• Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, it actually got some new press over the last six months because of some internal design team moves.

  • Smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I would LOVE to know what, if any IP, patents, or tech came out of this whole thing. I’m guessing “not much”.

  • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t get why Apple just didn’t buy a car maker. Like they could just buy the Mercedes Benz group. Why start from scratch?

    • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Because Apple is not a car maker. Making their own electric car was already pretty weird - buying an auto maker and having to run it would have been a huge distraction.

      It would have made more sense for them to partner with another company on the car (maybe they even did?) than start buying and running a whole car company.

    • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Rivian feels like it would be right up apples alley, that said, I’m glad they didn’t, I’d like to purchase a Rivian some day, and I don’t want it to be part of the apple ecosystem

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It looks like they basically wanted to operate like they’ve been operating for years. Apple engineers and designs, then they farm out manufacturing to a 3rd party. But no car companies wanted to be the Foxconn of cars.

  • magnetosphere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    My first guess is that it would have been overpriced and deliberately incompatible with existing chargers. No loss.

  • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Shame. I was curious how expensive it would be. Maybe somewhere between BMW and Porsche. I guess we’ll never know.

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I swear, this project has been declared dead like 5 times already by the media. Is it actually dead this time?

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      And I seem to recall Apple themselves have declared it abandoned at least once before, haven’t they?

  • RedFox@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why do companies feel like that have to try and do everything?

    Why can’t you just ‘stay in your lane’ and be good at what you’re good at.

    • coffinwood@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Apple started out with desktop computers. So by ‘staying in their lane’, they’d never made ipods, iphones, Apple silicon, earpods and airpods, the watch, etc. I think they had quite the success by diversing themselves.

      • RedFox@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m my head, I was thinking of all those consumer products (phones, pods, pads, earbuds, etc). That is a good reminder they started with business computers.

    • mindlight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      With that strategy, there would have been no iPod and therefore no iPhone.

      Hell, there would probably not even been a computer mouse since Rank Xerox would have been focusing on how to make copies of paper.

    • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      They are trying to insure their company survival. Imagine if they didn’t put money into R&D for a car and something happened where, for example, Google produced one or EVs really took off in a big way. Or self-driving cars became a reality.

      They’d be sol.

      So you’ll see companies like apple, meta, etc try a lot of different things as they attempt to read the tea leaves. They are one big tech breakthrough away from being irrelevant.

      I’ve been predicting for a while though that siri will be turned into an AI that runs locally using the metal cores.

      I’m genuinely surprised they haven’t dropped that on us and are focused on VR.

      • bitwolf@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ve been predicting for a while though that siri will be turned into an AI that runs locally using the metal cores.

        Especially after seeing the Rabbit R1, Google putting Tensor cores in the pixels, and hearing Apple preach about privacy.

        That is a very astute observation stranger!

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      A lot of these tech companies got into cars because they viewed vehicles as a new major new computing platform. Especially autonomous vehicles.

    • Pulptastic@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ever expanding profit requires ever expanding scope until it doesn’t, then you can divest for profit and try again.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well with that mentality Nintendo would be a trading card company and we wouldn’t have Super Mario Galaxy, and my 3rd grader past self has suffered enough without having their favorite Wii game taken away on top of everything else!

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Maybe it was, but I think it was because analysts argued that full self driving will be a multi trillion dollar business. And Apple wanted a piece of that pie.
      Now I guess they figure the pie might be less attractive compared to just working on AI without the car.

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    The main advantages of Apple Car® is that it runs on Apple Road® and Apple Fuel®. It was made of commonly available standardised components such as nuts and bolts but with special Apple Thread Pitch® that require Apple Spanner® to use them. There are no instruction manuals to repair Apple Car®, only Apple Dealership® is permitted. The outcome of the marketing effort causes the users to eventually become delusional about the product, believing that they own the best product and refusing to entertain any evidence to the contrary, much like religious beliefs.

  • Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    they’re supposedly moving them over to AI?

    they could always return to a car, in the future, i guess. Right now people want AI (apparently)