a skunkworks project to better understand and develop AI and camera technology that can recognise the world. It is likely the iPhone 12 LiDAR was a result of research done on self driving vehicles. The guy in charge is a machine learning expert ffs. This will all filter down into iDevices at some point which is the whole point of the endeavour.

All the other stuff about suppliers and analysts is conjecture at this point.

john giannandrea is not in charge. he’s overseeing. the same way jeff williams is overseeing design, but alan dye and evans hankey lead it. doug field leads the car project (ex tesla chief engineer )

 

[One2Grift]

Keep raising the bar and Apple will jump over it if they want to. Phones weren't "consumer electronics" until they were. Computers weren't consumer electronics until they were. Music players were consumer electronics, but niche.

A car is just another object to design and build.

Can Apple's process handle building something like that? We'll see. Again, they've done it before, they are the few that might be capable of doing it again.

Building cars isn't rocket science. At their core they're simple machines that have had layers of complexity added onto them. Building a car isn't like building a reusable space vehicle. For a normal car, the engineering problems are well-known. The design problems are well-known. The domain is well-known. There are lots of car people willing to tell you what you need to know for enough money. There are even more people willing to give you advice on how to do pretty much everything.

Really, the main question at this point is "what's Apple's value-add?"

Well said.
One add, cars are well known. Combustion engine fuel and exhaust, steering/brake/acceleration driver guided system, electric system etc. But cars that run fully electric and drives autonomously aren't figured out. That is actually pretty wide open. This is where tech companies come in. Battery life, AI, software -- these are things that are wide open to tech companies. This is where a company like Apple could redefine this vehicle of the (supposed) future.
I like Apple's chances but there are A LOT of EV companies. And unlike other spaces they moved into, this one will cost time, people and money WAY above their previous.
If they pull it off, Apple will be strikingly singular in its size and success. No other company will have come even remotely close.

 

[BuddyTronic]

People said the same thing about an iPad and Apple watch. Apple knows what they are doing.

Agreed, and there are other companies entering the electric automobile space and Apple has likely been researching this for a long long time now. If other startups are doing it - Apple can do the same, plus better, one would think.

 

[BuddyTronic]

Apple should buy Lucid and put their software into the car.

That sounds interesting. I wonder what other companies could be bought or partnered. I guess I have to start looking.

 

[Zwhaler]

I'm sure he learned a lot but there's zero synergy between Apple Watch and Car engineers. Apple TV engineer would have made more sense since most of the Apple Car will be about content consumption for users.

This may seem true from a hardware perspective, but what they both have in common is developing a new operating system that intersects wireless, OTA software, sensors, UI, and interaction with other iOS devices and loads of back-end services. That is likely foundation of this project. In this context, it makes perfect sense.

 

[pankajdoharey]

Makes full sense.

if Apple wants to grow and deliver more to its investors and society it has to move into segments that offer big growth potential which are poorly addressed by the incumbents in those segments.

As for new large scale segments to move into, think finance, medical and transportation. Any one of these successfully addressed by Apple would give a big boost to growth. Apple is active since years in all three.

These three together are insurance policies for growth. If one takes off, the others can be delayed for later growth or abandoned if they are no longer attractive.

If Apple doesn’t want to slide into being a dividend stock, but still wants to be a growth stock, it needs to pursue such big projects outside the defined limits its past product experience by defining itself, as it does, as a company solving unaddressed problems by reimagining those solutions with significantly better design, software, product and production management and customer support, satisfaction and delight.

I Agree with you in parts if Apple doesnt want to slip into divident stock it has to look at other projects, But a Car isnt a very profitable business. Apple iPhone or Consumer electronics Business in general is Put X make 30-300% margin. Car Business simply doesnt have those numbers but more importantly it puts significant risk on the brand. If tomorrow an Apple car meets accident it would significantly tarnish Apple Brand then say Tesla which is still a budding brand and has an army of Elon Musk Fans. Also Apple is a more long term thinkign company they wouldnt build anything that doesnt give them any market advantage. A car isnt a Large iPhone, and Apple Doesnt have any strategic advantage to offer.