Apple to wind down electric car effort after decadelong odyssey

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s decision to cancel its long-rumored electric car project after roughly a decade and reassign many of those staff to generative AI is widely seen as a strategic retreat from a capital‑intensive, low‑margin industry where it lacked clear advantages. Commenters argue that Apple was unlikely to outcompete entrenched automakers or Tesla, especially as full self‑driving has proved far harder than expected and EV demand has cooled. Many expect the redirected investment to show up as on‑device or hybrid AI features—potentially a far more natural fit with Apple’s hardware, privacy positioning, and need to keep iPhone and Siri competitive against Google and Microsoft.

Fit of an Apple Car with Apple’s Business

  • Many see canceling the car as sensible: autos are capital‑intensive, low‑margin, heavily regulated, and require sales/maintenance infrastructure unlike anything Apple runs today.
  • Others argue Apple could have entered via high‑end, low‑volume cars or partnerships (e.g., like Ferrari/Polestar‑style positioning or using contract manufacturers), but that clashes with Apple’s usual “Toyota volume with Ferrari margins” and mass‑market ambitions.
  • Several comments note Apple’s historic strength as a second mover that refines existing categories (iPod, iPhone, Watch, etc.) rather than inventing them, but cars might be too far from its core software/hardware/platform competencies.

Self‑Driving Reality Check

  • The car project is widely perceived as primarily an autonomous‑vehicle bet.
  • Commenters note the industry has badly missed “full self‑driving by ~2020” predictions; AVs now look more like fusion: transformative but on a much longer timeline.
  • Building just a nice EV in a crowded, cooling market (and with strong Chinese entrants) is seen as a weak outcome relative to the original autonomy vision.

Why Pivot Toward Generative AI

  • Some interpret the move as defensive: if Apple doesn’t own core AI, it risks depending on rivals’ platforms (like being forced into someone else’s app store).
  • Others see it as opportunistic/faddish: “AI” currently boosts stock prices regardless of clear monetization plans, and offers political cover to shut down a floundering moonshot.

Apple’s Position in AI

  • Mixed views:
    • Positive: Apple has strong custom silicon (Neural Engine, M‑series), experience with on‑device ML (photo categorization, OCR, offline Siri), and vast resources. On‑device LLM‑backed Siri and OS features are seen as plausible and privacy‑aligned.
    • Negative: Siri is considered a decade‑old embarrassment; Apple’s software/ML culture is criticized as weak and siloed. Competitors (Microsoft, Google, Meta, open models) already offer mature tooling and ecosystems.

Debate on Generative AI’s Value

  • Some see clear personal productivity gains (coding help, faster learning, better search‑like interactions) and serious job‑displacement potential over time.
  • Others are unconvinced: hallucinations, modest real‑world productivity, and unclear business models make this feel to them like “NFTs” or “tulip bulbs.”
  • There’s concern that companies are stuffing LLMs into products without real user benefit, driven more by investor hype than concrete use‑cases.

Vision Pro and Apple’s Moonshot Pattern

  • The cancellation is compared to Vision Pro: both big, risky bets outside Apple’s iPhone core.
  • Some see AVP as early, not failed—consistent with Apple’s pattern of weak v1s that iterate into hits.
  • Others see it, and the car, as signs Apple under current leadership is chasing trends (VR, EVs, now AI) without a clear, Jobs‑like long‑term vision.