Okay guys, in what universe does an Apple Car make sense?

[ControlD]

Musk is an entrepreneur and visionary, he can hire the needed brain power to achieve his dreams for whatever industry he decides to enter. Apple can do the same.

I'm glad tech companies are entering the automobile space, the old guard seemed to resist any sort of change including ones that seem obvious like raising mpg standards. Attitudes like that leads to no progress, we need more tech company mentality in that industry. Let the dinosaurs who can't adapt go extinct.

There are good reasons for traditional automotive companies resisting many of the newer mpg standards. The fact that they have been able to meet those standards while at the same time meeting ever increasing emission standards may seem trivial on the outside looking in but it isn't. There is a tremendous amount of engineering and progress behind every new generation of engine that is designed. If you don't think a Ford or Toyota would love to have a large vehicle that could get 100 mpg you are crazy. The company that did that would basically be printing their own money.

It costs millions of dollars to develop new engines to meet stricter standards. I'm sure Apple would be balking at legislation that required 24 hour on screen time for the iPhone, while at the same time requiring less power to recharge. Companies do like to keep SOME of the money they make after all.

 

[iluvdeal]

There are good reasons for traditional automotive companies resisting many of the newer mpg standards. The fact that they have been able to meet those standards while at the same time meeting ever increasing emission standards may seem trivial on the outside looking in but it isn't.

No, history has not shown good reason for resisting fuel economy standards. Too long to cover, but if you're interested have a read: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/life-in-the-slow-lane

 

[ctark]

Apple is pushing the "changing the way you live", so a car could do that if they came up with something. Lets say they make a uber popular car that is good for the environment. Maybe other car manufacturers follow suit and it pushes innovation? I'm just speculating here.

 

[freeskier93]

What proprietary ecosystems are you referring to in regards to the cars currently available? I see plenty of different interfaces, but I haven't seen any auto maker ecosystems really. Generally they support iOS and/or Android as far as those things go. I haven't seen a Ford or Honda app store yet.

I would argue that a Apple car would probably be more proprietary than any auto we have seen in the past. Whether that is a good or bad thing probably is a matter of end user perspective.

Maybe lack of ecosystem would be the better way to describe it, but I think the fundamental issue is virtually all the car manufacturers are using proprietary systems/interfaces that quite frankly suck. It's clear that the infotainment systems are complete afterthoughts for just about every car manufacturer. The interfaces are half ass/cheesy, screen tech is decades old, underlying communication is insecure, systems are very disjointed... the list goes on.

I think tech companies like Apple have obvious advantages in this area, and to be honest it's a lot easier to design/build a car based on existing platforms then it is for a vehicle manufacture to implement the kind of technology a tech company like Apple can.

I would agree an Apple car is another proprietary system but at least it has a deep ecosystem. Personally, as an iPhone user, it would be great to see deep integration. I would imagine for people not in the Apple ecosystem it might be an enticing buy if it has the technology level you'd expect for something you're paying $50k+ for in 2015. Simple things like capacitive touch screen, a processor that can actually run everything smoothly, software that isn't deeply flawed, and many other things that I haven't even though of.

 

[freeskier93]

I think you're looking at his comments in far too much of a smartphone mindset. He's not talking about software ecosystems so much as hardware ecosystems. Modern vehicles contain numerous processors that all talk to each other, and that commonly occurs over a CAN bus. (I believe Tesla is using Ethernet though.) What makes this painful, and what I think he's really talking about, is that it's usually nigh impossible to truly upgrade electronics in a car. For example, I have a 2013 Ford with MyFord Touch. Ford recently announced an upgraded infotainment system that would completely replace MyFord Touch, and I asked them whether there would be hardware upgrades available for older cars.

I'm pretty sure you can guess their answer to that one. No. But I'm welcome to spent $47k on a new car whenever the new software comes out! :awe: Why does this happen? Because infotainment systems in Ford cars control a lot more than just the song that's currently playing. For example, my system controls all climate options as well as various settings about the car (auto-high beams, etc.).

Little bit of both really, and don't get me started on CAN...

Yeah, I see your point and CAN went through my mind but that is anything but proprietary. I feel you on the MyTouch thing though. My wife has the precursor to that (Trip Tunes I think) and it broke early on and can't be replaced either. Luckily hers isn't as integrated as yours.

Still, I will be shocked if Apple or anyone else has an electronics system that is truly upgradeable. I would love to be proven wrong though.

Of course CAN itself isn't proprietary, it's a freely known communication standard in the same category as RS232, I2C, SPI, and so on. These are very low level forms of communication though, really no flexibility and each device has to operate in a specific way, and then there's the whole security thing.

CAN makes sense for engine management where you have a bunch of sensors talking to the ECM/PCM, this is exactly what things like I2C and CAN were designed for, I mean really CAN is just the automotive version of I2C. CAN as a form of communication between major systems though? Just a terrible idea. Chrysler has already felt the pain of this with security issues. Personally I think Ethernet is the best option; it's easily adaptable to existing technology, way higher data rate, it's flexible, and it has intrinsic security.

 

[Rakehellion]

Not like Telsa was started by a guy with aerospace industry experience or anything.

Not like Apple has half a trillion dollars and is poaching Tesla's employees left and right.

 

[Ns1]

Looking forward to Find My iCar so I can remember where the hell iParked.

nice

 

[ControlD]

No, history has not shown good reason for resisting fuel economy standards. Too long to cover, but if you're interested have a read: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/life-in-the-slow-lane

That is an interesting article, especially to read now some 12 years after it was written. In 2003 (when the article was written) gas was $1.50 a gallon and US customers were in the "bigger is better" mode. As gas prices went up over $3.00 a gallon, consumers started to shift their focus towards fuel efficiency. Did we really need CAFE mileage standards or would the market have taken care of that for us?

I remember in the late 1970's when a similar rise in gas prices resulted in a major shift in what cars people wanted to buy. The manufacturers naturally shifted to offering smaller more efficient vehicles without any government mandates. I remember my dad trading in the Colony Park station wagon (10 mpg?) for a Fiesta (35 mpg?). That was in 1978 I believe.

 

[Artdeco]

With gas prices so low, everyone is buying SUV's and pickups again, as soon as the US oil production is cratered, prices will go up again, and we'll buy small cars again. US consumers rarely take the long view.

 

[sm625]

It makes more sense than $14 billion in stock buybacks in a single quarter! Imagine the amount of R&D you could do with $14 billion! But no they had to go and blow it all on stock buybacks. I'm going to laugh if the stock is trading lower in 6 months anyway. Bookmarked.

 

[Artdeco]

That was an insane amount of cash, and it put a floor on the downward spiral. Not so sure it was a good move.

 

[Aikouka]

Yeah, I see your point and CAN went through my mind but that is anything but proprietary. I feel you on the MyTouch thing though. My wife has the precursor to that (Trip Tunes I think) and it broke early on and can't be replaced either. Luckily hers isn't as integrated as yours.

Still, I will be shocked if Apple or anyone else has an electronics system that is truly upgradeable. I would love to be proven wrong though.

Ah, I'm not trying to suggest that CAN itself is proprietary, but rather that the automotive implementations using CAN can be proprietary. (Although, I'm not sure that's the best word to describe it, but I think we get it...) In other words, if I wanted to replace some processor in the car, I could do it. However, it could potentially be a laborious process involving tapping a line and capturing tons of data to attempt to map out the relevant portions of the ICD. ...unless you can tap the manufacturer of the processor for their ICD. (Note, I've been involved in activities like this for non-automotive things. It's not fun.)

I'd just like to imagine that Apple would design the system to be a bit more user-friendly. Although, to be clear, I do think they'd shoot for the greatest common denominator, which will still not hit everyone. It's the same with iOS and why some just don't like it. Anyway, I think that Apple would also consider the viability of post-sale upgrades. Imagine if Apple could release a new $xxx product every two years that upgraded cars. It would be the size of an iPad Mini. You unplug the front portion of your head-unit and plug in the new one (the thing that's the size of an iPad Mini). The idea is that the back-end handles the translation to the end processors and the front-end handles the processing. Essentially, it's like having an API like DirectX for your car.

 

[ControlD]

Ah, I'm not trying to suggest that CAN itself is proprietary, but rather that the automotive implementations using CAN can be proprietary. (Although, I'm not sure that's the best word to describe it, but I think we get it...) In other words, if I wanted to replace some processor in the car, I could do it. However, it could potentially be a laborious process involving tapping a line and capturing tons of data to attempt to map out the relevant portions of the ICD. ...unless you can tap the manufacturer of the processor for their ICD. (Note, I've been involved in activities like this for non-automotive things. It's not fun.)

I'd just like to imagine that Apple would design the system to be a bit more user-friendly. Although, to be clear, I do think they'd shoot for the greatest common denominator, which will still not hit everyone. It's the same with iOS and why some just don't like it. Anyway, I think that Apple would also consider the viability of post-sale upgrades. Imagine if Apple could release a new $xxx product every two years that upgraded cars. It would be the size of an iPad Mini. You unplug the front portion of your head-unit and plug in the new one (the thing that's the size of an iPad Mini). The idea is that the back-end handles the translation to the end processors and the front-end handles the processing. Essentially, it's like having an API like DirectX for your car.

I think you are simply trading one proprietary system for another. Apple isn't going to let YOU upgrade your car. True, they may offer you the service ($$) of an "upgrade" but it isn't going to be end user friendly. At least until somebody figures out how to jailbreak your car I suppose. I am trying to imagine what such an upgrade would entail however. I would hope the infotainment systems would already be handled through OS updates much like a phone and that would be cool unto itself. The rest might give you better tuning or battery management I suppose. I don't know that much about electric cars (yet) but I wonder how a company like Tesla is handling this. I imagine they can upgrade the firmware (for lack of a better word) on their cars already. We are doing some work for Tesla in the very near future, maybe I can ask one of their engineers.

One thing is for sure. The landscape could shift dramatically if electric vehicles come into demand. Removing the challenges of designing internal combustion engines and all of the support mechanisms for them opens the market to lots of companies that never could dream of getting in before. The big boys are going to have to adapt if/when that happens.

 

[Midwayman]

I wonder how a company like Tesla is handling this. I imagine they can upgrade the firmware (for lack of a better word) on their cars already.

They all have a cellular modem and can update firmware and upload usage stats, etc remotely. Basically tesla can push updates like your cell provider does.