Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I would have agreed with this old school car guy before the Tesla was named the safest car of all time. And not just a safe but fun to drive. Car and Driver, Motor Week, etc are all combustion engine fetishists and they've been swooning over the performance.

And Elon Musk has recently open sourced a ton of patents that Apple could very well pillaging (fairly and legally as Musk intended).

Driverless cars (at least for the freeway) are coming... fast. And that means there will be potential media and app consumers looking for something to do for hours a day, 5 days a week. Apple could be building a vehicle, literally, to deliver more content and apps. I'd almost, almost put good money on this happening and them pulling it off.

Enduro
Sent from my MacBook Air... from Detroit

Blah. Driver less electric cars are boring and silly. Car and Driver love regular engines because they are awesome. You've probably never driven or ridden in a real sports car or a muscle car where the engine sound and power characteristics are half the fun.

Tesla? Safe? You mean the ones that arbitrarily blow up or catch fire? Right.

As for this thread.... General Malufunction ought to worry about how their cars murder people before giving Apple any advice. :rolleyes:
 
It's not that they couldn't make cars. It's why would you bother?
If they're thinking of making self driving vehicles then maybe that industry is completely different to what is the current car industry. If that's the case then maybe it's something that they can pioneer.

If it's the current car industry then I don't get the point. When Apple went into phones the big difference was that phones were becoming computers. So yes Nokia had maybe 15 yrs of experience making phones but apple had been making computers since the late 70's. Apple was (and still is) in a prime position to make anything that is really a computer underneath, wether that be smart watches or music players. Apple after all was one of the first and only remaining computer / software companies.

Coming into the car industry is different. Not because you can find a bunch of people to build cars but because what value can you add that established companies in the field can't give? To go to the high end your competing with designers from Porsche, Mercedes, Volkwagen, Audi etc...many associated designers like pininfarina. Apple aren't better than those guys at designing things. Never mind the technology that those guys pioneer and test on race circuits or with formula 1 every year.

Apple may have 35 yrs in Building computers but those guys have nearly a 100 yrs in doing this stuff. So even forgetting the labour and safety costs can you even add value to modern car?

In fact, Tesla is the only car company I've heard of in the last 40 yrs in the high end who've got any traction whatsoever. Apple would be better off investing in Tesla and partnering with an apple tesla brand of they are serious. Making cars is not a side project for any company. It's going to be the main deal if you want any success.

I suppose you never say never, but it really looks unlikely to me.

I agree with most of your points. However the current industry, which is not limited to GM or OEMs, I mean there are plenty of suppliers have already developed the technology and have successfully done implementations not only for vehicles already in the market but also for vehicles working in outer space.
Active Safety systems as well as autonomous driving is here already, maybe not full blown as people are expecting. California already have plenty of vehicles under testing.
 
Its funny how so many people have blindly defended apple, saying how GM failed, or needed a bail out, or how they don't innovate and if (when) apple rolls out a new car they'd be wildly successful because they have so much money and they innovate and they're apple. They can succeed where GM as failed.

I think people will agree that Tesla is really trying to innovate and look at the struggles they've run into. First off they finally turned a profit in 2013 after 10 years of being in business.

Look at the supply channel that is needed, all car manufacturers have a huge supply chain lined up.

Look at the dealership setup, There are regulations that require independent dealerships, I'm not sure if they've been updated for the 21st century yet, but Tesla has run into issues because of that.

Regulations for safety are quite extensive.

Who will make the car for Apple, clearly apple has no manufacturing presence to actually construct a car, so they'd need to contract out. When GM tried to do this with Saturn, they've failed to line one up.

Razor thin margins, high competition, heavy regulations , no supply chain in place. I can't see how apple could even be thinking of this, so much so, I don't believe the rumors at all. The cars being spotted are for some other purpose or feature that may go into a car.
 
I don't think Apple will build their own car. What we'll see is a technology demonstrator using Apple technologies built around a BMW 2-Series Active Tourer or Mercedes-Benz B-Class hatchback.

And I'm crazy about this suggestion, given both BMW and Mercedes-Benz have major research offices in Silicon Valley.
 
Not when it comes to cars. And he's right, the iPhone makes way nicer margins with less risk.

Also: "Akerson said that he absolutely would have partnered with Apple. 'I'd have turned over the infotainment and interconnectivity of every car.'" Sounds like a good guy to me (unless he's just BSing). Everything Apple and even Google make are far better than anything in any car. Yes, even the Tesla system sucks in comparison.
He's full of hot air.

He was CEO when Apple previewed iOS in the Car back in 2013. He could have set the partnership in motion then.

Sure he had resigned 3 months, when CarPlay launched... but there should have already been so much internal motion if he had truly partnered, options would have appeared in late 2014 models, and 2015 Chevy's across the board would be shipping with it.
 
Not that Apple should be taking advice from GM, but I tend to agree entering the car business full on doesn't make sense and I doubt they are. If they build car I'm guessing it would just be a showcase for whatever automotive technologies they are working on (i.e. Infotainment, Navigation, etc...) I doubt they actually intend to sell cars; unless they buy a company (i.e. Tesla).
 
I don't think Apple would ever actually want to sell a car. They're going to build a small number cars and then make them available as a taxi service in major cities. The margins for that will be quite good. Each car will pay for itself many times over.

This is why they're building a van first, and it's also why Tesla engineers are excited to leave Tesla and work with them. Not to mention that from a legal perspective and terms of complexity it is much easier to have one company drive autonomous cars within some controllable routes than to give millions of individuals their own autonomous cars to go crazy with. They won't even need much of a charging infrastructure.

Google will probably do the same thing. I don't see why any company that is not an automaker would want to sell autonomous cars. There is much more money in renting them out.
 
Last edited:
The delusion and hypocrisy of this antiquated dinosaur is glorious.

"Apple should stay out of fields with such low profit margins."

There's only low profit margins for you because your monopoly privilege and sloven acquiescence to labor union thuggery has awarded you no incentive to be profitable or even engage in the most basic innovation, competition, or customer service.

"They'd better think carefully if they want to get into the hard-core manufacturing,' he said of Apple. 'We take steel, raw steel, and turn it into car. They have no idea what they're getting into if they get into that.'"

Again, see my original comments. This is presupposition that because you've been doing it for a century, and poorly at that, no one else can. This is the basest of arrogance of the monopolist.

I will credit him with this:

"In an interview with Bloomberg, Akerson said that Apple may be underestimating the difficulty of operating in the car business, as it's hard to navigate regulatory and safety requirements. 'A lot of people who don't ever operate in it don't understand and have a tendency to underestimate.'"

This is very true; the state has made car manufacturing a nightmare for entrepreneur and innovators. Because of the excess of regulation, or am I repeating myself, cars have essentially become homogenized. Features are basically the same across all manufacturers, save for packaging. Providing the customer what they want ended decades ago. Federal law now forces manufacturers to give customers what the state says they need.

What he's also saying, very coyly, is that if Apple or whoever gets too good, or figures out a way to beat the system, the dinosaurs will use their lobbyists to sic the state on them. Look what's happening to Telsa. Whilst I oppose their b.s. environmentalist mantra on principle, I soundly applaud them for going after the entrenched dealership scam. I'm reminded of what some corrupt bureaucrat in New Jersey said a while back, "buying a car isn't like buying an iPad." Heh. Truer words have never been spoken.

Overall, a last gasp by a dying, increasingly irrelevant fat cat. Don't get me wrong; this venture by Apple is due to the manipulated economy and the buckets of phoney money sloshing around. But kudos for jumping feet first into the rapids. You're over the mark when you start taking shrapnel.
 
Blah. Driver less electric cars are boring and silly. Car and Driver love regular engines because they are awesome. You've probably never driven or ridden in a real sports car or a muscle car where the engine sound and power characteristics are half the fun.

Tesla? Safe? You mean the ones that arbitrarily blow up or catch fire? Right.

As for this thread.... General Malufunction ought to worry about how their cars murder people before giving Apple any advice. :rolleyes:

I have driven the old 5.0 Mustangs of the 80's, some fun little Mazda rice burner which name eludes me, I've had a giant V8 T Bird that I loved, owned a Taurus SHO, a Suburban and been a passenger in all sorts of sports cars but they're becoming the niche, not the norm. You sound like Bob Lutz or some other arrogant dinosaur fuel loving dinosaur whose short sightedness allowed the Japanese to clean our clocks..

I personally could careless about driving as a daily part of my routine. It's boring, it's just transportation. I'd rather be doing something else during my commute and the millennials REALLY feel this way. No one gets laid because of their car anymore. That's an extinct baby boomer selling point. Sure, maybe you might get some vapid chick who watches the Fast and the Furious but teenagers are no longer dreaming of sitting in a car at the malt shop. The car is now seen as just another tool, not the brass ring.

What I could see being more likely now that I've thought about it is that Apple may want to own exactly what the exec said he would give to Apple. The whole infotainment system. Perhaps they are working on owning the entire user experience and licensing it to the manufactures who are bleeding R&D money trying to beat each other with experiences that are out of date, clumsy and lackluster by the time they hit the market. Apple could very well be working on a GPS, entertainment, HVAC controller and driverless system for a seamless experience and standard. I think a lot of manufacturers would love to outsource this task to a trusted company like Apple. You could test this type of system in any variety of cars. An ugly as minivan for example.
 
lolz... says a guy who's company went bankrupt, screwed its employees and begged the government for a bailout..
 
Its funny how so many people have blindly defended apple, saying how GM failed, or needed a bail out, or how they don't innovate and if (when) apple rolls out a new car they'd be wildly successful because they have so much money and they innovate and they're apple. They can succeed where GM as failed.
...
When GM tried to do this with Saturn, they've failed to line one up.
I love how you say GM failed as much as you love how so many other people do.

GM certainly knows how to fail.

----------

A comparable article about the impending failure of the iPhone:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aRelVKWbMAv0

Classic!
 
Personally, I don't think Apple is getting into making car. I think they are creating more technology and integrate into CarPlay. I think they try to create a better software for car system especially for the center console. Those probably will get much better profit margin than making a car. The technology can also license to more car manufacturers.
 
Yeah, just like they didn't know how to build phones either.

Apple were already in the electronics business building PCs and iPods so going from that to designing a phone that is essentially a small computer is one thing (and a great thing it is too), but going from that to cars? Surely its a whole different ball game.

I know there are people on here that think Apple can do no wrong but they don't get everything right they jump into head first no matter how much cash they have stockpiled and pumped into it....... Apple Maps for one is still a dog compared to Google Maps.
 
"We take steel, raw steel, and turn it into car."

Haha, seriously? Apple takes an abundant amount of materials and makes the most advance and revolutionary technology of our day. Not that it matters if they are marking a car or not, but they make some awesome products.

Right. Raw steel into cars, great. So what? Margins on turning steel into house framing are probably better. Anyway, Apple carves laptops from blocks of milled aluminum. When GM carves a car out of a block of steel, let me know. Not that Ive couldn't design such an item for GM if they like the idea. Not sure the roads in the USA could take the joke.

Akerson wasn't really a car guy himself anyway, despite his stint at GM. His resumé was mostly telecoms, which of course does not make him a phone guy either. But, maybe he's actually fishing for a post at Apple.
 
Apple were already in the electronics business building PCs and iPods so going from that to designing a phone that is essentially a small computer is one thing (and a great thing it is too), but going from that to cars? Surely its a whole different ball game.

I know there are people on here that think Apple can do no wrong but they don't get everything right they jump into head first no matter how much cash they have stockpiled and pumped into it....... Apple Maps for one is still a dog compared to Google Maps.
Well, they're going from computers to highly-computerized cars. And Elon Musk (not to mention Google) has paved the way. There's no way that Musk could succeed in going from PayPal to automobiles. What's next: Rocket science? Trains? (Heh!)

I don't know if Apple will succeed, but the Wright brothers went from bicycles to airplanes, and I believe Apple CAN succeed.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.