Apple Working On Project That Will 'Give Tesla a Run for its Money' Says Employee

[Mike Lavigne]

Technology innovation will not be the constraint. The massive social and economic dislocation associatiated with this level of innovative disruption will be. We are pushing the limits as it is, with our economic system creating more net losers than winners - not a sustainable model for growth. We got to figure out the economics and social aspects - the technology will be there.

the trends are not toward more density closer in, the trends are that commercial centers are finding more economical places to be, and population follows that. and that means the Sun Belt.

in the Auto Business manufacturers have left SoCal and NYC-Tri-State for Texas and Atlanta. Boeing went to South Carolina. Tesla went to Nevada. manaufacturing has moved to 'right-to-work' states away from the rust belt and Northeast.

Oil attracts people to North Dakota and Texas....even Alaska.

so the social aspects are secondary to where the money is. people can live anywhere it works for them to live. all the service industries follow the people.

your nice neat model does not reflect reality.

there are exceptions based on technical talent density (Seattle, S.F., Silicon Valley, Austin, etc.) or politics (D.C.); but that is not the norm.

it's a world market economy and that, as always, rules.

Honda had to open a plant in Mexico for it's Fit and new H-Rv to compete in those segments.

 

[edorr]

the trends are not toward more density closer in, the trends are that commercial centers are finding more economical places to be, and population follows that. and that means the Sun Belt.

in the Auto Business manufacturers have left SoCal and NYC-Tri-State for Texas and Atlanta. Boeing went to South Carolina. Tesla went to Nevada. manaufacturing has moved to 'right-to-work' states away from the rust belt and Northeast.

Oil attracts people to North Dakota and Texas....even Alaska.

so the social aspects are secondary to where the money is. people can live anywhere it works for them to live.

your nice neat model does not reflect reality.

there are exceptions based on technical talent density; but that is not the norm.

it's a world market economy and that, as always, rules.

Honda had to open a plant in Mexico for it's Fit and new H-Rv to compete in those segments.

Obviously we're all just speculating, but no one ever buys into the industry the are firmly invested in being potentially subject to massive disruption. We'll see. Irrespectively - we both won't live to see it happen. This will take some time.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Obviously we're all just speculating, but no one ever buys into the industry the are firmly invested in being potentially subject to massive disruption. We'll see. Irrespectively - we both won't live to see it happen. This will take some time.

i'm 63 and just an employee. i'll be out before i'm 70. so I don't have any skin in the future game. i'm not concerned about how economic issues will change the auto business or how we use cars. I am concerned that big government will legislate cars away through fuel economy standards. to the point where the middle class cannot ever buy one.

every raising of the CAFE standards 1 MPG adds a percentage to the cost. I see $50k average costs for cars in todays money in 30 years on the path we are going. that will cut new cars sales by 75% and grind innovation to a halt. think about how much less value for the dollar you get when you reduce the volume by 75%. scale is what makes great auto products.

the only chance for you to be even a little right is in that issue. and that could happen. never underestimate what big government can do/screw up (choose one).

 

[edorr]

i'm 63 and just an employee. i'll be out before i'm 70. so I don't have any skin in the future game. i'm not concerned about how economic issues will change the auto business or how we use cars. I am concerned that big government will legislate cars away through fuel economy standards. to the point where the middle class cannot ever buy one.

every raising of the CAFE standards 1 MPG adds a percentage to the cost. I see $50k average costs for cars in todays money in 30 years on the path we are going. that will cut new cars sales by 75% and grind innovation to a halt. think about how much less value for the dollar you get when you reduce the volume by 75%. scale is what makes great auto products.

the only chance for you to be even a little right is in that issue. and that could happen. never underestimate what big government can do/screw up (choose one).

30 years projection of anything without factoring in technological innovation is utterly meaningless - we can hardely predict 5 years out. Forget 30. The technology to build more fuel efficient cars is there - the reason it is not happening fast enough is lack of scale. I say establish a fuel tax now that oil prices are low, and create economic incentive to develop / drive smaller more fuel efficient cars.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

30 years projection of anything without factoring in technological innovation is utterly meaningless - we can hardely predict 5 years out. Forget 30. The technology to build more fuel efficient cars is there - the reason it is not happening fast enough is lack of scale. I say establish a fuel tax now that oil prices are low, and create economic incentive to develop / drive smaller more fuel efficient cars.

not true at all. getting 54 mpg CAFE standard is not doable now. just observe Tesla talking about an under $50k product that has the range of their big car but not being able to build it because the battery technology it takes costs too much.

technology exists for high efficiency; but not at real world prices. tax credits for these manufacturers are now starting to run out. which means the taxpayers and congress will decide where this goes.

stay tuned.

like I said to begin with; unless a tech breakthrough happens like 'cold fusion' the direction of legislated mpg will auger in.

already better fuel economy has lowered tax revenue for state and local government; they are looking for funding for infrastructure. economic incentives for more fuel efficient cars is a two way street.

fuel taxes are a big deal. choose your poison.

 

[edorr]

not true at all. getting 54 mpg CAFE standard is not doable now. just observe Tesla talking about an under $50k product that has the range of their big car but not being able to build it because the battery technology it takes costs too much.

technology exists for high efficiency; but not at real world prices. tax credits for these manufacturers are now starting to run out. which means the taxpayers and congress will decide where this goes.

stay tuned.

like I said to begin with; unless a tech breakthrough happens like 'cold fusion' the direction of legislated mpg will auger in.

already better fuel economy has lowered tax revenue for state and local government; they are looking for funding for infrastructure. economic incentives for more fuel efficient cars is a two way street.

Prices will come down to real world levels with innovation and scale. Economic incentives are critical, so cheap oil is hurting progress.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Prices will come down to real world levels with innovation and scale. Economic incentives are critical, so cheap oil is hurting progress.

so you must be one of those that 'believe' that someone somewhere has that magic potion for cheap plentiful high efficiency and just waiting for the right moment to reveal it.

i'd call that the lotto mentality of getting rich. it's not real. I've seen movie plots which allude to such things. that is about as close as we are going to get to it.

 

[Ronm1]

the next thing you'll know they'll be getting into making people food

Soylent Green. Yummy

 

[edorr]

so you must be one of those that 'believe' that someone somewhere has that magic potion for cheap plentiful high efficiency and just waiting for the right moment to reveal it.

i'd call that the lotto mentality of getting rich. it's not real. I've seen movie plots which allude to such things. that is about as close as we are going to get to it.

At some point steam engines ran out of steam, so we came up with something else. If we hit the theoretical limits of combustion engine efficiency (don't know if we do) we need another technology to power vehicles. Batteries and nuclear or sustainably power generation hold a lot of promise. We'll see. We can also still dramatically reduce weight of cars through innovation of materials.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

At some point steam engines ran out of steam, so we came up with something else. If we hit the theoretical limits of combustion engine efficiency (don't know if we do) we need another technology to power vehicles. Batteries and nuclear or sustainably power generation hold a lot of promise. We'll see. We can also still dramatically reduce weight of cars through innovation of materials.

but government can't (should not) make laws and standards anticipating dramatic changes in technology.

I suppose we need another real World War to unleash unlimited research and development of technology. I just hope we survive it to enjoy what we learn.

WWII, Korea, Vietnam and NASA likely had as much to do with technology expansion as any industry. we are still living off stuff they produced.

 

[edorr]

but government can't (should not) make laws and standards anticipating dramatic changes in technology.

I suppose we need another real World War to unleash unlimited research and development of technology. I just hope we survive it to enjoy what we learn.

WWII, Korea, Vietnam and NASA likely had as much to do with technology expansion as any industry. we are still living off stuff they produced.

Government should regulate whatever serves the public interest. Whatevet that is is the outcome of the polical process. If there is an emerging consensus fossil fuels contribute to man made global warming, they can tax the hell out of fossile fuel. If we see the connection between oil dependency, global terrorism and rogue regimes, we can have government policy to create oil import independence. If the public is not buying it, we continue to drive SUVs and don't give a crap. Just the interplay of competing ideas and interests in democratic countries.

Don't underestimate Al Gore's contribution to innovation!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Government should regulate whatever serves the public interest. Whatevet that is is the outcome of the polical process. If there is an emerging consensus fossil fuels contribute to man made global warming, they can tax the hell out of fossile fuel. If we see the connection between oil dependency, global terrorism and rogue regimes, we can have government policy to create oil import independence. If the public is not buying it, we continue to drive SUVs and don't give a crap. Just the interplay of competing ideas and interests in democratic countries.

Don't underestimate Al Gore's contribution to innovation!

well.....that is enough of this for me....i'm done.

 

[FrantzM]

HI

Have read a few posts in this thread . Some of these (Sorry Mike ) reminded me of the American Auto makers attitude in the mid 70's. The CAFE was met with incredibly staunch resistance despite the specter of the then recent Oil Embargo. Japanese auto companies stepped it and .... Same with HDTV. Government regulations (mandates?) finally has everyone in this forum able to receive an HD picture with nary a thought. It is now trivial to receive a pristine, incredibly vivid picture with an absurdly low expenditure ...

Won't take as long as we think but this idea of driving our car may seem, and that very soon, something as passe as a rotary dial phone. It may not take as long as we think. Look around and see how much the world is changing. Everyone, and that almost anywhere on the planet, is glued to some kind of screen, "doing" something. The least people are thinking about is to drive. Getting there is what has become. Let's enjoy our drivable car for a while ... is future is not guaranteed. Digits as in (0 and 1) are replacing the chauffeur.

Lest we forget ... Humans need their actions to be governed most often than not. Being vigilant and making sure one gets the best government thus rules is what democracy is IMO all about.

 

[beaur]

I agree with the conversation part but that's gotten a lot harder with the partitions. The real issue is the one's that believe they are either Dale Jr or playing Grand Theft Auto. Too many of latter experiences to count.

My best ride was one evening our cabbie decided to get out at a light and pee right in the middle of Flushing Ave. He then proceeded to hit a minimum of 7 rear view mirrors on our street. What a ride!!


As for driverless; can't see full driverless coming in the next 20 years at least. Between infrastructure and tech changes needed it just won't happen soon. If we ever get to full driverless we will need more cars not fewer so i am not worried about the car industry. As far as taxes, never underestimate a good bureaucracy's ability to find a way to tax you!

Beau

I absolutely love chatting with my "ethnic" cabbies in NYC. Great lessons in life. Taxi driver also happens to be my favorite movie of all time.

 

[Ronm1]

HI


Lest we forget ... Humans need their actions to be governed most often than not. Being vigilant and making sure one gets the best government thus rules is what democracy is IMO all about.

Lest we forget Enron, this Keystone project should be watched like a hawk. Ties to the government to keep their hands off worked well on that one.