aapl
fire starter
Posts: 186
|
Post by aapl on Feb 27, 2024 3:33:31 GMT -8
AAPL down slightly in the premarkets: $180.80 -$0.36 (-0.20%)
.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,561
|
Post by mark on Feb 27, 2024 6:31:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Feb 27, 2024 8:49:48 GMT -8
AI (Artificial Intelligence). I do know what the field of AI is generally about. It is the writing computer software that can give the appearance of behavior by an intelligent person.
Playing chess is a classic example. One can write a computer program to look many moves ahead, evaluate the efficacy of each situation, and then choose a move that is really solid. With enough look ahead (not much with today’s computer power} the software would be able to play chess better than every member of this board. Thus, the program appears to be “artificially intelligent”.
Let us consider ChatGPT. People use fancy language like ”large language models” and “generative AI”. What do these fancy words really mean?
I understand this one can write computer software to scan zillions of sentences with various words, and then you, as a user, can type in some keywords, and the system can generate a sentence that sounds pretty good. But it is still fake, just a good plausible combination. Is this the essence of AI?
Note also. Using Google one can type some words as a search query. Then Google can unwind or modify it to clarify what you meant, but more carefully said. That is not AI, just great programming.
I am left with this question. I do not know what AI really means in today’s world (other than ChatGPT I think). And I would really like to know, without the fancy words that to me just make things even worse !
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Feb 27, 2024 11:16:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aaplcrazie on Feb 27, 2024 11:21:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by incorrigible on Feb 27, 2024 11:43:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by nwjade on Feb 27, 2024 12:00:09 GMT -8
Cancelling Titan I think is the right call and the street seems to agree...
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,561
|
Post by mark on Feb 27, 2024 13:12:04 GMT -8
I don't know why anyone is surprised at this. We've discussed it here and in other places before and I've always said that Apple wants to be in the business of selling products with a high gross margin. They do not want to be in the business of selling things with high capital (and high selling expense) requirements and thus lower gross margin. Now, about 10 years ago Apple thought they could turn the car business into a "niche car" business with high margins, but 10 years of research, and 10 years of other car companies doing it nearly as good as they could (mostly Tesla, but other companies are also doing some good things) convinced them that no matter what they come up with, it'll still end up being a lower gross margin business. So what's the point of doing it at all? Here's a link to the tweet from Gurman that broke the news a few hours ago -
|
|
aapl
fire starter
Posts: 186
|
Post by aapl on Feb 27, 2024 13:12:34 GMT -8
Cancelling Titan I think is the right call and the street seems to agree... I agree with you. Too many cons for it to be successful.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,125
|
Post by Dave on Feb 27, 2024 13:17:43 GMT -8
Who would have ever guessed that canceling a project would have such huge positive impact on the stock price? Now I’m curious, what other projects could Apple cancel to push the share price above the $200 mark?
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,125
|
Post by Dave on Feb 27, 2024 13:29:00 GMT -8
And the multi-billion dollar question is, why did it take Apple 10 years to decide that an Apple car is a bad idea? Will heads roll?
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Feb 27, 2024 13:33:19 GMT -8
And the multi-billion dollar question is, why did it take Apple 10 years to decide that an Apple car is a bad idea? Will heads roll? The self drive car project is similar to AI. These are inherently very difficult areas.
|
|
benoir
fire starter
*
Posts: 1,319
|
Post by benoir on Feb 27, 2024 14:40:38 GMT -8
Cancelling Titan I think is the right call and the street seems to agree... I agree with you. Too many cons for it to be successful. And Apple was way too slow. For all its cash reserves, R+D prowess and pedigree it took 10 years to make its mind up. indeed...WTF... I suspect Apple was too easily allured by the fake shiny trinkets Musk was flashing... FOMO on self driving cars that were imminent in 2021.... Vision Pro.... another product, which is no doubt the best in the market, is both ahead of its time and before its time. The Software is the future, the hardware is not advanced enough for what Apple is trying to achieve. And full of compromise... a product out of reach of the average Joe with a tethered battery. (I still want one...) Apple has made huge strides in some areas like chip design, but has been floundering somewhat(IMHO from the armchair) in terms of cohesive/decisive overall future direction. They have had a great run with iPod, iPhone, iPad, Watch, AirPods, services.... but I can't help think that Car was somewhat of a vanity project at Apple spurred on by a knee jerk reaction to Musk's bullshit. I just hope that have their ducks carefully lined up for AI Apple must keep hubris in check. I don't mean to sound overly negative Nellie here but this is an investor site not a fan boy site ( as much as I'm a die hard..!)
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Feb 27, 2024 15:32:05 GMT -8
I also wonder if the AVP is a beautiful bridge to nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by nwjade on Feb 27, 2024 15:38:58 GMT -8
I agree with you. Too many cons for it to be successful. And Apple was way too slow. For all its cash reserves, R+D prowess and pedigree it took 10 years to make its mind up. indeed...WTF... I suspect Apple was too easily allured by the fake shiny trinkets Musk was flashing... FOMO on self driving cars that were imminent in 2021.... Vision Pro.... another product, which is no doubt the best in the market, is both ahead of its time and before its time. The Software is the future, the hardware is not advanced enough for what Apple is trying to achieve. And full of compromise... a product out of reach of the average Joe with a tethered battery. (I still want one...) Apple has made huge strides in some areas like chip design, but has been floundering somewhat(IMHO from the armchair) in terms of cohesive/decisive overall future direction. They have had a great run with iPod, iPhone, iPad, Watch, AirPods, services.... but I can't help think that Car was somewhat of a vanity project at Apple spurred on by a knee jerk reaction to Musk's bullshit. I just hope that have their ducks carefully lined up for AI Apple must keep hubris in check. I don't mean to sound overly negative Nellie here but this is an investor site not a fan boy site ( as much as I'm a die hard..!) A lot of pros and cons for them to consider whether to continue the program or not but I agree they waited too long to pull the plug. I bet the way the overall auto market is evolving (as least for the near term) towards less EV's with people wanting hybrids or sticking with ICE cinched the decision. The allure of an Apple Car with all their technology being showcased made sense but with lower margins than their other products and probably endless issues with supply chain, assembly and liability etc affecting brand image what's the point of going forward.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Feb 27, 2024 15:52:34 GMT -8
And the multi-billion dollar question is, why did it take Apple 10 years to decide that an Apple car is a bad idea? Will heads roll? It is reminiscent of the Munster-Apple TV saga. Yes, Apple was (and probably still is) working on a TV. Doesn't mean it will see the light of day. But I am glad Apple is researching all avenues for revenue growth, considering iPhone seems to be declining. It would be negligent not to. Yes, it cost billions of R&D (allegedly), but Apple has the money and I'd rather they spend it on R&D than it sit in the bank. My one major complaint about Tim's tenure is the lack of innovation, so I won't begrudge spending on it. Why did it take so long? I have some theories. 1) Self-driving isn't as easy as it looks (the recent Elon Musk biography hits on this - self driving is always "a year away.") 2) Other than Tesla, EV sales have cratered. There are lots of reasons for this, but one is no chargers. Maybe Tim realized that with California's shitty electrical grid (after demanding EV's, Gavin Newsom then told everyone the grid can't handle charging them), it would be embarrassing to buy an Apple Car in California but not be able to charge it. Also, extremely expensive to roll out chargers nation (or world) wide. Relying on Tesla's chargers is not an option for a company as proprietary and brand sensitive as Apple. 3) Margins, yes, but. Some cars do have good margins (eg, Porsche 911, Mercedes S class). But hard to do mass production cars at scale with big margins (another reason EV's are failing, people can't afford them). 4) Maybe none of the designs wowed Tim. Just another EV won't cut it. Apple needs to differentiate. Expanding on #1 supra, the software isn't ready for prime time. A great Elon Musk quote from his bio, when a designer was pushing something and not listening to Elon's opinions: "What part of 'I f--king hate this product' don't you understand?" Remember, for Jobs, something was either great or shit. 5) Supply chain. Tim's forte. Maybe he saw the shortages of lithium and cobalt on the horizon, and the problems partnering with car makers, and said screw it, logistical nightmare. Who knows, but I'm awarding the participation trophy.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,657
|
Post by 4aapl on Feb 27, 2024 16:20:46 GMT -8
To me the problem with the Car was the lack of focus. It would move away from Apple's core strengths of UI/UX, focus, and simplification. I understand Apple's strengths with CarPlay, and I understand the desire to do self-driving well. But then there is the whole rest of the vehicle, while also understanding the fragmented marketshare. It would have been possible if they got a good 3rd party vendor to make it, or if they could have got the "Apple brain" parts into a bunch of different vehicles. But to make something where a huge success would be 5% marketshare, and more likely sub-decade marketshare success would be the equivalent of Rivian or Ferrari? I believe it was Apple that said they always wanted to be in the top 2 or 3 by marketshare. And that sounds strange with the history of the Mac's marketshare, though with only a couple options they were still in the top 2. Instead in the vehicle market they would just be one of many, trying to differentiate themselves. And while there are many loyal or even rabid Apple fans, that's not the only thing you want to prop sales on. How would Apple make a better vehicle, and differentiate it? Likewise, what would it take to do it well? Are there parts out there that they would want, including motors and batteries? Or would they have to create that production infrastructure too, to do it well? Like Tesla does? My guess on why things changed now (didn't know 2000 employees were part of it) is a problem with a 3rd party manufacturer, a problem with the batteries, or just observing Rivian's recent layoffs. And it doesn't help that there haven't been a bunch of regulations or laws settled around self driving, and that recent articles have shown Teslas getting into more and costlier accidents, instead of the hope of self driving being fewer and less sever accidents, while others have shown that while EV sales are still increasing, they aren't increasing as much as past predictions (sounds just like those AAPL investor estimates from yesterday). Though it doesn't get much play lately, Apple still wants to be most or all of your digital hub. Your vehicle is part of that, mainly through the entertainment systems. The interesting part is that one could say this is about how you connect with things, and so with a current car you might be connecting through the entertainment system, listening to music, taking calls, using navigation, and even replying to a message, hopefully all in a safe and non-distracting way. But if at some point the car takes care of the driving completely, you no longer have to keep your eyes on the road, or hands on the wheel. What are people going to do with all of this "downtime"? What do people currently do with their downtime, while waiting for friends, or even waiting for a meal to get to a table? If looking at time on your devices, it seems like a switch to full self driving will benefit Apple, even without having to develop, market, and sell a vehicle. And in the mean time, they can still push CarPlay, trying to keep the important parts of the digital hub. I probably would have been tempted to buy a car from Apple. But it has always seemed like a strange place to stray from their focus, and it seems like a good thing to put in their rear view mirror. (EDIT: Looks like nwjade and JDSoCal said part of this while I was typing this out. It must be right
|
|
benoir
fire starter
*
Posts: 1,319
|
Post by benoir on Feb 27, 2024 16:45:04 GMT -8
I believe it was Apple that said they always wanted to be in the top 2 or 3 by marketshare. And that sounds strange with the history of the Mac's marketshare, though with only a couple options they were still in the top 2. Instead in the vehicle market they would just be one of many, trying to differentiate themselves. And while there are many loyal or even rabid Apple fans, that's not the only thing you want to prop sales on. How would Apple make a better vehicle, and differentiate it? market share of units or profit margin? by profit margin Apple reigns supreme
|
|
crispin
Member
KBJ for the win. AAPL long and strong since 2000
Posts: 311
|
Post by crispin on Feb 27, 2024 17:47:38 GMT -8
I think the headline here is not about the car project's possible cancellation, but rather what the story alludes to with Apple's plans for AI. "Apple Shifts More Resources to AI" is the way Wall St is taking the news obviously. And honestly I never believed Apple producing an actual car seemed like a good fit for the company. Of course this is assuming Gurman really has the facts, which only Apple knows for sure.
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Feb 27, 2024 17:58:49 GMT -8
Still wonder what AI is really bringing to the party. Nobody can say what it really is as mentioned in all the hype. Just fancy words.
(And all my research and work was in Computer Science)
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Feb 27, 2024 18:08:31 GMT -8
And soccer. We already have 3 big sports -- football, basketball, and baseball. With a large entrenched audience.
Soccer anyone? I don't know a soul who cares.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Feb 27, 2024 18:09:48 GMT -8
Likewise, what would it take to do it well? Are there parts out there that they would want, including motors and batteries? Or would they have to create that production infrastructure too, to do it well? Like Tesla does? This would be 6) for me in my previous post. I'd suggest everyone here read Issacson's Elon Musk biography. Absolutely loaded with gold nuggets to understand business and tech and EVs and AI and rockets. But as far as cars go, it's an incredible nightmare to make them. Enormous capital investment. Thousands of parts. Elon walks the factories regularly, ruling with an iron hand, "delete this!" "Hurry this up!" "Change this!" And he was willing to spend an absolute fortune on factories (and then rip half of the robots out when he figured out people can do certain tasks better faster and cheaper). There's a billion lost, poof. One example. Elon picked up a die cast model of a Tesla, and noticed the bottom was one solid piece. "Why can't actual Tesla's have that? Much simpler and cheaper to produce." The engineers said no die cast machines that larger existed. "Make them! Elon says." No chatting with the execs, no board approval, just do it because Elon hath decreed it so. Does that sound like Apple's culture? Is Apple going to build huge factories to produce all 2000 parts of a car? Because if they didn't, and without an Elon engineering visionary genius ramming through his decisions by sheer force of will, they'd never be able to dictate their elegance down to the screws that nobody sees inside the iPhone. Another example, Elon just cut out the radar/lidar stuff and went with pure video for self driving. Elon overruled all the engineers that said this was impossible. Tim simply doesn't have the design and engineering chops to make those calls, which a CEO must make and ram through with "a maniacal sense of urgency." That's basically the opposite of Apple's wait and see where the market goes culture. Many times Elon and Tesla were in an existential threat situation, do or die. Elon is an extreme risk taker. It took years for Tesla to make a profit. He was actually sleeping in the factories. That is just not Apple's way. Tim's not going to sleep in factories. And he's not an engineer anyway. Apple isn't going to take huge risks and its products must be profitable immediately and sell like hotcakes. This may explain the stock going up today; the market was relieved. Better to eat the money spent than to continue down the road of sunk cost fallacy, no pun intended.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Feb 27, 2024 18:16:38 GMT -8
Still wonder what AI is really bringing to the party. Nobody can say what it really is as mentioned in all the hype. Just fancy words. (And all my research and work was in Computer Science) I agree. Everyone is saying just announce you're doing AI and your stock will go up and profits will follow. Even the usually reliable Dan Ives is saying that. Where's the profit model on chat bots? Google has already tarnished its brand making George Washington black. I'm not saying some companies won't make money on AI. In fact, every tech company should be looking into it just to stay competitive. But it seems like the 90's with Broadcast.com and CBSSportslone.com, just get a website running and profit! And we know how that dot.com bubble worked out. I'm agnostic. Prove it to me.
|
|
|
Post by nwjade on Feb 27, 2024 18:56:53 GMT -8
Still wonder what AI is really bringing to the party. Nobody can say what it really is as mentioned in all the hype. Just fancy words. (And all my research and work was in Computer Science) I agree. Everyone is saying just announce you're doing AI and your stock will go up and profits will follow. Even the usually reliable Dan Ives is saying that. Where's the profit model on chat bots? Google has already tarnished its brand making George Washington black. I'm not saying some companies won't make money on AI. In fact, every tech company should be looking into it just to stay competitive. But it seems like the 90's with Broadcast.com and CBSSportslone.com, just get a website running and profit! And we know how that dot.com bubble worked out. I'm agnostic. Prove it to me. Here's a newspaper clipping I saved from 1998 back in the .com heyday... Attachments:
|
|
crispin
Member
KBJ for the win. AAPL long and strong since 2000
Posts: 311
|
Post by crispin on Feb 27, 2024 20:14:32 GMT -8
Generative AI is one of the most exciting and enormously disruptive technologies to come along in decades. Imagine someday soon a developer saying, "Hey Siri, code me a VisionOS app that allows the user to virtually ski down Bridger Bowl on a perfect sunny powder day while listening to an original soundtrack in the style of Miles Davis" and moments later the app exists. Or a commercial editor working in FCPX saying "Hey Siri, make me a cinematic shot of a young girl and a golden retriever running through a meadow of wildflowers" and moments later the shot exists. These are just a couple of very basic scenarios but the possibilities go much much further.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,657
|
Post by 4aapl on Feb 27, 2024 21:27:37 GMT -8
One example. Elon picked up a die cast model of a Tesla, and noticed the bottom was one solid piece. "Why can't actual Tesla's have that? Much simpler and cheaper to produce." The engineers said no die cast machines that larger existed. "Make them! Elon says." No chatting with the execs, no board approval, just do it because Elon hath decreed it so. Does that sound like Apple's culture? Is Apple going to build huge factories to produce all 2000 parts of a car? Because if they didn't, and without an Elon engineering visionary genius ramming through his decisions by sheer force of will, they'd never be able to dictate their elegance down to the screws that nobody sees inside the iPhone. Another example, Elon just cut out the radar/lidar stuff and went with pure video for self driving. Elon overruled all the engineers that said this was impossible. Tim simply doesn't have the design and engineering chops to make those calls, which a CEO must make and ram through with "a maniacal sense of urgency." That's basically the opposite of Apple's wait and see where the market goes culture. Many times Elon and Tesla were in an existential threat situation, do or die. Elon is an extreme risk taker. It took years for Tesla to make a profit. He was actually sleeping in the factories. That is just not Apple's way. Tim's not going to sleep in factories. And he's not an engineer anyway. Apple isn't going to take huge risks and its products must be profitable immediately and sell like hotcakes. This may explain the stock going up today; the market was relieved. Better to eat the money spent than to continue down the road of sunk cost fallacy, no pun intended. I think there are always positive and negative attributes, to people and to management styles. Just because something worked for Steve at a certain time at Apple doesn't mean it is right for every occasion, timeframe, or company. Apple, at today's size and also 20 years ago, is just too big for one person to dig in to every little thing. While I was there, Steve would have pet projects that he was much more in to, while others that he really didn't touch. And that makes a lot of sense. Have people that you can trust to do a good job, and then focus on what you want, ideally with what matters the most. But that "what matters the most" has a lot of interpretations. I'm surprised Tesla hasn't fixed two issues that I see as low hanging fruit. The first is availability of parts to fix cars. This was one thing Hertz mentioned, but it's been an issue for years. At some point, pissing off some of your customers with how long it takes to get cars repaired becomes an issue...as it did with Hertz. The other is the low profile tires, giving more performance, but being easier to get a flat. Maybe this is just an edge case, but on January 1st last year we drove back from the SF Bay Area, after a huge rain storm that caused lots of problems. But what was weird was to see 12-20 Teslas on the side of 580 and 5, abandoned over miles. The storm had created potholes, and these had gotten flats. Lots of cars these days have low profile tires, but these Teslas were the only ones left on the side of the road. Maybe that was a rare occurrence and just doesn't matter much. But at some point it is worth caring about.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Feb 27, 2024 21:44:39 GMT -8
And soccer. We already have 3 big sports -- football, basketball, and baseball. With a large entrenched audience. Soccer anyone? I don't know a soul who cares. Cmon. It’s the most popular sport in the world. I care. Do I count? Did you watch the World Cup final between Argentina and France? That was compelling, and yet you think no one cares?!
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 27, 2024 22:36:21 GMT -8
I also wonder if the AVP is a beautiful bridge to nowhere. The interview is excellent, and Mark Zuckerberg's critique is thoughtful, and frankly, makes a serious point against Apple. It is hard to dismiss what he says. It is not a good sign for AAPL. I expect Zuck to talk his book. Have you demo'd the Vision Pro yet? Have you demo'd the Vision Pro yet?
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 27, 2024 22:58:23 GMT -8
And soccer. We already have 3 big sports -- football, basketball, and baseball. With a large entrenched audience. Soccer anyone? I don't know a soul who cares. Cmon. It’s the most popular sport in the world. I care. Do I count? Did you watch the World Cup final between Argentina and France? That was compelling, and yet you think no one cares?! My wife is an avid 49ers football and Giants baseball fan...has been since she was a kid. Yet she and I are very much enjoying ‘Messi World Cup: Rise of a Legend’ on Apple TV...and my older son has a season pass to see the local San Jose Earthquakes soccer team as well as MLS Season Pass on Apple TV. Soccer has been making inroads in the U.S. for many years. Seeing the absolutely packed stadiums for the soccer games in various countries and the rabid fans makes me appreciate just how much soccer is a *world sport*. Yes, baseball and basketball are played all over the world as well...but all that's needed for young kids to play soccer is a ball and an open field. You can't play a game of baseball without a bat and you can't play basketball without a net.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,657
|
Post by 4aapl on Feb 28, 2024 7:20:39 GMT -8
Cmon. It’s the most popular sport in the world. I care. Do I count? Did you watch the World Cup final between Argentina and France? That was compelling, and yet you think no one cares?! My wife is an avid 49ers football and Giants baseball fan...has been since she was a kid. Yet she and I are very much enjoying ‘Messi World Cup: Rise of a Legend’ on Apple TV...and my older son has a season pass to see the local San Jose Earthquakes soccer team as well as MLS Season Pass on Apple TV. Soccer has been making inroads in the U.S. for many years. Seeing the absolutely packed stadiums for the soccer games in various countries and the rabid fans makes me appreciate just how much soccer is a *world sport*. Yes, baseball and basketball are played all over the world as well...but all that's needed for young kids to play soccer is a ball and an open field. You can't play a game of baseball without a bat and you can't play basketball without a net. When asked about the following of soccer, a friend from Romania pointed out that even with the huge world wide audience for the Super Bowl, that size is matched by just a normal low level soccer game in Europe.
|
|