> There is zero crossover between consumer entertainment devices and the car business, as evidenced by the poor state of tech in cars!
That looks similar to the state of MP3 players before the iPod, or smartphones before the iPhone. I think a self-driving car with a car-width display and hifi stereo (or better) could be a huge success, even if the self-driving only works on highways, as with the latest Mercedes.
> It's not an industry one can just "switch into."
“Now compare that effort and overlay the mobile handset business. This is not an emerging business. In fact it's gone so far that it's in the process of consolidation with probably two players dominating everything, Nokia Corp. NOK, -0.68% and Motorola Inc. MOT
During this phase of a market margins are incredibly thin so that the small fry cannot compete without losing a lot of money.
As for advertising and expensive marketing this is nothing like Apple has ever stepped into. It's a buzz saw waiting to chop up newbies
The problem here is that while Apple can play the fashion game as well as any company, there is no evidence that it can play it fast enough. These phones go in and out of style so fast that unless Apple has half a dozen variants in the pipeline, its phone, even if immediately successful, will be passé within 3 months.
There is no likelihood that Apple can be successful in a business this competitive.”
Of course, that doesn’t imply the car industry is similar or that Apple can find the magic that cracks open the market, but they may think making a side bet of a few billion (Apple’s problem is that their MVP is larger than what the CEOs of most startups can only dream of) to see whether they can is a good idea.
The reason that Apple is able to sell iPads and iPhones is that they are small computers, something which Apple has made and sold from day 1. This is not true of cars. Apple's entire business model has been predicated on proprietary computer hardware that's smaller and more capable with each iteration. When it became possible to play music, watch videos, and make phone calls on these small computers, Apple started selling them for that. The only new business Apple has ever gotten into is media, and that rides on the back of their hardware.
None of this is true for cars! Apple's production, design, marketing, etc. have no overlap with how cars are made or sold -- and no amount of wishing or money will give them that overlap. It's not that it's a new business for Apple, cars are completely unrelated to anything Apple has ever made or done. No business in history has ever pulled off a switch like that. It's the reason that railroads never became airlines, for example.
Even with unlimited capital, Apple lacks the mindset to produce and market a car out of thin air -- a task which is difficult even for those entrenched in the industry.
The Verge's auto editor's repeated stance (it's easiest to spot in somewhat recent Ford F-150 Lightning articles) is that any modern EV is "a computer on wheels". Especially as cars trade physical cabin controls for touch screens, the resemblance to phones only increases. But there's also the fact that EV's physically simple drivetrain is augmented by the fact that it is much more than ICE a "software-defined drivetrain" with firmware replacing things that used to be physics (the power/torque curve of the acceleration pedal, for instance).
There's certainly enough people outside of Apple wondering if "cars are just computers now with wheels" that maybe Apple isn't entirely crazy if they think it is an adjacent market they might compete in.
And all of that's before buying into any hype about "self-driving" and "AI cars".
Well, I'll go ahead and say the Verge's auto editor is wrong on this one. A car is a mechanical device with lots of moving parts which aren't programmable. It's also a safety cage for people and regulatory nightmare for compliance with every jurisdiction's safety requirements, neither of which Apple is prepared for. Finally, cars require a sales and support network which Apple won't be able to build. It's more accurate to think of cars as boxes with wheels. The computer being in charge of throttle, brake, and speed has been a factor for a long time -- before Apple got involved -- and doesn't make Apple a car company.
That looks similar to the state of MP3 players before the iPod, or smartphones before the iPhone. I think a self-driving car with a car-width display and hifi stereo (or better) could be a huge success, even if the self-driving only works on highways, as with the latest Mercedes.
> It's not an industry one can just "switch into."
Reminds me of https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-should-pull-the-plug...:
“Now compare that effort and overlay the mobile handset business. This is not an emerging business. In fact it's gone so far that it's in the process of consolidation with probably two players dominating everything, Nokia Corp. NOK, -0.68% and Motorola Inc. MOT
During this phase of a market margins are incredibly thin so that the small fry cannot compete without losing a lot of money.
As for advertising and expensive marketing this is nothing like Apple has ever stepped into. It's a buzz saw waiting to chop up newbies
The problem here is that while Apple can play the fashion game as well as any company, there is no evidence that it can play it fast enough. These phones go in and out of style so fast that unless Apple has half a dozen variants in the pipeline, its phone, even if immediately successful, will be passé within 3 months.
There is no likelihood that Apple can be successful in a business this competitive.”
Of course, that doesn’t imply the car industry is similar or that Apple can find the magic that cracks open the market, but they may think making a side bet of a few billion (Apple’s problem is that their MVP is larger than what the CEOs of most startups can only dream of) to see whether they can is a good idea.