New Report Says Apple Was in Talks to Use BMW i3 as Basis for Electric Car Project

[getoffmylawn]

oh Apple. Go and fix up your current range of software/services/devices before you introduce a car. Can't wait till cars loose the ability to drive because of Car OS 8.0.1 having a bug that disables the engine.

You mean like the USS Yorktown in 1998?

"... the US Navy is having second thoughts about putting NT at the helm. A system failure on the USS Yorktown last September temporarily paralyzed the cruiser, leaving it stalled in port for the remainder of a weekend."

http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1998/07/13987

 

[iMember]

The new Apple new designs are so ugly that is why I just bought (2) 2015 13" rMBP

You did the right thing..that is a gorgeous Laptop. Thank god you dint bought 15" model..because that it's different story

 

[mdelvecchio]

Can't wait for apple to start selling cars... In typical style with their ios Devices, I guess with every major software update the car will get slower and slower

nonsense. some iOS updates actually improve usage responsiveness. but over time any computing device will appear to get get slower as newer versions were designed for newer hardware. that being said, Apple devices are known for longer supported and more useful hardware than anyone.

 

[McGiord]

My guess on the main reason behind non automotive companies like Google and Apple are doing their automotive projects is to figure out a viable solution to eliminate the dead time when their current and potential future customers stop using the iDevices and as well as consuming or generating sellable data while driving their cars.
They will boast about the security they offer, the productivity gains by not wasting time during your daily commute to the workplace.

Most of the new things are considered dangerous, until it's proven by years of "safe" use that they become so common that we cannot longer want to live without them.
I guess the early days of cars with internal combustion engines were really a mobile hazard.

 

[maxsix]

Apple & Car simply don't compute.

No matter how big the brand, no matter how masterful their marketing is, there's just something askew with a project like this.

In over their head? No not from a financial standpoint. Not from a marketing standpoint, Apple's logo alone will draw in the rich geeks who want to have the first in their neighborhood.

Let Apple immerse themselves in the electronics of it all, but say NO to an all Apple Car. No Thanks Tim.

 

[SoAnyway]

If Apple is working on producing an electric car to be released by 2020, I think they will be way too late to the game. By then, and even now, Tesla will be miles ahead of anyone in terms of technology and amount of electric cars on the road. In 2020, Tesla will have three, possibly four models in production and at far more affordable prices than anything Apple will be able to offer. Of course, Apple will be after the very high end market but it seems their most successful products are the ones that are available to the masses.


*Full disclosure, I am currently holding a long position in TSLA and have owned shares of AAPL.

 

[Taz Mangus]

You did the right thing..that is a gorgeous Laptop. Thank god you dint bought 15" model..because that it's different story

Different story?

 

[Keirasplace]

Interesting to see Apple following in Google's footsteps... Except when Google did it, it was a terrible idea according to the fine folks on MacRumors.

Nobody said it was a bad idea. People were wondering if it was another one of Google's expensive hobbies, like Google Glass and many things they half introduced and then dropped. Google's track record with hardware isn'T so hot; so that was also another reasoning behind questioning what their doing. It may be a good idea, but just not for Google...

Apple usually develops things secretly for years and then introduce it (like the Watch), while Google likes to trumpet what is is working on years in advance even if its no where close to release stage (and even its whole commercial viability for a non hardware company like Google is very much in doubt).

Its possible Apple's been working on car systems for many years and it just now is starting to be known because they're expanding their hiring out of research into full development of working full scale prototypes (where the people they need to hire would have very different skills than their normal staff, so it would be more evident).

 

[Tummy]

For those that say the i3 is overpriced at ~$50,000, you are not factoring in state and local incentives, gas savings, discount off MSRP or the BMW alternate mobility program.

We have two i3s now. With some negotiation (20% off MSRP), $7,500 fed, $5,000 state incentive, I was able to Owners Choice (similar to a lease) our white i3 with a $50k MSRP for equivalent to $65/month (or $1500 for two years of driving). Factoring in about $200-$300/month gas savings, I'm saving at least $150/month for each one compared to driving a gas car. Plus no maintenance on BMWs for up to 4 years. With these types of numbers available, I don't know how people afford to drive their regular gas cars. They must love going to gas stations every week.

Also, with the i3 Flexible Mobility program, we can also borrow a conventional gas car, a 328 or x3 up to 14 days per year for FREE to go on long trips. In the past we would rent a SUV to go on week long vacations, this saves probably $400/wk in Hertz rentals.

A Tesla Model S would cost at least $1,000 per month with 72 month financing, more like $1300/month with the features they talk about all the time (85/90kwh battery, tech package, etc). They also didn't have some of the features that are in my i3s when we were looking last year like adaptive cruise control. That feature on the Model S didn't come out until October 2014.

The construction of the Model S is also pretty conventional 5000 series aluminum. Even the Ford F-150 now uses advanced 7000 series for strength and weight savings. I can see why Apple would be interested in the i3. It's carbon fiber reinforced plastic is at least a generation of ahead of other mass car manufacturers. The way BMW bonds extruded and cast aluminum to the CFRP in the drive module is also very impressive.

*Disclosure, I own enough Tesla shares to buy a Model S with my profits and enough Apple shares to buy several Teslas. I want both of them to succeed.

 

[prowlmedia]

But electricity is generated mostly through coal. For all the hype, solar and wind aren't capable of completely replacing other power sources and won't be for several decades. Nuclear is cleaner, but has its own controversies, as does natural gas for power generation (which is inherently less efficient than just using natural gas directly in cars).

Sure. But source to wheel. Electric cars are way more efficient than an internal combustion engine that looses slot of energy in heat and noise.

A coal power station is also incredibly efficient and clean compared to an ICE.

Nuclear is the the future. Specifically thorium which is way cleaner, abundant (massively) impossible to 'meltdown' and cannot be weaponised - which is why in the 70s reasearch into power stations was halted - but it's making headway again.

Basically any form of burning is outdated and needs to go.

Teslas solar battery introduction speech showed how little actual solar space is needed to power the world - 400,000 sq km - about the size of Spain. So really not that big in scheme of things and I bet we see African countries become major power suppliers in the future.

 

[prowlmedia]

I'm an European, but I always thought the Americans has a better taste in car design

Hmm in some ways... But not for the most part in detail or interiors. Even high end us cars can feel cheap

 

[Keirasplace]

If Apple is working on producing an electric car to be released by 2020, I think they will be way too late to the game. By then, and even now, Tesla will be miles ahead of anyone in terms of technology and amount of electric cars on the road. In 2020, Tesla will have three, possibly four models in production and at far more affordable prices than anything Apple will be able to offer. Of course, Apple will be after the very high end market but it seems their most successful products are the ones that are available to the masses.


*Full disclosure, I am currently holding a long position in TSLA and have owned shares of AAPL.

You seems to assume that the important (profit making) part of the electric car is the drive train and not the control/experience inside the habitable part. That part is right now basically a mess and nobody is close to having a solution, first of all because self driving electric cars don't really exist commercially right now...

Apple's MO is selling the experience, and by the time self driving electric cars really take off, the driving part will be accessory to whatever else is happening inside the car.

BTW, if Apple has a 300B stash of money in 2020 (likely), 7 years and 6-10B dollars of R&D behind this project, the brand and distribution/marketing strength in the high end that they have now, they've never too late...

They had a lot less going for them in 2002 for the Ipod and 2007 for the Iphone and we all know how that went.

This especially true in the car market where nobody's getting 50% or even 20%.
If Apple gets 25% of the high end (not even the whole market) and collects 40% of all high end profits, it will be all fine with Apple.

 

[diamond.g]

Good move going to BMW (or any of the major manufacturers for that matter). The big boys have global car making brands and global sales networks. An Apple car will be a partnership like this, why go alone and just throw money away building infrastructure when you can go in with a manufacturer, for them it is just another car in the showroom.

An example would be the Mercedes A-Class, there's the standard A-Class and there's the A-Class Engineered by AMG. Why not an 'Engineered by Apple' or such like.

As for the criticism of the model, they need to start somewhere and that suits the criteria of Apple, AKA an electric car, they wouldn't go in and ask to partner on the next M3, M4 or M5!

Why can't Apple go with a gasoline engine?

 

[ChristianVirtual]

Not like Apple to be 30 years behind other computer companies...

View attachment 571137

Except that Sir Sinclair was not a traditional "only" computer company owner but an individual inventor with many ideas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Sinclair

His ZX81 was my first computer; will always be in my heart, this black little beauty with 768 free bytes of RAM.

 

[Tummy]

Why can't Apple go with a gasoline engine?

Gas engines are being phased out. BMW has stated that in the near future (~10 years) electric motors will be the primary power source and gas engines will become generators.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm in a bubble or something and nobody else realizes these changes are happening.

 

[doelcm82]

oh Apple. Go and fix up your current range of software/services/devices before you introduce a car. Can't wait till cars loose the ability to drive because of Car OS 8.0.1 having a bug that disables the engine.

Not going to happen. Apple will NEVER stop looking toward the future before fixing EVERY problem of the present and past. Hardly any company works that way, and those that do become irrelevant quickly.

 

[Benjamins]

If I am bmw I wouldn't want to make it easy for apple to build their first car. Bmw and apple are bounded to be fighting for the same core customers.

 

[mazz0]

Here's the argument against Fuel Cells (and for Batteries) from one of Tesla's founders

The Hydrogen Fuel Cell bit starts at 12 minutes 57 seconds.

arn

He doesn't mention how much power you can fit in the car, which is pretty important. Effectively Fuel Cells are batteries - they may be less energy efficient than Lithium Ion, but are they more space efficient?

 

[doelcm82]

I would hope that a company with Apple's size and financial resources would push hydrogen fuel cell adoption instead of more battery powered cars which take half a day to charge.

Me too. Well, maybe not hydrogen fuel cell, specifically (why constrain yourself to that particular technology). But some technology that allows faster 'refueling'. By the time the car is ready to go into production, we could have phones that recharge almost instantly. The car's power supply should also do that.

I don't think standing at a hydrogen pump is much of a UI improvement over standing at a gasoline/petrol pump.

 

[mazz0]

The father of the creature:

I'm sure he's actually quite q clever bloke, but he comes across as a complete idiot, for two reasons:

1) A new brand, designed to look like a toy, rather than a beautiful machine? Why's it need a new brand at all? Internal combustion engine cars are doomed, when they die does he want the main BWM brand to die too?
2) It looks dreadful, it doesn't look like the kind of car people buy, it looks like the badly designed electronic cars of the past that nobody bought. Does he think there's something about people who want an electric car that means they all have terrible taste? Hasn't he seen the history of electric cars? The only ones that have sold well are the ones that look like normal cars.

 

[apolloa]

Except that's not really true. Smartphone traffic was minuscule in Europe before the iPhone. If anything, studies suggest Europe is a couple of years behind in phone adoption.

And as far as Nokia Symbian goes, while it was a major OS player for some time, the growth of the American mobile OS's was truly unprecedented.

Well, in the UK we had several Touch screen smartphones and Symbian handsets before the iPhone and Nokia was pretty popular with its smartphone ranges long before the iPhone showed up. So no, Apple did not create the smartphone market here, and I still challenge that it did so in Europe too.I can think of at least 4 touch screen mobile phones before the iPhone too, not using multi touch capacitive screens, but still touch screens, Apple was not new with that idea at all.

As for Europe being behind, I suggest you provide proof as it's well known the American market was years behind others until the iPhone and Android arrived. America all thought the Motorola RAZR was the best cutting edge thing, other markets were using 3G video calling on their smart phones.

 

[apolloa]

I wonder if buying a troubled car manufacturer might be a way for Apple to enter the market. Think back to 2009. If Apple had made an offer of $20 billion cash to take a few factories and a dealership network from GM, wouldn't the government have been silly not to take the offer? It can happen again.

Maybe. But I doubt Apple had $20 billion spare to spend on one company purchase back then, Apple will just hire others to do its work, then get someone else to make it like always.

This post is what kills this community for me.

That's nice, why not elaborate on what you mean.

 

[apolloa]

Sure. But source to wheel. Electric cars are way more efficient than an internal combustion engine that looses slot of energy in heat and noise.

A coal power station is also incredibly efficient and clean compared to an ICE.

Nuclear is the the future. Specifically thorium which is way cleaner, abundant (massively) impossible to 'meltdown' and cannot be weaponised - which is why in the 70s reasearch into power stations was halted - but it's making headway again.

Basically any form of burning is outdated and needs to go.

Teslas solar battery introduction speech showed how little actual solar space is needed to power the world - 400,000 sq km - about the size of Spain. So really not that big in scheme of things and I bet we see African countries become major power suppliers in the future.

So this thorium, does it remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years and needs to be dumped deep underground once it's used up?
Any nuclear waste is not cleaner, its still dangerous poisaness by product that has to be dealt with.

Renewable energy is better, but you have people protest against wind farms because they look ugly, or solar panels but no one wants to invest in those, no, man seems to only want to kill the ozone layer or make everything radioactive.
Not saying renewables are the ultimate solution, but their seems little interest in developing them to where they could be.

 

[mazz0]

Car is nice, much nicer than the most boring unrecognizable cars on the streets these days. If Apple has to make a car then it should stand out and have a distinct character.

Tesla Motors is doing it wrong, they also should design a car that looks like car from the future.

Never understood why electric cars have to look so weird, just take one of your normal cars and figure out how to get the electric motor inside it. It's not rocket science.

That said, this comment isn't directed at Citroen. The just need to stop making cars, full stop. Who ever thought up that damn 'Cactus' design needs to be put up against the wall and shot.

I agree that most modern cars look utterly generic, as if they were all designed by the same person (using some templates in Microsoft Car Designer), but the solution to that is not to design cars specifically to look futuristic (which may be what BWM did here). The solution is to ignore conventions and just make what you think looks beautiful. This is actually something a few French manufacturers do, and while I don't always like the results I applaud their attitude. Whether it's the best commercial option is another matter, so it might be something only the privately owned companies choose to partake in, I don't know.

Interesting to see Apple following in Google's footsteps... Except when Google did it, it was a terrible idea according to the fine folks on MacRumors.

"Except"? Have you actually read most of the comments here? I think you see hypocrisy because you want to, when none in fact exists.

 

[mazz0]

So this thorium, does it remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years and needs to be dumped deep underground once it's used up?
Any nuclear waste is not cleaner, its still dangerous poisaness by product that has to be dealt with.

Renewable energy is better, but you have people protest against wind farms because they look ugly, or solar panels but no one wants to invest in those, no, man seems to only want to kill the ozone layer or make everything radioactive.
Not saying renewables are the ultimate solution, but their seems little interest in developing them to where they could be.

I disagree with your point about nuclear waste. Sure, it may be a problem, but it's one that's easier to solve that carbon output. For a start we can burry it, as you mentioned, which while it sounds unpleasant probably isn't actually a very big deal I suspect - how much space is required for the use of spent nuclear fuel rods? Genuine question, I don't know the answer, but I bet it's a fairly small amount.

As for people protesting about wind turbines, etc - sod 'em! Or to put it less heartlessly, sorry guys, but it has to be done. Besides, in time people will (and already have) come to like them. It mirrors the attitude to viaducts - during the industrial revolution people complained about them ruining the country side, now they're considered one of the most beautiful parts.

Also, renewables can often be built in sparcely or un-populated areas - at sea, in deserts, etc, plus making use of otherwise wasted roof space (although personally I'd rather sea our cities' roofs be opened up into roof gardens).