Kuo: Apple Car to Use Hyundai's E-GMP Battery Electric Platform, General Motors Partnership Also Possible

[Cosmosent]

The Service part of this makes it a Show Stopper !

What do you mean I need to take my $70,000 USD Apple Car to a Hyundai dealership for Service ???

Cook, I want my money back !!!

 

[jjudson]

Cannot even begin to imagine the cost. Cars are not cheap at the best of times. Now this will be Electric and Apple branded. Cannot imagine if will be less than £200k for a base model.

"...Apple will market the vehicle as a "very high-end" model, or "significantly higher" than a standard electric vehicle..."

Apple always likes to be the premium priced system, but when you talk about cars, the air gets pretty thin in the universe that can afford this. Tesla is already challenged with being expensive, but even government subsidies wont put much of a dent in what it looks like Apple wants to deliver.

 

[jjudson]

It’s not realistically possible to completely eliminate the spread of infectious diseases and viruses unless humans radically change their entire basis of interaction (such as never having contact with anybody else). And would we want to? Resistance is an important facet of human survivabilty, without any a biological threat could wipe out the whole species.

However, I envisage a mist of disinfectant between rides could be useful and easily achievable. Probably deodoriser too.

I lick every doorknob I can find.

I never get sick, but my breath really smells...

 

[steve62388]

The only reason it wouldn’t make sense to own a vehicle is if you don’t drive or travel much at all - say in a big city. Which is no different than today.

Renting a car means that the owner of the car will still be dealing with depreciation and therefore need to make up the difference in charging renters. If someone drives regularly, that becomes more expensive than just owning the vehicle because you’re paying a middle man.

There is no way that would become the primary vehicle model across the US in the next, even 50 years. The majority of the country has too much distance to travel for basic needs - groceries, goods, etc. And that’s without considering the American desire of personal mobility and freedom.

I can’t speak to other countries.

You misunderstand. You’re not renting a vehicle like you do today. A company owns a large fleet of autonomous electric vehicles, moving them onto the road at times and locations where they’re needed according to demand, which is easily predicted. You pay a subscription, per ride, or a combination of both. You order up a ride whenever you need one, travel to your destination and exit the vehicle, apart from the cost the distance is irrelevant. If you’re taking the same route at the same time each day the system can have one waiting for you (or perhaps this could be an add on service).

The vast majority of people don’t use their car 24 hours a day, it’s considerably less (parked is not use). The economies possible by a fleet owner being able to much more fully utilise that asset means the cost to the end user will be cheaper than owning a personal vehicle.

By the time this future is possible (autonomous driving being the anchor), long haul goods deliveries will be made by driverless trucks. There may still be some edge cases where ownership makes sense. But even then I wonder, a fleet owner would be able to get a pretty good discount on 10,000 cars, or car manufacturers could become fleet owners. So it might always be cheaper to call for a ride.

 

[ksurgenor]

Are the wheels extra?
View attachment 1723464

Wow - shots fired.

 

[now i see it]

Everyone on earth will know it's a Hyundai vehicle. Slapping an  logo on it won't change anything

 

[MayaTlab]

No UI is the best UI, and someone is working on a little thing called Neuralink.

Indeed. Apple following Tesla is your basic silicone valley groupthink bandwagon at work. Neuralink, on the other hand, aims at two areas where Apple already is an expert at or is increasingly becoming one : UI and health. That being said I'm not expecting Neuralink's work to become something of interest for Apple for a long while and I doubt that Elon Musk will live to see the disappearance of UI as we think of it. In the middle term there are IMO more important areas of concern for Apple.

 

[DonutHands]

In for 1 if the body is milled from a solid piece of aluminum and anodized space grey.

 

[JoeShades]

I dread to think what AppleCare might cost for this.

Or a case, I could see this easily scratching

 

[lupend88]

1) Apple loves premium products at premium prices. Have you looked at what e cars cost?
2) Apple loves to redefine existing early markets and then dominate the high end. Thank you Tesla for warming the waters, now let us show you how it’s really done.
3) Apple always looks forward and to expand. Where would they be now if they had focused on the low hanging Mac fruit and ignored the phone market?
4) e-cars are not science fiction future they are literally here tomorrow. ICE is going the way of fossil fuels (see what I did there?)

apple cars is a very apple like move for this century. You’re still thinking Apple of the 1990’s.

I dont think Tesla needs anyone to show them how its done, they're doing just fine lol

 

[panjandrum]

Personally, I worry that pure-battery-powered-electric cars are just another eventual 'dead end' technology and that we (as a species) should have really thought this one through properly before leaping. There are so many other technologies that *might be* better long-term. Hybrid systems where a tiny engine acts only as a generator for the electrics have some considerable advantages (and only a few disadvantages) over a pure-electric; such as better range & smaller/lighter batteries, and are very nearly as clean (I suspect they could be made just a clean). Then there are kinetic-energy 'batteries', hydrogen, etc.

Don't get me wrong; we absolutely need to move away from fossil fuels as much as we can, but I hope we are doing it the right way and not just flailing about building the next meme-hyped design that will fail again in a few decades and need to be replaced. I like what Mazda is apparently trying to do. This would reduce the reliance on the materials we need to build the batteries, be quite clean, and potentially give us nice long range whenever we need it. Maybe Apple should be working with Mazda:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35130726/mazda-mx-30-confirmed-usa/

 

[roar08]

We're in 2021 and I still don't understand

I think you nailed it.

 

[wanha]

Idly wondering if the car is going to go "BOOOONNGG!" every time it is started

 

[Rainshadow]

You misunderstand. You’re not renting a vehicle like you do today. A company owns a large fleet of autonomous electric vehicles, moving them onto the road at times and locations where they’re needed according to demand, which is easily predicted. You pay a subscription, per ride, or a combination of both. You order up a ride whenever you need one, travel to your destination and exit the vehicle, apart from the cost the distance is irrelevant. If you’re taking the same route at the same time each day the system can have one waiting for you (or perhaps this could be an add on service).

The vast majority of people don’t use their car 24 hours a day, it’s considerably less (parked is not use). The economies possible by a fleet owner being able to much more fully utilise that asset means the cost to the end user will be cheaper than owning a personal vehicle.

By the time this future is possible (autonomous driving being the anchor), long haul goods deliveries will be made by driverless trucks. There may still be some edge cases where ownership makes sense. But even then I wonder, a fleet owner would be able to get a pretty good discount on 10,000 cars, or car manufacturers could become fleet owners. So it might always be cheaper to call for a ride.

I’m not talking about electric or self driving. I agree that will be a thing. But there will not be a time when it’s feasible for a company to drive cars 20-60 miles every day to a customer to give them a ride a few miles. Not to the point someone would pay for it. (and if a vehicle doesn’t have to travel that far to its customers, they have to purchase and maintain additional infrastructure and buildings with significant electrical charging stations.) It’s just not reasonable in all cases. There is practically no Uber access in much of the country for the same reason. Just not profitable - or not worth the rental or subscription cost. Certainly not cheaper than owning a vehicle. Or as convenient.


You assume it would be cheaper than buying a car. Perhaps that’s true for a new car, but I’ve owned almost a dozen vehicles - all used and while I’ve been lucky (and smart) about purchases - after selling them, the cost of owning them including the cost of maintenance is VERY low. And that doesn’t take into account the flexibility of not having to wait or request a vehicle.

it may work in your use case, but I assure you, that will not be a thing in the majority of this country.

 

[xpxp2002]

Everyone on earth will know it's a Hyundai vehicle. Slapping an  logo on it won't change anything

Exactly. It's going to be like Saturn all over again.

 

[UltimaKilo]

It’s too early to have a meaningful opinion on this. I’ll check back late next year/ early 2023.

In the next two years we’ll likely see what Apple’s big VR/AR product is like.

 

[MayaTlab]

In the next two years we’ll likely see what Apple’s big VR/AR product is like.

They already have one on the market, it's just waiting for its killer feature (that being said I'm expecting Google to arrive there first). You may already have them in your ears .

 

[howardtnyc]

I assume we will need giant rubber protectors on the outside of the car to keep them from scratching?

 

[steve62388]

I’m not talking about electric or self driving. I agree that will be a thing. But there will not be a time when it’s feasible for a company to drive cars 20-60 miles every day to a customer to give them a ride a few miles. Not to the point someone would pay for it. (and if a vehicle doesn’t have to travel that far to its customers, they have to purchase and maintain additional infrastructure and buildings with significant electrical charging stations.) It’s just not reasonable in all cases. There is practically no Uber access in much of the country for the same reason. Just not profitable - or not worth the rental or subscription cost. Certainly not cheaper than owning a vehicle. Or as convenient.


You assume it would be cheaper than buying a car. Perhaps that’s true for a new car, but I’ve owned almost a dozen vehicles - all used and while I’ve been lucky (and smart) about purchases - after selling them, the cost of owning them including the cost of maintenance is VERY low. And that doesn’t take into account the flexibility of not having to wait or request a vehicle.

it may work in your use case, but I assure you, that will not be a thing in the majority of this country.

You’re in the US? Huge parts of the US is empty, in less populated areas people are still clustered. For thousands of years worldwide humans have migrated towards population centres and there is no reason to think that will change. The 20-60 mile pickup is unlikely.

The charging infrastructure is an interesting question. This will be resolved before fully autonomous vehicles are available, it has to be before electric vehicles are widespread. Today you can stop to fill up at any petrol station. Oil companies know that they’re facing a future with reduced revenue as electric cars become prevalent (but they will continue to sell oil into manufacturing and industry). It’s within the oil companies and car manufacturers commercial interest to settle on a charging standard and convert petrol stations to charging points. At this point electric vehicles will really take hold.

 

[libmanj]

But will it be CarPlay compatible?

 

[Rainshadow]

You’re in the US? Huge parts of the US is empty, in less populated areas people are still clustered. For thousands of years worldwide humans have migrated towards population centres and there is no reason to think that will change. The 20-60 mile pickup is unlikely.

The charging infrastructure is an interesting question. This will be resolved before fully autonomous vehicles are available, it has to be before electric vehicles are widespread. Today you can stop to fill up at any petrol station. Oil companies know that they’re facing a future with reduced revenue as electric cars become prevalent (but they will continue to sell oil into manufacturing and industry). It’s within the oil companies and car manufacturers commercial interest to settle on a charging standard and convert petrol stations to charging points. At this point electric vehicles will really take hold.

View attachment 1723827
View attachment 1723841

You just helped my point. Most people are in the cities. Therefore, these services may be in the cities Just like i said. But the majority of the country (space) is rural. And no, the current demographics are shifting away from cities due to working from home and potential high speed internet options such as starlink. See the article below. One of many. It’s arguable how significant or long term this will be, but currently true nonetheless.

what’s more - look it up -35% of roads in the US are gravel or unpaved dirt. We haven’t got the self driving car thing figured out on pavement yet... Plus add to the rural business plan that vehicles would decrease in value more quickly due to the roads - increasing subscription or rental costs.

You must not live in a rural area. Because a 20-60 miles trip is short for me. My groceries are more Than 60 miles away. Again, there is no way that it would be financially responsible to build that many locations for cars to sit idle and then for anyone to cover the costs of that car sitting idle, driving without a passenger to you, and then returning. To think that they will constantly have a passenger is unreasonable in rural areas. It’s like peak energy times, you either don’t have enough vehicles to cover the need during the peak, or you have too many cars sitting idle for the majority of the day. Even if you were talking 20 miles. That’s a person waiting 30 minutes for a vehicle to arrive for a trip. If you think Americans are ok with that, i would say you should reconsider.

Escape to the Country: Why City Living Is Losing Its Appeal During the Pandemic

Fears of a second wave of infections and the ease of remote working are prompting families, pensioners and some young people to question the long-term benefits of city life.

www.wsj.com

Edit: To say that so much of the US is “empty” is vastly uninformed. There are always “clusters of people” even in rural areas but if you look at a satellite map, almost all that “empty” space is owned and believe it or not, people live there...

But as I said before - electric cars are coming. So are autonomous. My disagreement lies in your assertion that the majority of the US will be a subscription vehicle service. That’s nonsense.

 

[Tagbert]

All eco-useless rich-boy feel-good nonsense if you charge your electric car from a fossil-fuel-supplied charging station. The only green car is skeletally-rusted and overgrown. But I would buy an Apple bicycle.

totally untrue.

EVs are so efficient that, even if you charged your EV using 100%, the carbon output would be equivalent to a 50mpg hybrid car. In reality for most parts of the US and many other parts of the world, coal is a small part of the mix of energy sources and one that is shrinking each year. By moving power generation away from the vehicle to power plants, you can take advantage of newer greener tech as it becomes available. As the amount of power generated by solar and wind grows, that EV becomes more efficient from a carbon emission standpoint.

 

[steve62388]

Edit: To say that so much of the US is “empty” is vastly uninformed. There are always “clusters of people” even in rural areas but if you look at a satellite map, almost all that “empty” space is owned and believe it or not, people live there...

But as I said before - electric cars are coming. So are autonomous. My disagreement lies in your assertion that the majority of the US will be a subscription vehicle service. That’s nonsense.

Well, it’s not uninformed. The maps I posted are from 2010 census data.

When I say ‘empty’ I mean there are so few people living in those areas they’re not relevant in the shift to this future method of transportation. The vast majority of the US population will be serviced by these fleets. People living in these incredibly low population density locations might not appreciate it, but it’s a reality. It will be no different to what it is now, with some services absent that are available in population centres.

Of course the whole world is not the US, and these same systems will be rolled out in Europe and other developed countries.

 

[Tagbert]

Personally, I worry that pure-battery-powered-electric cars are just another eventual 'dead end' technology and that we (as a species) should have really thought this one through properly before leaping. There are so many other technologies that *might be* better long-term. Hybrid systems where a tiny engine acts only as a generator for the electrics have some considerable advantages (and only a few disadvantages) over a pure-electric; such as better range & smaller/lighter batteries, and are very nearly as clean (I suspect they could be made just a clean). Then there are kinetic-energy 'batteries', hydrogen, etc.

Don't get me wrong; we absolutely need to move away from fossil fuels as much as we can, but I hope we are doing it the right way and not just flailing about building the next meme-hyped design that will fail again in a few decades and need to be replaced. I like what Mazda is apparently trying to do. This would reduce the reliance on the materials we need to build the batteries, be quite clean, and potentially give us nice long range whenever we need it. Maybe Apple should be working with Mazda:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35130726/mazda-mx-30-confirmed-usa/

All of those technologies are / have been explored. Most have not panned out. Even though there are trials of cars using hydrogen, it doesn’t have any clear advantages to pure EV. We already have series hybrids (Volt, BMW i3) with range extended gas engines but they are not as efficient as a pure EV and cost more to manufacture. Hydrogen is not a power source, it is another kind of battery. Hydrogen its self is very expensive and power-hungry to generate. Storage is tricky.

The good news is that all of those are essentially EVs. Some generate electricity with hydrogen, some with a gasoline range extender, and some with lithium batteries. Once you have a basic EV platform, it is easier to explore or switch to different alternatives to batteries while keeping the rest of the vehicLe the same.

 

[Rainshadow]

Well, it’s not uninformed. The maps I posted are from 2010 census data.

When I say ‘empty’ I mean there are so few people living in those areas they’re not relevant in the shift to this future method of transportation. The vast majority of the US population will be serviced by these fleets. People living in these incredibly low population density locations might not appreciate it, but it’s a reality. It will be no different to what it is now, with some services absent that are available in population centres.

Of course the whole world is not the US, and these same systems will be rolled out in Europe and other developed countries.

The maps were of little use. They show that Many people live in cities. Not a surprise. It doesn’t show how people travel or use vehicles. If you want to suggest that cities (primarily larger ones) will have fewer people owning vehicles than they do today - I will admit that is possible. But that’s a far cry from your original suggestion. But even in cities in the US, people travel to rural areas and currently want their own vehicles. This is a fact. I don’t see this changing because subscription models will likely only be viable within a city or small, restricted area.

What you are suggesting is an Uber - type company, that doesn’t pay a driver (self driving), that allows people to not own a vehicle and still travel anywhere. The problem with that model is that you still need a physical location to park the vehicles and the risk of financially acquiring a fleet And then your fleet would be distributed across the state if not the country within a week if there weren’t travel limits. If there were travel limits, the oasis of not owning a vehicle dies right there. People don’t like limits. The only reason Uber works is because the drivers swallow the cost of purchasing, maintaining, and storing the vehicles. You lose ALL those benefits when they become self driving.

The “people won’t own cars“ logic is flawed. You know how we know that? People can rent cars, taxis, leases, etc right now. It hasn’t stopped ownership. It’s cheaper for the majority of the country - including the population. Even if it’s not cheaper, it’s clearly preferable. For those that live in a smaller bubble, that may work. I Have friends like that - but guess what, every time they want to go on a trip, see family, or take a vacation, they immediately call a friend who owns their own car.

I’m sorry if I come off harsh or overly argumentative. I’m just laying out my points. It’s a good discussion.

*The one and only way I see car ownership changing is if we get self driving cars that you can Uber-out while you sleep or are at work. This does NOT however do away with ownership. It actually still requires individual ownership so a company doesn’t have the high risks discussed before, but it also allows a larger portion of the population to not have a vehicle because they can essentially borrow it from the neighbor. The problem with this... inequality. If a richer class that has the money to buy a car can then rent that car out to folks that can’t afford one, I could see that further dividing the wealth in the country.