>The existing technology really blows, and Apple can make a significant contribution.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Apple is starting out at 0 with no real competence in this area, the least of which is interaction with regulatory bodies tasked with consumer protection.
Your assessment, whether correct or not (I've no idea), has an oddly familiar ring:
> “We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.” -- November 16, 2006, Palm CEO, Ed Colligan
> “Apple is slated to come out with a new phone… And it will largely fail…. Sales for the phone will skyrocket initially. However, things will calm down, and the Apple phone will take its place on the shelves with the random video cameras, cell phones, wireless routers and other would-be hits… When the iPod emerged in late 2001, it solved some major problems with MP3 players. Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don’t exist in the handset business. Cell phones aren’t clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they are pretty good. Really good.” -- December 07, 2006, CNET, Michael Kanellos
> Your assessment, whether correct or not (I've no idea), has an oddly familiar ring
I'm going to go ahead and claim your argument adds little value due to overgeneralization. Just because some guys were wrong in their criticism of Apple doesn't mean everyone who criticizes Apple is wrong.
If I weren't feeling lazy, I would produce a long list of quotations that wrongly claimed the iPad would deprecate desktop computing (from both inside Apple and outside). The term "post-PC era" was being bandied about. So no, Apple doesn't always achieve their goals - even stated ones.
The analogy was fitting because it was basically the same argument: "they're not (phone|car) people...".
It doesn't mean that it's a certain success, but it does show that Apple can innovate in new areas and complacency is possibly not the best idea for the current market leaders.
All of which is also true when Apple set out to make a phone. They had no competence in RF engineering, or interaction with the diversity of cellphone network providers throughout the world, the conventional wisdom at the time was that an outsider couldn't just break in to the phone market without acquiring an existing manufacturer.
Sorry, I call BS on this. I know a good bit about the semi-secret history here. I worked at Motorola before and during the launch of the first iPhone and also knew some of the people on the original iPhone product team. While it is true that they started with very few mobile industry veterans, they hired a few key people; they either quickly learned how to maneuver inside Apple or disappeared without a trace.
So it is not accurate to say Apple just learned how to make smartphones really fast, more that they effectively hacked the whole process with a number of Jedi mind tricks as well as key product decisions, all cemented by classic Steve Jobs dickery.
1. They cultivated us at Motorola shamelessly by pretending to make an "iTunes phone" (remember the Rockr?) while they were just pumping our teams for information on how the byzantine portfolio and terminal acceptance process at carriers worked. They never intended that phone to ship and used the whole sordid con to get into Ralph de le Vega's office (sorry, Ed Zander).
They then used all the persuasion and BS they had to convince AT&T to give Apple a pass on the incredibly complex field network testing all phones must pass. The reason the overall phone experience of the first iPhone was so bad was not just because Jobs and co wanted it to be a great music and Internet experience first, but because they couldn't make a great phone at all then.
I don't see the exact analogy with teh car industry. cars. The mobile phone business was laughably over-regulated and unlike the extremely competitive phone industry, wireless carriers were not really. And oh yeah, smartphones were terrible, and cars today, whether you like the way they look or not, are some of the most incredibly optimized products ever made by man: safe, reliable, efficient.
Cars just can't be disrupted via a Jesus phone coming in at the high end with innovative features. The Jesus car already exists (Tesla) and it has been extremely successful at influencing one of the biggest industries in the world in numerous ways. But if your goal, like Apple, is to not just influence but manufacture at scale, then Tesla has failed and it appears it will take any company, even Apple, decades to learn how to really make cars for more than a few.
I sure hope this isn't just abut cars as a service, because Apple has demonstrated it just can't do services, even when latched to a truly beautiful shiny object it has made.
> because Apple has demonstrated it just can't do services
"In Fiscal 2015, the Services bin, “revenue from the iTunes Store ® , App Store, Mac App Store, iBooks StoreTM and Apple MusicTM (collectively “Internet Services”), AppleCare, Apple Pay ® , licensing and other services” counted for $19.9B, 8.5% of the company total."
People in this thread are talking about the "bullshit" of existing cars and how the AppleCar will be a "come to Jesus" moment.
Pointing to revenue as proof of success is a bad metric here. Great, the App and Mac App Store make lots of money, not the least because one of them is the only way for anyone to make revenue from iOS.
No-one could point to MAS, for example, and pretend with a straight face that it's a "service done right" for anyone except Apple's bottom line.
You're right. I didn't address the primary issue. And Apple's services have plenty of room for improvement.
Making US$20BN in revenue gives runway to make those improvements.
The other US$200BN+ / year and cash warchest means they're able and willing to make new markets. Even if their car doesn't work, they'll be worth watching. Cars can be much better than they are, and I welcome the competition.
> I can point to one service Apple has done right, Messages
Is it the same message that for many years disappeared all message sent to you when you switched from Apple? Perhaps as a final "fuck you" for leaving our ecosystem or them not just caring
I just switched to iOS and the part I like the least has to be iMessage... it sucks. It will always try to send a message over HTTP even when you're in the subway instead of sending over SMS and not realize that it's an issue and just getting stuck halfway through sending.
There's a huge difference between iterating an iPod into a phone and moving from consumer electronics to a completely different market that just happens to depend on some electronics but requires a whole lot more engineering know-how that Apple has in its stables.
Yup, there seems to be worrying trend on HN that any company not a part of the tech inner circle has no idea what the are doing.
Funny because more than once there have been articles here about how assuming unusual/ugly code is the work of an incompetent engineer is short sighted, as often professionals DO know what they are doing, and it was done for a good reason that is not immediately apparent.
> Apple is starting out at 0 with no real competence in this area, the least of which is interaction with regulatory bodies tasked with consumer protection
Couldn't that competence be hired in? Tesla also started from zero.
I concur with rpgmaker that it's bullshit to say that the existing technology "blows".
Tell me exactly how an Apple car will be better than my existing petrol-powered car. Not in an abstract sense, for me.
With the iPhone, we had the full web (as opposed to only the mobile web), a large screen, a touch interface, only one button, and (in 2.0) apps. These made the iPhone far better than older phones. What's the equivalent for cars?
I agree with that, but you haven't given any information or insight to substantiate your claim that the Apple car will be the next iPhone. Merely saying "it will be awesome!" doesn't convince anyone :)
I can only point to the fact that cars and transportation in general are obviously about to be heavily disrupted by software--in many ways. Just like phones and communications in 2006.
> Tell me exactly how an Apple car will be better than my existing petrol-powered car. Not in an abstract sense, for me.
Nope. Can't explain it in a way you'll feel it. Doesn't mean it's not a thing though.
I thought the Tesla Model S was an understated 4 door sedan with a novel but fatally flawed propulsion technology. Then I spent a day in one. It was enough to convince me to plop down the deposit for a Model 3 sight unseen.
And there's still nothing wrong with my Toyota 4 Runner. But if Tesla makes a light SUV I'm buying it. It's just ... better.
As someone who drove a Tesla S here in UK - the only cool things about that car were the dashboard display(where your speedo is normally) and the quiet drive paired with stupid acceleration. Other than that, it had fantastically poor interior, plastic everywhere(I've noticed this in almost all American cars - even very expensive Chevrolets, Chryslers, US-spec Fords are just full of plastic for some reason). The huge screen is awesome for first few minutes, and then you realize you can't change temperature without looking down - who thought that putting everything on a touchscreen was a good idea??
I guess I would maybe buy one for the fuel saving? But seriously, I would much rather buy a BMW/Audi/Merc/Jaguar for the same price, unless my main priority was fuel saving.
That's not fair! You are comparing European car-makers with US ones :P
Joking aside, I have to agree - once you've been inside a modern Audi/Merc/Beemer, you do have to wonder what all the fuss about Tesla is. Its not like Tesla has a monopoly on attractive electric cars: the i8 is gorgeous.
I have not been in an i8, but the Tesla made me a believer in electric. If BWM is serious about electrics then Tesla might be in trouble. BMW's repair record has had its ups and downs over the years. If they get that right and the software right I might be inclined to go with the Beemer.
Well, that's the exact question that Apple is trying to answer. It's funny how easy it seems to be to dismiss the genius of the iPhone. I guess it's a hallmark of good design that it seems completely obvious after you've seen it.
Regarding the car, long-range electric drive and self-driving capabilities are "obvious" improvements that would hit "revolutionary" on the scale. But those are still problems of basic science and I doubt that Apple can get there faster than all of the competition combined.
I just hope they don't claim to have invented the car. Seriously.
I am all for interesting design ideas making it to market based on less risk averse capital but I get tired of the hype. Probably a sign of senescence.
I would much rather see a re-imagining of bus lines with 2 or 4 person pods that you can summon from a stop, and ride directly to your next stop. Such a personal transit system was envisioned in the early 80's but lacked the cost effectiveness of the computer controls we have today. Such a system, on a closed pavement track system, would be buildable today with little to no technical risk.
But they did reinvent the phone. If they deliver the first end to end point car - I believe they can claim to have reinvented the car. That's a big if though.
I think they'll launch something really cool and that they come close to being the first autonomous car the general population accepts - most likely with BMW or Mercedes. Coming to ford / gm a few years later
You left out the company which I think is the obvious Apple contender; Porsche, which is the gold standard for premium cars and SUVs. Porsche is the reason that Tesla is in trouble, they are the best example of having an exciting car that is instantly recognizable and extremely high quality, yet superbly engineered and (this is the Tesla-killing part) just as nice inside as outside or under the hood. If Apple were to make a gasoline powered car, they'd make the 911 turbo. It even comes in white :)
Porsche is hardly a gold standard. They're not unique, just another in a large line of boutique car brands that have a different design language and a different set of engineering goals. Meanwhile their big-selling models, the Cayenne and Macan are little more than dolled-up Audis, which are in turn little more than dolled-up Volkswagens. It appears they've managed to fend away the VW Group short-cuts and corruption for now, but I'm sceptical whether that can last.
Nothing in the automotive industry parallels well with Apple, largely because the automotive industry isn't conducive to rapid evolution, short product cycles and aggressive market disruption. The best case scenario is for Apple to keep pace with Tesla's product cadence but with faster volume shipments through off-shore manufacturing.
Their first product will almost inevitably be a minimum viable product comparable to the original iPhone and original iPad. Remember those products? Enough to prove the idea to an audience, but look like rough beta products 24 months later.
I don't want to buy a new car every 12-24 months, but I would like to have the option to meaningfully upgrade the entertainment system every so often, even if it cost money. Imagine if the entertainment unit was actually just an iPad Mini in a nicely integrated mount. But if you wanted, you could simply swap it out for the latest model of any size. Buy a new iPad and your car now has a bigger screen.
--
If Apple could disrupt the industry in any way, it would be to sell a car that thwarted obsolescence better than any that came before it. Imagine being able to buy a car today and five years from now have it fitted with the latest safety system and radar...
(It's the same problem with TVs – those integrated "smart" features are mediocre from day one and become obsolete long before the display itself.)
Porsche has nothing in common with Apple except being expensive. The value proposition of a Porsche is not generated by clever engineering but simply raw power and valuable materials. Porsche is a high-end gaming desktop.
The smart car is (or at least was, when launched) much closer: different, innovative, a bit quirky.
Prediction: The Apple car will be electric, not terribly fast, probably a two-seater.
The big question to me is whether they can make a "car" that looks little like the car we think of right now and still have it accepted by the market.
Not necessarily on the exterior, but an entertainment-geared interior that is comfortable and also legal/safe.
And also whether they can push out an industry-shaking product without Steve. Tim Cook is amazing, don't get me wrong, but he doesn't seem like the radical we need.
Edit: the radical we need for car reinvention specifically.
Its been said elsewhere, but making cars is hard. Large multinational companies with decades of relevant expertise struggle to make cars. Not just with the technical issues, but with regulatory issues as well, which for many engineering-driven companies end up being almost as significant obstacles as the tech itself.
Tesla is doing very well, but is still facing hurdles, and tough competition. And Tesla is dedicated 100% to making cars, with a founder who was willing to bet (and potentially lose) everything on his push for electric cars.
I'm just not convinced that a $500 billion, 100,000-person company can pivot into being a car company, nor am I convinced that a company whose specialty is the development of phones, computers, and software can open up a car arm and successfully go toe-to-toe against Mercedes, BWM, and (to a lesser extent) Tesla.
Responding to questions from New York Times correspondent John Markoff at a Churchill Club breakfast gathering Thursday morning, Colligan laughed off the idea that any company — including the wildly popular Apple Computer — could easily win customers in the finicky smart-phone sector.
“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,” he said. “PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
There is so much that Apple could do to truly "reimagine" the car. They have the capital and the capability to build the product. But when I think of what a "reimagined" car looks like, I envision a product that would need extensive study by regulatory bodies before it would be allowed on the road due to it's highly automated nature. And I wonder if that is something that Apple is interested in challenging, not only in states and federally, but with governments all around the world.
Phones used to do one thing really well: phone calls. The iphone was the first smartphone where other uses like web browsing were plausible, and now phones are barely used for calls at all.
Cars do one thing really well: driving. What, exactly, is the new form of use of cars that an Apple car can open up? What are you going to use your car for that isn't getting from point A to point B?
> Cars do one thing really well: driving. What, exactly, is the new form of use of cars that an Apple car can open up?
Level 4 or 5 autonomous driving would be nice little coup. Unfortunately for Apple, the technology isn't quite there yet as it was on the brink of the iPhone launch.
The car industry is much more mature than the smartphone industry when iPhone was introduced. It will be much harder to convince anyone to buy your car over the trusted brands or tesla
The electric car industry however, is not. They share a fair amount, but there are also a lot of significant differences that have only really been explored at scale by a few companies for a few years.
the difference is that back then you could buy off-the-shelf components and have your phone built in china (what apple did and does). you can't easily do the same with a car. yes apple can create good software for a car but they might be better off licensing it to car manufacturers than providing an end to end solution.
You can easily outsource car manufacturing as well.
You're also underestimating the amount of hardware design Apple did and does. They don't buy the display, cpu, touchscreen, battery or much else off the shelf.
Just like Ericsson and Nokia? They didn't stand a chance, as history has proven. Especially given most of these car companies don't have a huge pile of cash on the sidelines.
Social-signalling/being a 'high-end' phone is what the iPhone's success rode on, and there were no high-end smartphones (well, there was Virtu but they were more botique than mass-produced high-end).
There already exist a smorgasbord of luxury cars that are social signallers; Apple will have to do something much more 'revolutionary' than they did with the iPhone. There weren't any smartphone equivalents of Mercedes-Benz, Porsche[1] or Maserati.
But Apple is still perceived as a premium brand by many. I am unsure of how many of those belong to the class of people who will buy a premium car but am willing to bet there are just enough to be dangerous.
Apple is also more well-known than Tesla currently. I still think it won't be easy for Apple but I've learned to appreciate the power of market perception.
The existing technology really blows, and Apple can make a significant contribution.
Remember what "smartphones" looked like before the iPhone? No touch screens, physical keyboards, tiny screens, almost no native web browsing.
Now imagine what Apple could do to the inside of your car with that kind of thinking in mind, and $80,000.
Edit: I forgot one of the biggest problems with the old smartphones is they were ugly as sin, which is also true of modern cars.