Apple Car 2.0: How the Tech Giant Just Might Change … Everything
You laughed at us when we first imagined the Apple Car in 2016. "It's too podlike and not exciting enough to wear the Apple moniker," you complained.
Look who's laughing now. The pod, for better or worse, is the future of automotive design. Just peek at the likes of the Canoo Lifestyle Vehicle or the Cruise Origin or the Amazon-backed Zoox, each of which essentially is a stylized passenger cell.
The reasoning is simple: simplification. With compact electric motors instead of bulky internal combustion engines and no need for steering columns or gas and brake pedals, our projected autonomous future strips down the automobile to its most basic elements, a concept Apple has for decades applied to everything from cell phones to wristwatches.
That said, pods need not look boring, which is why we went back to the drawing board and reimagined the Apple Car. Or should we say, cars.
The Apple Touch
It may pain Apple fans to read this, but the company rarely creates truly original pieces of hardware. Its products instead tend to improve on existing concepts. For instance, Apple's earliest personal computers—the more rudimentary Apple I of 1976 and the more familiar-looking Apple II of 1977—were beaten to market by the likes of the Altair 8800 in 1975. Likewise, the first MP3 players and smartphones, the MPman F10 of 1998 and the IBM Simon Personal Communicator of 1994, went on sale years before Apple revealed the iPod (2001) and iPhone (2007).
This is no knock against Apple's hardware, which with exceptions such as the Apple III is generally competent in its own right, but rather a commendation on the software environment the company created over the years. Credit the late Steve Jobs' decision to forgo licensing Apple's operating system to other hardware manufacturers, a strategy the company tried briefly in the mid-1990s during the reign of then-CEO Michael Spindler. (Jobs ended this process upon his return to Apple.)
By maintaining integration between Apple's software and hardware, the company could "take responsibility for the user experience from end to end," as Walter Isaacson wrote in his 2011 book, Steve Jobs. Following Jobs' death in October 2011, Apple's current CEO, Tim Cook, regularly espouses the same beliefs.
"We love to integrate hardware, software, and services and find the intersection points of those because we think that's where the magic occurs … and we love to own the primary technology that's around that," Cook told Kara Swisher of The New York Times in response to a question regarding Apple's automotive ambitions.
Recent Apple hires provide evidence the company continues to toy with the idea of fully developing its own car. The man said to be heading the program? Kevin Lynch, the executive responsible for turning the Apple Watch into one of the Cupertino, California, tech giant's core products. Lynch is much more a software developer than an automotive or autonomy engineer, but worry not.
Over the past few years, Apple successfully recruited automotive industry talent such as Ulrich Kranz, former CEO of Canoo and former head of BMW's i division; Michael Schwekutsch, who previously served as Tesla's vice president of engineering; and Anton Uselmann, an engineer whose résumé includes stints at Mercedes-AMG and Porsche.
Given Apple's nearly $2.9 trillion market cap (as of this writing), the company certainly has the means to develop and produce its own car. Nevertheless, developing and building an automobile is not the same as developing and building personal electronic devices such as computers, tablets, and smartphones. Or vacuums, as Dyson discovered when it attempted to mass produce its own electric vehicle.
As company founder James Dyson revealed in his 2021 memoir, Invention: A Life, the company invested $700 million into its stillborn EV project, which it ultimately abandoned. Blame the various costs associated with the production and storage of a "relatively low-volume" vehicle Dyson intended to sell directly to consumers.
"[W]e would have [had] to sell the car at $210,000," Dyson wrote. "There are not many people who will buy a car at [that] price."
The Apple Car(share) Program
Rumors persist that Apple plans to partner with an established automobile manufacturer to build its vehicle. Such a move may help Apple keep the per-unit costs reasonably low. How such a business relationship may affect Apple Car consumers is a different story.
Although it's possible Apple decides to sell vehicles directly to the public, we hear it may ultimately pursue a car- or ride-share model, wherein Apple owns the vehicles and consumers pay to use them, à la Zipcar, with an autonomous twist. In this sense, then, Apple's model for its car program may more closely mirror Cruise's or Waymo's, wherein a user schedules one of Apple's autonomous electric vehicles to take them from Point A to Point B.
We foresee riders being able to schedule recurring rides, too; just imagine an Apple Car showing up outside your door Monday-Friday to waft you off to work or shuttle the kids to school. If Apple goes this route, the company will likely—initially, at least—limit its vehicles' use to metropolitan areas where lower speeds and streets laid out in predictable grid patterns are the norms.
Admittedly, we're working here with an assortment of crumbs we've gathered from sources and publicized leaks to come to this conclusion. Apple's car plans could take an entirely different route from what we're hypothesizing, or perhaps Cook and company will scrap the program altogether.
Nonetheless, an autonomous car-sharing service seems the most sensible way for Apple to enter the automotive space. After all, there's a reason Alphabet created Waymo and why General Motors and Honda, not to mention others, invested in Cruise.
Much like Apple's electronic devices, the company's potential crop of autonomous vehicles will likely rely on clean design, user-friendly ergonomics, and easy integration with Apple's various products to create a user experience distinct from those of competitors—and we think the company's CarPlay interface may play a key role.
The Apple CarPlay Push
Today, CarPlay largely serves to display and control Apple devices running certain iterations of the brand's mobile operating system, but tomorrow, CarPlay could effectively replace the native infotainment systems now used by automakers.
Per a Bloomberg report, Apple is looking to take CarPlay to the next level as part of a project the company's working on, dubbed "IronHeart." If successful, IronHeart will reportedly give CarPlay access to control various vehicle settings, including the host car's climate, seat, and audio selections.
Apple will likely struggle to convince automakers to let CarPlay control such features, but consumer demand for a more fluid experience between their personal vehicles and mobile devices could ultimately force carmakers to play ball. Little is known about the IronHeart project to those outside of Apple (and likely to many of those within Apple, as well). There's even a chance Apple has already scrapped IronHeart—assuming the project ever truly existed at all.
Yet it makes sense for Apple to invest in a project such as IronHeart, if only to give drivers a more standardized user experience between the mobile devices they use and the cars they pilot. Cynics are sure to view IronHeart in a darker light as a way for Apple to collect pertinent information to use in the development of its own vehicle.
This may be the case. Still, if our hunch is correct and Apple's car program takes on the form of a car-share service, then we think the company's intentions are far less nefarious. Rather, we wager Apple's goal for IronHeart is to turn CarPlay into a portable profile, allowing its autonomous cars to preemptively adjust comfort and convenience features to the individual preferences of a given passenger.
The Apple Car Experience
Imagine the entirely possible future where, with few exceptions, private vehicles are banned from major metro areas such as San Francisco, New York City, and Chicago. Sure, you can take public transportation into the city, but you better hope your destination is located close to a train or bus stop.
Alternatively, you can drive your personal car to an Apple Car pickup point located just outside the city. Once parked, the Apple Car you scheduled via your smartphone's app will whisk you away to your specific metropolitan destination with no driving required.
An array of vehicle-mounted cameras and lidar sensors work with Apple's Maps app, which includes high-precision mapping of specific metropolitan areas, to help Apple's fleet of cars safely react to unforeseen obstacles, such as pedestrians and road debris. Additional peace of mind comes courtesy of the Apple Cars' vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication systems, which allow the autonomous cars to wirelessly "communicate" with one another and the surrounding infrastructure. Energy-dense battery packs afford many hours of continuous operation.
Although some users will lease a private Apple Car, most will subscribe to the service that allows them to use the company's fleet of shared autonomous vehicles. Apple Car lessees and subscribers will largely consist of individuals who frequently enter city centers that ban private vehicles.
Those unable to or uninterested in justifying the cost of an Apple Car lease or subscription, however, will be able to pay to ride in one of these self-driving EVs on a single-use basis, provided there's a fleet car available for such use. If none is, then single-use customers may decide to forgo the familiar interface of the Apple Car for a readily available autonomous vehicle from a competitor such as Cruise, Waymo, or Zoox.
In this hypothetical future, we foresee Apple introducing its automotive worldview with two models of autonomous vehicles for its users to catch a ride in: a larger, boxy multipurpose vehicle, dubbed the ePod, capable of carrying multiple passengers and their associated goods, and a smaller, single-seat option, better known as the ePod Solo. Down the line, there would be a whole fleet of offerings, ranging from eight-passenger vans to open-top sports cars.
No matter the model, Apple Car users will need only pair their CarPlay profile to the vehicle, which then automatically adjusts the likes of the display interface, climate control, seat settings, and more to the individual rider's personal preferences. To increase profits, Apple will offer the option to unlock certain features for a small fee. This includes access to the Apple Arcade collection of mobile games, exclusive programming from Apple TV+, and even in-car workouts and meditations through Apple Fitness+.
Is the Apple Car Really Coming Soon?
Apple's automotive doings remain a moving target, and much about what the company intends to produce in this space has changed since we first imagined the tech giant's four-wheeled machine more than a half-decade ago. That said, the rumor mill indicates the company continues to tinker away at developing a vehicle—there's even chatter Apple targets a launch as early as 2025. In other words, it's only a matter of time until Apple vindicates or disproves everything we think we know about its car program, from the vehicle's (or vehicles') potential design to the whole operation's potential business model.
You may also like
Every year, our MotorTrend test crew performs instrumented testing on all manner of cars, trucks, and SUVs—some 220 in all in calendar year 2021. Some are fast—here are the quickest cars we tested this year—others not so much. But even the slowest cars nowadays aren't exactly stuck in the mud. Of all of the vehicles we tested, only one of them was on wrong side of the 10-second barrier to 60 mph, with a small handful taking more than 9 seconds to get there.As we've seen in recent years, the majority of the slower vehicles we test tend to be compact crossover SUVs fitted with small-displacement engines. Inline four-cylinders of varying sizes are the overwhelming powerplant of choice; some are turbocharged, and a hybrid is usually in the mix in here and there. Efficiency is generally what automakers prioritize with these vehicles, so not surprisingly, straight line speed isn't part of the formula. That, and sometimes a vehicle will have a slightly underpowered engine option given its size and weight, further affecting performance. (The Hyundai Elantra was a case in point, with three separate variants making this year's list.)There were a few surprises, and a couple of brands (we're looking at you again, Hyundai) featured multiple pokey offerings this year. In the event of a tie (there were several) we moved to quarter mile and trap-speed times to break them. So which vehicles were the slowest of the slow goers? Read on to see our list of the slowest cars we tested in 2021.
"What'll be the 0-60-mph stat of 2036?" That question was posed during multiple brainstorming sessions for the launch of our InEVitable project. My response was that having served us for a half-century, 0-60-mph will surely survive another 15 years. But its relevance is clearly fading. At one end, hypercars are bumping into the physical limits of tire traction in the barely sub-2.0-second realm, while the heart of the market has sort of decided that anything in the 6-to-8-second range is plenty quick enough for purchase consideration. Not surprisingly, that represents the average 0-60 time of every stock vehicle we've tested over the last five model years (6.2 seconds) plus one standard deviation (1.8 seconds). Autonomy will undoubtedly dull 0-60's luster even further. When anyone else is driving, folks prefer gentle launches. Of course, ubiquitous autonomy is way further out than 15 years.So, what can we test or research and report that you might be more interested in over the next 15 years? We considered the current barriers preventing wider adoption of battery electric vehicles. Range and charging are the two biggies. Charging infrastructure is gradually improving across the country, but some 60 percent of Americans (and an even larger slice of our readership) can utilize a Level-2 charger at home or at work to meet their daily commuting needs. And with the 52 separate BEV models on the EPA's 2021 and 2022 data sheets averaging 266 miles of official range, we reckon our audience faces little or no legitimate "range anxiety" around town.Longer trips are problematic. Most EVs run out of juice before their combustion counterparts and then take longer to "juice up." So we thought, let's come up with a number that tells folks how much longer it would it take to make a trip, of say, 1,000 miles (the farthest most folks would consider driving in a day). And we're optimistically assuming that within 15 years, the frustrations we experience today with inoperative or unavailable chargers, payment hassles, etc. will be relics of the past.So we rounded up range and charging info for all 52 of those EPA-rated EVs along with similar info for a the top-selling combustion, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid vehicles to compute the difference in time it would take to cover 1,000 miles traveling 70 mph between stops (a legal, or at least prevalent and non-felonious speed on most interstate highways).We assumed a fixed 10-minute time required for every vehicle to slow down, exit, enter a filling station, hook up, pay, stow everything, and return to traveling 70 mph. For combustion refueling we had drivers stopping with 5 percent of fuel remaining and a refueling flow rate of 10 gallons/minute. The combustion fleet averaged 14.7 hours to make the trip (68.4 mph). At the top were vehicles with either a high enough EPA highway rating or a large enough gas tank to require only one stop, resulting in a total trip time of 14.5 hours for an average speed of 69 mph. At the bottom sat the range-extended BMW i3, with a 2.4-gallon tank that would require 12 fuel stops, stretching the trip to 16.5 hours for a 60.7-mph average speed.Then we computed travel times for every BEV the EPA has tested, using DC fast-charging information provided by manufacturers or measured by reputable third parties. These times generally represent charging from some minimum to 80 percent state of charge, above which the charging rate slows considerably. The savviest EVs come with navigation aids that optimize trip planning by suggesting charging locations that align with these suggested max/min battery charge levels.Beyond two outliers, every EV needs between 15.3 hours (Lucid Air, 65.4 mph average) and 23.5 hours (Mini Cooper SE, 42.6 mph). That means driving a kilomile in that Lucid only takes 4 percent longer than in a combustion vehicle, whereas in the Mini you'll spend 60 percent longer on the road. The average of the DC fast-charge vehicles was 18.2 hours/55.5 mph, or 24 percent longer than the average combustion vehicle. Numbers that are sure to improve greatly over 15 more years of continuous progress in battery chemistry, EV powertrain efficiency, and charging speeds. Those outliers? The Chinese Kandi city car features a tiny battery and no DC fast-charging, so it would have to stop 19 times for a 7-hour charge each time, resulting in a 6.6-mph average speed. Road-trip torture. Similarly, a Nissan Leaf S lacking the $1,690 Quick Charge option would take 35 hours to make the trip, stopping five times for a four-hour charge, averaging 42.6 mph.Will 1K LTS become the next 0-60? Doubtful. Might it better inform your perception of an electric vehicle's viability for road trips? Let us know at [email protected],000-Mile Legal Trip Speed How long does it take to drive 1,000 miles traveling 70 mph between stops? EV Charging Time Information* Vehicle EPA hwy range (miles) DC fast-charge time, X-Y% charge (min) X (lower state of charge) Y (higher state of charge) Time to first stop, 100-X% (hours) Time between stops, Y-X% (hours) Number of stops required Total time at stops (min)** 1,000-mile trip time (hours) Average speed (mph) Percent longer than combustion vehicle*** Audi etron 221.9 30 5% 80% 3.0 2.4 5 40 17.6 56.8 20% Audi etron Sportback 221.5 30 5% 80% 3.0 2.4 5 40 17.6 56.8 20% BMW i3 136.4 34 0% 80% 1.9 1.6 8 44 20.2 49.6 37% BMW i3s 136.4 34 0% 80% 1.9 1.6 8 44 20.2 49.6 37% Chevrolet Bolt EUV 222.9 69 4% 80% 3.1 2.4 5 79 20.9 47.9 42% Chevrolet Bolt EV 235.1 69 4% 80% 3.2 2.6 5 79 20.9 47.9 42% Ford Mustang Mach-e AWD 193.7 36 20% 80% 2.2 1.7 8 46 20.4 49.0 39% Ford Mustang Mach-e AWD Ext Range 249.2 36 20% 80% 2.8 2.1 6 46 18.9 53.0 28% Ford Mustang Mach-e California 281.8 36 20% 80% 3.2 2.4 5 46 18.1 55.2 23% Ford Mustang Mach-e RWD 215.0 36 20% 80% 2.5 1.8 7 46 19.7 50.9 34% Ford Mustang Mach-e RWD Ext Range 277.1 36 20% 80% 3.2 2.4 5 46 18.1 55.2 23% Hyundai Ioniq 153.3 54 2% 80% 2.1 1.7 8 64 22.8 43.8 55% Hyundai Kona EV 226.0 47 10% 80% 2.9 2.3 6 57 20.0 50.0 36% Jaguar i-Pace EV400 221.0 40 2% 80% 3.1 2.5 5 50 18.5 54.2 26% Kandi K27 (Level 2 only) 51.6 420 2% 100% 0.7 0.7 19 430 150.5 6.6 923% Kia Niro Electric 213.6 60 2% 80% 3.0 2.4 5 70 20.1 49.7 37% Lucid Air Dream P (19" wheels) 471.0 20 15% 80% 5.7 4.4 2 30 15.3 65.4 4% Lucid Air Dream P (21" wheels) 451.0 20 15% 80% 5.5 4.2 3 30 15.8 63.3 7% Lucid Air Dream R (19" wheels) 520.0 20 15% 80% 6.3 4.8 2 30 15.3 65.4 4% Lucid Air Dream R (21" wheels) 481.0 20 15% 80% 5.8 4.5 2 30 15.3 65.4 4% Lucid Air Grand Touring (19" wheels) 516.0 20 15% 80% 6.3 4.8 2 30 15.3 65.4 4% Lucid Air Grand Touring (21" wheels) 469.0 20 15% 80% 5.7 4.4 2 30 15.3 65.4 4% Mini Cooper SE 101.9 36 2% 80% 1.4 1.1 12 46 23.5 42.6 60% Nissan Leaf (40 kWh) 131.3 40 5% 80% 1.8 1.4 9 50 21.8 45.9 48% Nissan Leaf (62 kWh) 202.2 60 5% 80% 2.7 2.2 6 70 21.3 47.0 45% Nissan Leaf (62 kWh, No Quick-Charge Option) 226.0 240 5% 80% 3.1 2.4 5 250 35.1 28.5 139% Nissan Leaf SV/SL (62 kWh) 192.5 60 5% 80% 2.6 2.1 6 70 21.3 47.0 45% Polestar 2 222.1 20 20% 80% 2.5 1.9 7 30 17.8 56.2 21% Porsche Taycan 4S Performance Battery 201.4 22.5 5% 80% 2.7 2.2 6 33 17.5 57.0 19% Porsche Taycan 4S Performance Battery Plus 237.7 22.5 5% 80% 3.2 2.5 5 33 17.0 58.8 16% Porsche Taycan Performance Battery 210.7 22.5 5% 80% 2.9 2.3 6 33 17.5 57.0 19% Porsche Taycan Performance Battery Plus 239.8 22.5 5% 80% 3.3 2.6 5 33 17.0 58.8 16% Porsche Taycan Turbo 218.4 22.5 5% 80% 3.0 2.3 5 33 17.0 58.8 16% Porsche Taycan Turbo S 203.9 22.5 5% 80% 2.8 2.2 6 33 17.5 57.0 19% Rivian R1T 314.0 50 2% 80% 4.4 3.5 3 60 17.3 57.9 18% Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD 333.8 31 20% 80% 3.8 2.9 4 41 17.0 58.8 16% Tesla Model 3 Performance AWD 299.0 20 20% 80% 3.4 2.6 5 30 16.8 59.6 14% Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus RWD 234.7 30 20% 80% 2.7 2.0 6 40 18.3 54.7 24% Tesla Model S Long Range 387.7 20 20% 80% 4.4 3.3 3 30 15.8 63.3 7% Tesla Model S Performance (19" Wheels) 373.2 30 20% 80% 4.3 3.2 4 40 17.0 59.0 15% Tesla Model S Performance (21" Wheels) 323.2 30 20% 80% 3.7 2.8 4 40 17.0 59.0 15% Tesla Model S Plaid (21" Wheels) 341.0 27 20% 80% 3.9 2.9 4 37 16.8 59.7 14% Tesla Model X Long Range Plus 356.3 30 20% 80% 4.1 3.1 4 40 17.0 59.0 15% Tesla Model X Performance (20" Wheels) 332.2 30 20% 80% 3.8 2.8 4 40 17.0 59.0 15% Tesla Model X Performance (22" Wheels) 289.0 30 20% 80% 3.3 2.5 5 40 17.6 56.8 20% Tesla Model Y Long Range AWD 305.5 30 20% 80% 3.5 2.6 5 40 17.6 56.8 20% Tesla Model Y Performance AWD 289.0 30 20% 80% 3.3 2.5 5 40 17.6 56.8 20% Tesla Model Y Standard Range Plus RWD 222.1 30 20% 80% 2.5 1.9 7 40 19.0 52.8 29% Volkswagen ID4 1st 230.2 38 5% 80% 3.1 2.5 5 48 18.3 54.7 24% Volkswagen ID4 Pro 237.1 38 5% 80% 3.2 2.5 5 48 18.3 54.7 24% Volkswagen ID4 Pro S 230.2 38 5% 80% 3.1 2.5 5 48 18.3 54.7 24% Volvo XC40 Recharge 188.0 40 20% 90% 2.1 1.9 7 50 20.1 49.7 37% *Charging time info taken from manufacturer data or test data reported by third parties. AVERAGE (excluding Level-2 vehicles) 18.2 55.5 24% **Includes time spent slowing, parking, charging, paying, accelerating back to 70 mph: 10 min ***The average of many combustion, HEV, and PHEV vehicles was 14.7 hours to travel 1,000 miles (68.4 mph). These charge times are were quoted from 0 percent, but our calculations involve pulling over at 2 percent. Trip time may be reduced by charging from 5 or 20 percent. Show All
During Monterey Car Week, billions of dollars of exotic cars, classics, and other rolling reminders that you don't make the big bucks descent on Monterey, California, to slosh around into a dizzying slurry of gross excess. It's an amazing, overwhelming thing to take in, for sure, but luckily there's a blowoff valve of sorts for that suffocating wealth and glamour: Concours d'Lemons.Held in nearby Seaside, California, a nice enough spot that, like most of the rest of America, resembles Oscar the Grouch's dingy trash can by comparison to Monterey, the Concours d'Lemons forces you to physically leave Car Week's fever dream environment.Oh, and it also exclusively hosts shit cars. Just real salt-of-the-rust stuff, like Ford Pintos and homemade Lamborghini replicas. We're not being mean, either—the show, spun off of the 24 Hours of Lemons dirtball, low-buck racing series—is a self-proclaimed celebration of automotive detritus.We last checked in to this steaming pile of a car show in 2019, so we held our noses and decided to go back. This year's show took over the parking lot and nearby lawn of the Seaside City Hall, and featured such bizarro junk such as a malaise-era American luxury sedan bedecked in some kind of craft "hair" and sporting a bug-eyed horse head atop it; a faux Lamborghini Countach; and some '80s Volkswagens.Of course there were tons of eyesores in-between, and the show was packed. Check out what showed up in our extensive gallery:We'd say "at least it was free," but this show should be free, because no one should need to pay to experience this. And that's exactly what makes it so enjoyable.
0 Comments