Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs Passed on Building Apple Car in 2008 to Focus on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow so people in Alaska won't be driving all EVs, strong point.
and what is that everything else use case? The once in a few months road trip where you could just fly?
Here are the facts. 20-54 yr olds drive an average of 15,000 miles per year or 41 miles per day. So an EV with even 100 mile range would be more than enough for the majority (over 50%) of Americans.
Remember all the people saying the iPhone and smartphones would fail because people would never give up the all-day battery life of their dumbphones; Ya how did that workout? This is no different. Most people would give up the unlimited range of their gasoline cars for an EV because the cost of ownership (electricity vs gasoline and maintenance) is lower.
And also this is why Steve Jobs was a visionary and Elon Musk is a visionary. Because both can see these things despite all the naysayers.
It's not about how much money you have. Tesla is the first US car company to go public since Ford, and there is good reason for that. By the time tesla had sold 147 roadsters, they had spent 180 million.
Apple is all about margins. Regardless of how much cash you have, board of directors are not gonna like a company investing billions of dollars in a low margin long term project that ventures outside of your territory.
With your logic, Apple would be in every single sector because they can "afford" to enter it.
I am curious to learn what Apple is going to bring to EV's that will make them worthwhile.
I was under the impression that the biggest issue with EVs is range and rate of charge.
Of course maybe Apple is going to make a Hybrid vehicle instead of BEV. That would alleviate the range and charging issue, though that does bring up other complexities.
Yeah, they can't make a fast/stable/smooth OS anymore.
And their web services are years behind what Google and Microsoft have.
FFS, i still get duplicate Notes.
Apple tried that (I owned one), but stopped because that business wasn't profitable.
I don't know what angle Apple might have on cars to make it more profitable than it is for Ford or GM. Tesla isn't profitable (yet?).
This doesn't make sense, there are companies that are living off selling printers alone like Epson and Brother. Plus, Apple Printers were pre-Steve Jobs days and I will guess it branded as Apple, but probably built by HP or Epson
The penny-pincher isn't at Apple. It's the customer who doesn't buy the model that they really need. Anyone who needs a 128GB 6s can buy one, as those models seem to have greater availability that the 16GB models.
But there are plenty (millions?) of customers who don't need the extra performance or storage enough to want to pay even a small percentage amount extra for it. No reason not to provide them a econo-model more in their price range (and still keep shareholders, such as grandpa's 401k, happy with the gross margins.)
I would entertain the idea. Looking to get a Model 3, but if Apple or GM (Bolt) can show that they have the range and fast charging infrastructure (I drive ~120 miles a day) I would be willing to bite. Especially if the price is competitive to the Model 3.
I don't doubt that there would be some buyers here, but I don't see Apple producing a car that will be selling in the main stream price range.
On the tesla club forum folks are concerned that tesla won't even sell the Model 3 in any meaningful quantity for the 35K price they are targeting.
I suspect that Apple would go for the Model S price range and limited quantities. Which will likely make folks sad.
You're correct, but you have the logic backwards. I'm simply saying that Tesla being expensive is not a disincentive for an insanely wealthy company like Apple to buy it. I sure they'd have their reasons not to (besides the fact that it wasn't for sale).
- K