Hacker News Reader

Comment by xivzgrev | Hacker News Reader

Why do companies keep thinking they can build a fucking car? Yes Tesla did it but it was a company 100% dedicated to it. Dyson has a core business already.

I’m also skeptical about Apple but at least they have one of the largest treasure chests in the world of cash so they can more afford a moon shot.

View on HN

Apple has been(quietly) in the batteries business for a long time becoming number 1 user in the entire world for a long time.

An ipad, an iphone, a macbook. What do they have in common? They have batteries on it and sell in the tens of millions or hundreds of millions a year.

The most expensive thing in an electric car is batteries. The hardest thing to manufacture and get supplies for(cobalt and lithium mainly).

Apple already have lots of expertise in the area.

Dyson also sells batteries, because cordless vacuum cleaners use lots of batteries. And also have lots of experience in efficient , extremely powerful electronic motors.

Electric cars are extremely simple compared with ICEs.

I completely agree except that even with Apple having more money than God, like everyone else, they would have to compete with Tesla because Tesla already builds an awesome car. Tesla is the minimum entry point just to compete in the EV game even with Tesla opening up their patent portfolio.

So Dyson claims to have a more better digital motor AND they are exiting the EV space. If this is in fact a practical motor for cars then they should license it to one of the other players, VW, Volvo, ....

I think in-part because Apple was able to move into the smartphone business and grow so much as a result it has other companies thinking they could do the same.

Also, it could be some of these companies have existential threats that they must try something big and new or risk going out of business or being forced to sell to a rival.

Computers and iPods are a lot closer to a smartphone than to a car.

I agree with you. But I could see a consultancy creating a slideshow with bullet points showing “synergies” between products, partners and manufacturing ability enough to get an exec to green light an attempt.

Apple showed interest in buying McLaren a few years ago. I wonder if they approached any other small car manufacturers. At the very least it shows they had interest in bringing in outside talent and knowledge instead of doing it all solo. Maybe something has evolved in the background without press since then.

https://www.autoblog.com/2016/11/21/mclaren-ceo-apple-takeov...

McClaren made 4,806 (really expensive fidgety) cars in 2018. Maybe that partnership/acquisition would have been similar to what Tesla did back in 2008. Tesla's first roadster was based on a Lotus glider with batteries from Panasonic which meant they could work on motors and control systems.

But Tesla has a huge lead at this point with a factory and battery factory. With Tesla batteries, the Model 3 is 95% American made with most of that Tesla made meaning hire marginal profit margins. Anyone entering this market has to compete against that lead.

My guess is that all of these companies see it as an innovative space. Either the goal is pure prestige or to find some niche thing they can patent and sell to everyone else. They have to build the whole car because they have to.

I think of it as, "most of the people who made money during the gold rush were those who sold shovels." They're looking to find the right shovel, but need the whole process in-house to do that.

Lots of small teams make prototype/custom cars. The harder part is scaling up production to make thousands.

I think that the difficult part was the belief. I'd bet a thousand that Musk and others have clear ideas on how to automate car manufacturing a good 10x more now. Tesla went back to manual labour due to market / investor constraints. But electronics like assembly is not out of sight.

Lots of cheap money means lots of dumb projects.

You know what are the main elements of an electric car? Battery and electric motor. Dyson uses them in every product. So it's in the business more that you think. And another great skill of dyson is the design. And the CEO is one of the most famous in the world. So battery, motor and design makes a good electric car. At least in theory...

Not even close. A car is way much more than a motor and 4 wheels, specially in 2019. You need suspension, aerodynamics, an infotaiment system, seats, air conditioning, doors (dont understimate this one), a music playback system, a good display for the driver... And this in a cabin that can confort people from temperatures and noise from the outside. Making a decent car in incredibly difficult. + Safety features required for the current standards.

Comparing the battery & motor in a vacuum cleaner and a car is ridiculous.

Dyson is famous for tiny high RPM motors which are cool but irrelevant in a car (?), and the battery in it's latest vacuum has 7 cells - my Tesla has over 7000.

Dyson uses batteries but doesn't manufacture batteries. They've been researching the hell out of batteries but they don't manufacture batteries and they sure don't manufacture batteries at scale. Contrast with the Tesla gigafactory which cost $5B.

Dyson may have had something with their digital motor. It's hard to say whether that is an advantage let alone a competitive advantage. But at this point they should license that to one of the other EV players.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com