Apple Spent More Than $10 Billion on Apple Car Before Canceling Project

[Surf Monkey]

But you still have posted only opinions based on sources which speculate about certain things(yes I know Elon said something last year but this is months later with price adjustments), which doesn't contradict anything I said. It's a glass half-empty or glass-half full conversation. You are certainly welcome to your opinion of the company, the CEO etc -- as we all are. I don't have to agree.

That isn’t true. I posted legitimate sources that you clearly didn’t read.

Furthermore, slamming other people for expressing opinions while at the same time insisting we all take YOUR opinion as unalloyed fact is highly hypocritical and it already destroyed your argument pages ago.

 

[webkit]

I'm only quoting the same source OP choose to put up as a citation.

You weren’t just quoting the 1.8 million figure but also using it to conclude that the Cybertruck isn’t a failure. A problem with that conclusion is that deposits were taken under the assumption that the Cybertruck would have a much lower starting price. The number of deposits that turn into actual sales is now much more in doubt and therefore it would be wrong to reach a "not a failure" conclusion based on that deposits number. There are other factors too such as how long it has taken the Cybertruck to actually reach production.

 

[Surf Monkey]

That’s funny, only Tesla vehicle I will ever consider is a cyber truck. I need at least 450 mile range or close to it do drive an EV. There plenty of folks who would pay premium to buy one. People still read wired, it has been a tabloid for a while. I would get a Cyber Truck today if it was a flop and not for ridiculous 2-3 year wait time.

Cool anecdote.

 

[TechnoMonk]

Cool anecdote.

No, you can see the Tesla financial statements, which are bound by the law. Not some tabloid. If what the tabloid speculated is remotely true, there would be bigger legal problems for Tesla than cyber truck. It’s nothing new though, folks speculate the same after every iPhone launch about artificial constraints on production, and those supply constrained iPhone models end up as best selling smartphone.

 

[TechnoMonk]

You weren’t just quoting the 1.8 million figure but also using it to conclude that the Cybertruck isn’t a failure. A problem with that conclusion is that deposits were taken under the assumption that the Cybertruck would have a much lower starting price. The number of deposits that turn into actual sales is now much more in doubt and therefore it would be wrong to reach a "not a failure" conclusion based on that deposits number. There are other factors too such as how long it has taken the Cybertruck to actually reach production.

Production is bigger issue for Cybertruck. Tesla has been transparent about it. Not surprising since Tesla took long time to streamline other model productions. You could buy other Tesla models easily, cyber truck will probably take few months to ramp up to 300 K per quarter.

 

[Surf Monkey]

No, you can see the Tesla financial statements, which are bound by the law. Not some tabloid. If what the tabloid speculated is remotely true, there would be bigger legal problems for Tesla than cyber truck. It’s nothing new though, folks speculate the same after every iPhone launch about artificial constraints on production, and those supply constrained iPhone models end up as best selling smartphone.

That isn’t what I was commenting on.

 

[I7guy]

You weren’t just quoting the 1.8 million figure but also using it to conclude that the Cybertruck isn’t a failure.

Yes, another poster concluded it was a failure. Two opinions, but I used the information in the article quote to show the pipeline at that time.

A problem with that conclusion is that deposits were taken under the assumption that the Cybertruck would have a much lower starting price. The number of deposits that turn into actual sales is now much more in doubt and therefore it would be wrong to reach a "not a failure" conclusion based on that deposits number. There are other factors too such as how long it has taken the Cybertruck to actually reach production.

That is true, but it's a false assumption on the assertions that it took a long time, quality issues etc, that the pipeline dwindled to failure territory.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Yes, another poster concluded it was a failure. Two opinions, but I used the information in the article quote to show the pipeline at that time.

That is true, but it's a false assumption on the assertions that it took a long time, quality issues etc, that the pipeline dwindled to failure territory.

Why did you downvote that? His reply is not related to what I commented on. You dispute the point?

 

[I7guy]

What I am doing is comparing how two companies use their profits in other areas of their business to ramp up a new area of business with Tesla using profits from other areas of their business to ramp up a new area of business.

That's your own conversation, then. Telsa is making a profit, even with ramp-up issues with the cybertruck, while the legacy automakers with years of experience can't get their EV business off the groun.

If you believe Tesla can succeed with cybertruck, then I see no reason that the largest carmakers in the world (by every metric other than market cap, which should be a red flag frankly) can't make production of mainstream EVs happen at scale.

Sure they will eventually have everything figure out, if it's not too late.

The weird categorizations and asterisks you find yourself needing to apply in order to tell the story you're trying to is notable.

You conclusions are based your own opinions.

Ford and GM may have ramp up issues with their newest EV lines, I wouldn't expect any less from a technology shift, but as companies they are not losing money.

Never said that. Their EV business lost billions.

I agree Tesla isn't the only ones who will encounter them, but you seem to believe Tesla is the only one we should allow to.

No, I postulated cybertruck isn't losing money and you countered with an article from Oct. 2023. I then said cybertruck has gone through price adjustments.

That isn’t true. I posted legitimate sources that you clearly didn’t read.

A legitimate speculation is still speculation.

Furthermore, slamming other people for expressing opinions while at the same time insisting we all take YOUR opinion as unalloyed fact is highly hypocritical and it already destroyed your argument pages ago.

The tactic of discrediting posters is also a favorite but does nothing to bolster ones own argument.

edit: My opinion or y'alls opinion doesn't really matter; it's an internet arguing point. What will count is how the execution and market pans out in a few years for all of these companies.

 

[Surf Monkey]

That's your own conversation, then. Telsa is making a profit, even with ramp-up issues with the cybertruck, while the legacy automakers with years of experience can't get their EV business off the groun.

Sure they will eventually have everything figure out, if it's not too late.

You conclusions are based your own opinions.

Never said that. Their EV business lost billions.

No, I postulated cybertruck isn't losing money and you countered with an article from Oct. 2023. I then said cybertruck has gone through price adjustments.

A legitimate speculation is still speculation.

The tactic of discrediting posters is also a favorite but does nothing to bolster ones own argument.

edit: It really matters not my opinion, or y'alls opinion. What will count is how the execution and market pans out in a few years.

My man. You’ve made the “tactic of personally discrediting posters” a central part of your approach to this whole conversation. I stand by that comment unequivocally. You’ve been inconsistent regarding opinions. You offer yours as if they’re undisputed facts and dismiss any contradiction as “irrelevant opinion.” You can’t have it both ways and you can’t blame your own behavior on me.

 

[I7guy]

My man. You’ve made the “tactic of personally discrediting posters” a central part of your approach to this whole conversation. I stand by that comment unequivocally. You’ve been inconsistent regarding opinions. You offer yours as if they’re undisputed facts and dismiss any contradiction as “irrelevant opinion.” You can’t have it both ways and you can’t blame your own behavior on me.

There is a chasm at MacRumors from differentiating opinion from fact. It runs wide and deep.

The legacy automakers with their combined 200 years of experience couldn't make a go of getting putting an EV plan in place. I recognize that in the beginning this is a huge investment that takes time to pay off. However, with their huge war-chests of cash reserves they cut back on the plans and will restrategize I guess and approach the production in the future. That is what I find ironic. Not that they lost money in the beginning but with their experience they underestimated what it would take to get a BEV business off the ground.

Then we have people calling cybertruck a failure by their own metric. Nothing wrong with that, but at least be intellectually honest and admit is in an opinion. Two strongly worded opinions does not a fact equal.

 

[webkit]

Yes, another poster concluded it was a failure. Two opinions, but I used the information in the article quote to show the pipeline at that time.

That is true, but it's a false assumption on the assertions that it took a long time, quality issues etc, that the pipeline dwindled to failure territory.

The problem is that you were reaching a "doesn't seem like a failure" conclusion today based on old information that didn’t factor in what we now know which is that the starting price is much higher, there have been production delays, etc. These factors make the 1.8 million deposits figure pretty meaningless at this point (if it was ever a valid gauge to begin with).

 

[I7guy]

The problem is that you were reaching a "doesn't seem like a failure" conclusion today based on old information that didn’t factor in what we now know which is that the starting price is much higher, there have been production delays, etc. These factors make the 1.8 million deposits figure pretty meaningless at this point (if it was ever a valid gauge to begin with).

Again, it's not my figure. Putting a wet finger in the air is nothing but an opinion. Which isn't an issue -- just don't call it a fact.

 

[Analog Kid]

Telsa is making a profit, even with ramp-up issues with the cybertruck,

And the established makers are making a profit even with ramp-up issues with their EV lines.

while the legacy automakers with years of experience can't get their EV business off the groun.

Even Tesla with their years of EV experience can't get their new EV line off the ground.

No, I postulated cybertruck isn't losing money and you countered with an article from Oct. 2023. I then said cybertruck has gone through price adjustments.

No, I countered with a quote from Musk to investors that they'll continue losing money until between Oct. 2024 and April 2025. It doesn't matter when the article was written-- it's March 2024 right now so either they're still losing money, Musk was lying to investors, or Musk is so horrible at managing his business it never occurred to him that changing prices might change revenues.

Anyway, at this point I think you're well aware of the rhetorical games you're playing and are simply trying to win an argument rather than teach or learn. Or you think EVs are somehow magical and Tesla is the source of such magic.

Sure they will eventually have everything figure out, if it's not too late.

If it's too late, then Tesla is pretty much doomed. If there's only room for one EV maker, then that's not a sustainable market. I have no doubt that the established car makers will grow the fraction of EVs in their mix over time and that internal combustion is on its way out, though. I think you're just confused by the challenges of bringing new products online and the mythos that Tesla tries to wrap themselves in.

 

[jlc1978]

BYD isn’t doing that great either and they don’t sell in the US at this point. The Chinese electric car market is in a bit of trouble as I understand it.

BYD may have issues but they're outselling Tesla and appear to be poised to go global; which will impact Tesla.

Of course, this is the ev haters mantra

This whole you're a hater if you aren't a fan is tiresome. I actually like EVs, but see serious challenges to wider adoption until the infrastructure issues are addressed. You can argue all day long that you can plan trips and charge at the mall when you are away, but that doesn't address the range concerns that car buyers have, people want convenience, not a game of where do I charge next?

There has been focus literally on very granular adoption rates. The overall trend is headed in the right direction as far as I can tell.

EV's are getting more markets share, but I wonder how much of that is driven by incentives and rather Han real demand. Would people pay 7.5K$ more for a Tesla? Hard to say, and Tesla seems to think the answer is no as they drop prices.

Tesla also seems to still have QC issues, as well as some potential design flaws. If some reports are true, Tesla knows of the problems but has decided to ignore them and blame the customer. That is not good if it is the case.

QC issues around fit and finish are annoying but people will still buy if you are the only game in town, but as competitors move in they will cost sales; especially if you have a reputation for poor QC.

At some point, Tesla's very Apple like walled repair garden will attract regulatory scrutiny as well;I suspect the EU will act first.

It’s true insurance on an electric vehicle is higher than, let’s say a civic, but less than an s63 amg Mercedes. And repair costs are higher as well compared to a less expensive vehicle but in line with more expensive vehicles.

However, a 38K EV buyer is a lot different than 170K AMG buyer when it comes to price sensitivity.

The grid needs an update. But I suppose it’s better to keep pumping oil out of the ground. Pollute the air while transporting it. Pollute the air and ground while refining it. Pollute the air while pumping it and pollute the air while driving.

EVs aren't exactly green either, they just push the pollution elsewhere.

Where I live in the great garden state, it’s the third most populous state for EVs. You can’t throw a stick without hitting a Tesla.

Still, EVs are 8% of the US market, despite NJ's being #3. No wonder the major manufacturers aren't all in yet and going more slowly.

The legacy automakers with their combined 200 years of experience couldn't make a go of getting putting an EV plan in place. I recognize that in the beginning this is a huge investment that takes time to pay off. However, with their huge war-chests of cash reserves they cut back on the plans and will restrategize I guess and approach the production in the future. That is what I find ironic. Not that they lost money in the beginning but with their experience they underestimated what it would take to get a BEV business off the ground

They seemed to have decided that current demand doesn't warrant large scale investment, and they have a lot more experience than Tesla with working with suppliers and retooling factories; it's not like the are creating a whole new supply chain and manufacturing capability from scratch, unlike Tesla. It will be interesting to see how the government subsidies to retool for electric impact plans.

In Apple's case they would have had to build up a whole new capacity, or partner to bring a car to market. I doubt a major company would want to merely be Apple's assembler, which leaves companies who specialize in building cars for the big manufacturers. The latter would likely be an expensive car, and the investment to launch it was likely too much to generate Apple like returns.

 

[Analog Kid]

Yes, another poster concluded it was a failure. Two opinions, but I used the information in the article quote to show the pipeline at that time.

What pipeline?

As a general scale of reference, a $100 refundable deposit on a car promised at $40,000 and then sold for $60,000 would be equivalent to a refundable $8.75 deposit on Apple Vision Pro when it was unveiled at $3500 before being 2 years late andrepriced at $5250.

How many people would have put the $8.75 down at the time, and how many would buy the product today if it had been repriced 50% higher? I think we'd have had a flood of reservations based on the hype and hope and low risk-- many of whom would have been taking a wait and see attitude even at the original price. Most of those probably wouldn't have materialized when they needed to pony up the other $3491.25, and even fewer when the product is years late, there are other choices available, and the price jumped.

Then we have people calling cybertruck a failure by their own metric. Nothing wrong with that, but at least be intellectually honest and admit is in an opinion. Two strongly worded opinions does not a fact equal.

I think I'm the "people" you're calling intellectually dishonest. The nice thing about metrics is that opinions don't figure in. It's a fact that CT was late. It's a fact that it's priced 50% higher than promised. It's a fact that they are still not meeting their initial delivery rate. It's a fact that Tesla says it will be a year before they're cashflow positive. They failed against those metrics that Tesla themselves set.

 

[Analog Kid]

There is nothing that suggest the traditional auto makers can make EVs at the scale of Tesla in near future. It took long time for Tesla to get its act together after bleeding money for years. I would place my bet on Apple cancelling the plans more on not able to produce EVs in the volumes they were anticipating. Ford,GM, Volvo, and other traditional Auto companies are scaling back, realizing how crazy it is to compete. Not to mention Rivian and Lucid are a disaster.

The E isn't really the hard part of an EV as evidenced by the fact that Tesla seems to be able to pull prototypes together fairly easily but then struggle in reaching mass production. The established makers excel at the mass production bit and they've already been making electric and hybrid vehicles for years.

I don't see any evidence that they're wary of competing, or that they've decided they're unable to build the vehicles-- the market just isn't there to make the economics work for them yet versus putting those resources into cars that will sell. That'll change, I hope. I'd like to see internal combustion go the way of the dinosaurs they burn for fuel.

Rivian and Lucid are the same disasters that Tesla was when it started (and still seems to be with every new car it tries to launch)-- they're green field companies with no designs under their belt, no manufacturing supply chains or experience, no workforce ready to be tasked with a new model, and no existing product line to help fund the effort.

 

[diamond.g]

That’s funny, only Tesla vehicle I will ever consider is a cyber truck. I need at least 450 mile range or close to it do drive an EV. There plenty of folks who would pay premium to buy one. People still read wired, it has been a tabloid for a while. I would get a Cyber Truck today if it was a flop and not for ridiculous 2-3 year wait time.

Can I interest you in a Lucid Air Grand Touring with a whopping 516 miles of range?

 

[diamond.g]

The E isn't really the hard part of an EV as evidenced by the fact that Tesla seems to be able to pull prototypes together fairly easily but then struggle in reaching mass production. The established makers excel at the mass production bit and they've already been making electric and hybrid vehicles for years.

I don't see any evidence that they're wary of competing, or that they've decided they're unable to build the vehicles-- the market just isn't there to make the economics work for them yet versus putting those resources into cars that will sell. That'll change, I hope. I'd like to see internal combustion go the way of the dinosaurs they burn for fuel.

Rivian and Lucid are the same disasters that Tesla was when it started (and still seems to be with every new car it tries to launch)-- they're green field companies with no designs under their belt, no manufacturing supply chains or experience, no workforce ready to be tasked with a new model, and no existing product line to help fund the effort.

The weird (to me) part is the MachE (heck also include the ID.4) should be a shoe in for selling more than the Model Y, yet it isn't. Why?

 

[I7guy]

And the established makers are making a profit even with ramp-up issues with their EV lines.

Well bully for them...right?

Even Tesla with their years of EV experience can't get their new EV line off the ground.

True. Getting new production of complex proportion off the ground is tough. At least they didn't cancel their EV programs.

No, I countered with a quote from Musk to investors that they'll continue losing money until between Oct. 2024 and April 2025. It doesn't matter when the article was written-- it's March 2024 right now so either they're still losing money, Musk was lying to investors, or Musk is so horrible at managing his business it never occurred to him that changing prices might change revenues.

Things change. And how much money are they losing in March 2024? I'll wait for an answer.

Anyway, at this point I think you're well aware of the rhetorical games you're playing and are simply trying to win an argument rather than teach or learn. Or you think EVs are somehow magical and Tesla is the source of such magic.

Not sure who is playing games or semantics here.

If it's too late, then Tesla is pretty much doomed. If there's only room for one EV maker, then that's not a sustainable market. I have no doubt that the established car makers will grow the fraction of EVs in their mix over time and that internal combustion is on its way out, though. I think you're just confused by the challenges of bringing new products online and the mythos that Tesla tries to wrap themselves in.

Nope. I think you're confused by the amount the expertise the legacy automakers needed to bringing an EV to market. I also have no doubt it will happen. Some day.

 

[Abazigal]

Ten billion dollars is less than what Google pays Apple in a year. Someone remind me what all the fuss is about that warrants a 13-page debate again?

 

[I7guy]

BYD may have issues but they're outselling Tesla and appear to be poised to go global; which will impact Tesla.

Well sure it will. But we don't know, if and what the extent is. They won't be in the US though.

This whole you're a hater if you aren't a fan is tiresome.

Well it's tiresome to read the same trope.

I actually like EVs, but see serious challenges to wider adoption until the infrastructure issues are addressed.

It took years for gas stations to popup on every corner. At the turn of the century petrol was had at the drugstore. If you commute on a reasonable change and can charge at home this is the best case scenario. DC fast charging depends on your route. On the east coast I would feel comfortable driving from Maine to Florida.

You can argue all day long that you can plan trips and charge at the mall when you are away, but that doesn't address the range concerns that car buyers have, people want convenience, not a game of where do I charge next?

Some people have range concerns some don't. Some people don't mind polluting the planet with soot thrashing diesels and some do.

EV's are getting more markets share, but I wonder how much of that is driven by incentives and rather Han real demand. Would people pay 7.5K$ more for a Tesla? Hard to say, and Tesla seems to think the answer is no as they drop prices.

The incentives helped seal the deal, if I'm being honest. But many people bought Teslas even before there were such sweet incentives.

Tesla also seems to still have QC issues, as well as some potential design flaws. If some reports are true, Tesla knows of the problems but has decided to ignore them and blame the customer. That is not good if it is the case.

QC issues around fit and finish are annoying but people will still buy if you are the only game in town, but as competitors move in they will cost sales; especially if you have a reputation for poor QC.

Being another VW won't be good. I guess at some point we will find out, if there is something to find out. But didn't VW recover?

At some point, Tesla's very Apple like walled repair garden will attract regulatory scrutiny as well;I suspect the EU will act first.

All electric vehicle makers are like that I assume. The third party markets don't have the capability of building the myriad of parts needed (again an assumption)

However, a 38K EV buyer is a lot different than 170K AMG buyer when it comes to price sensitivity.

I know people who can afford a 170K AMG and they don't think it's worth the price. You can't tell a book by the cover as the saying goes.

EVs aren't exactly green either, they just push the pollution elsewhere.

Yes, when charging. Turning on your vacuum pushes pollution somewhere. However with EVs they don't have the repetitive cycle of pollution. They do not pollute taking dinosaur oil from the ground. Don't pollute transporting the oil. Don't pollute refining the oil. Don't pollute delivering it to gas stations and don't pollute delivering the gas to your car. And don't pollute then driving away. Rinse and repeat.

Still, EVs are 8% of the US market, despite NJ's being #3. No wonder the major manufacturers aren't all in yet and going more slowly.

Sure I agree with this, but going in and then retrenching is not a good look for the established makers.

They seemed to have decided that current demand doesn't warrant large scale investment, and they have a lot more experience than Tesla with working with suppliers and retooling factories;

but not building EVs.

it's not like the are creating a whole new supply chain and manufacturing capability from scratch, unlike Tesla.

Telsa already built their supply chain, built their supercharger network (and selling power to third parties from that network), is now building out their own AI to use in their cars.

It will be interesting to see how the government subsidies to retool for electric impact plans.

In Apple's case they would have had to build up a whole new capacity, or partner to bring a car to market. I doubt a major company would want to merely be Apple's assembler, which leaves companies who specialize in building cars for the big manufacturers. The latter would likely be an expensive car, and the investment to launch it was likely too much to generate Apple like returns.

Going into the future will be interesting.

 

[Surf Monkey]

There is a chasm at MacRumors from differentiating opinion from fact. It runs wide and deep.

Something you seem determined to demonstrate over and over again. I’ve been clear about what parts of my posts are opinions and I’ve been clear that my opinions as no more or less valid than yours. And yet, here you are again attempting to completely discredit anyone who expresses an opinion by falsely framing it as a claim of fact and then, in the very same post, expecting people to take your opinions as unassailable fact. That’s problematic.

 

[jlc1978]

Ten billion dollars is less than what Google pays Apple in a year. Someone remind me what all the fuss is about that warrants a 13-page debate again?

The internet…where no one knows you’re a dog….

 

[I7guy]

The weird (to me) part is the MachE (heck also include the ID.4) should be a shoe in for selling more than the Model Y, yet it isn't. Why?

Because Telsa has reimagined the entire EV experience? Or the company and ceo are so controversial that controversy sells?