Techfullnews

The Apple Car: A $10 Billion Failure

the apple car/techfullnews

Imagine a sleek, futuristic car with the iconic Apple logo on its hood. A vehicle that combines cutting-edge technology, minimalist design, and the seamless integration of Apple’s ecosystem. For years, this was the dream of the Apple Car, a project that promised to revolutionize the automotive industry. But in 2024, after a decade of development and an estimated $10 billion spent, Apple officially pulled the plug on its ambitious car project, codenamed Project Titan.

What went wrong? How did one of the most valuable companies in the world, known for its innovation and execution, fail to deliver on such a high-profile project? This is the story of the Apple Car—a tale of ambition, missteps, and ultimately, a $10 billion failure.


The Dream: Why Apple Wanted to Build a Car

Apple’s interest in the automotive industry wasn’t just about building a car. It was about redefining transportation.

The Vision

Apple saw the car as the next frontier for its ecosystem. Imagine an iPhone on wheels—a vehicle that could sync with your Apple devices, offer autonomous driving, and provide a seamless user experience. This vision aligned with Apple’s core philosophy of creating products that are both functional and beautiful.

The Timing

The early 2010s were a pivotal moment for the automotive industry. Electric vehicles (EVs) were gaining traction, thanks to Tesla’s success, and autonomous driving technology was advancing rapidly. Apple, always looking for the next big thing, saw an opportunity to disrupt the market.


The Reality: Challenges from Day One

While the vision was compelling, the execution was anything but smooth. Project Titan faced numerous challenges, both internal and external.

Leadership Turmoil

One of the biggest hurdles was leadership instability. Over the years, the project saw multiple changes in leadership, each with a different vision for the car. Some leaders pushed for a fully autonomous vehicle, while others favored a more traditional EV with advanced features. This lack of direction created confusion and delays.

Technical Difficulties

Building a car is vastly different from building a smartphone or a laptop. Apple underestimated the complexity of automotive engineering, from battery technology to safety regulations. For example, developing a reliable autonomous driving system proved to be far more challenging than anticipated.

Cultural Clash

Apple’s secretive, design-driven culture clashed with the collaborative, engineering-heavy nature of the automotive industry. Partnerships with established car manufacturers, such as BMW and Hyundai, fell apart due to disagreements over data sharing and control.


The Cost: A $10 Billion Experiment

By the time Apple decided to cancel Project Titan, the company had reportedly spent around $10 billion on the project. Where did all that money go?

Research and Development

A significant portion of the budget was allocated to R&D. Apple invested heavily in autonomous driving technology, hiring top talent from companies like Tesla, Google, and Ford. The company also acquired several startups specializing in AI, mapping, and sensor technology.

Testing and Prototyping

Apple built numerous prototypes, ranging from modified Lexus SUVs to custom-designed vehicles. These prototypes were tested extensively, but none met Apple’s high standards for performance and design.

Infrastructure and Partnerships

Apple also spent money on building infrastructure, such as test tracks and data centers, and exploring partnerships with suppliers and manufacturers. However, these efforts often led to dead ends.


The Competition: Why Apple Couldn’t Keep Up

While Apple was struggling to get its car off the ground, competitors were racing ahead.

Tesla’s Dominance

Tesla had a head start in the EV market and was already producing vehicles at scale. By the time Apple entered the scene, Tesla had established itself as the leader in both EVs and autonomous driving technology.

Traditional Automakers

Companies like Ford, General Motors, and Volkswagen were also investing heavily in EVs and autonomous driving. Unlike Apple, these companies had decades of experience in automotive manufacturing and supply chain management.

Tech Giants

Google’s Waymo and Amazon’s Zoox were making significant strides in autonomous driving, further intensifying the competition.


The Fallout: What Went Wrong?

So, why did Apple ultimately decide to cancel Project Titan?

Shifting Priorities

Under CEO Tim Cook, Apple has always been cautious about entering new markets. With the car project facing endless delays and mounting costs, the company decided to focus on its core products, such as the iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch, as well as emerging technologies like augmented reality (AR).

Market Realities

The EV market is becoming increasingly crowded, with slim profit margins and intense competition. Apple likely realized that it would be difficult to achieve the same level of success in the automotive industry as it has in consumer electronics.

Lessons Learned

While the Apple Car may have failed, the project wasn’t a total loss. Apple gained valuable expertise in AI, machine learning, and sensor technology, which could be applied to other products, such as AR glasses or home robotics.


The Legacy: What’s Next for Apple?

Although the Apple Car is no more, its legacy lives on.

Focus on Software

Apple is reportedly shifting its focus to developing software for autonomous vehicles, rather than building its own car. This could include infotainment systems, mapping technology, or even a full-fledged autonomous driving platform.

Augmented Reality

Apple’s work on AR could lead to new products that integrate with vehicles, such as AR headsets for navigation or entertainment.

Sustainability

Apple’s commitment to sustainability could also influence the automotive industry. The company’s expertise in battery technology and renewable energy could be applied to EVs or other green technologies.


A Bold Dream, a Costly Failure

The Apple Car was a bold dream that captured the imagination of millions. But in the end, it was a dream that proved too difficult to realize. Despite its $10 billion investment, Apple couldn’t overcome the challenges of entering a complex and competitive industry.

Yet, failure is often a stepping stone to success. The lessons learned from Project Titan could pave the way for future innovations, ensuring that Apple remains at the forefront of technology.

As for the Apple Car, it will go down in history as a $10 billion experiment—a reminder that even the most ambitious dreams can sometimes fall short.

ADVERTISEMENT
RECOMMENDED
NEXT UP

In late 2023, The Wall Street Journal dropped a bombshell report claiming Tesla’s board had quietly initiated a search for Elon Musk’s successor as CEO. According to anonymous sources familiar with the matter:

  • The board allegedly began the process approximately one month before the report
  • Multiple executive search firms were contacted, with one firm reportedly selected to lead the process
  • Directors supposedly urged Musk to publicly commit more time to Tesla

The timing is critical. This alleged search coincided with:

  • Tesla’s first year-over-year delivery decline since 2020 (8.5% drop in Q1 2024)
  • A 13% decline in annual revenue – the first since 2017
  • Musk’s increasingly polarizing political engagements

Tesla’s Furious Rebuttal and the Credibility Battle

Within hours of publication, Tesla launched an aggressive counterattack:

1. Official Statement from Chair Robyn Denholm:

  • Called the report “absolutely false”
  • Claimed the board remains “highly confident” in Musk’s leadership
  • Alleged the WSJ was informed of this before publication

2. Musk’s Personal Response:

  • Accused WSJ of “EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS”
  • Claimed the paper ignored Tesla’s “unequivocal denial”

Journalistic Standoff:
The WSJ maintains it:

  • Reached out to Musk for comment (received no response)
  • Never received any pre-publication statement from Tesla

This credibility battle raises serious questions about:

  • The independence of Tesla’s board
  • The reliability of anonymous sourcing
  • Musk’s increasingly adversarial relationship with mainstream media

Deep Dive: Tesla’s Board Composition and Governance Concerns

Tesla’s eight-member board has long faced criticism for its close ties to Musk:

Notable Members:

  1. Kimbal Musk (Elon’s brother)
  2. James Murdoch (son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch)
  3. Ira Ehrenpreis (venture capitalist, Tesla director since 2007)
  4. Robyn Denholm (Chair since 2018)

Governance Red Flags:

  • Lack of Independence: 5 of 8 directors have served over 10 years
  • Compensation Controversy: Approved Musk’s $56B pay package (later voided by court)
  • Recent Insider Selling: Denholm sold $50M+ in shares over 90 days

Expert Perspective:
“Tesla’s board fails nearly every test of good corporate governance,” says Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance. “The level of entrenchment and lack of independent oversight is unprecedented for a company of this size.”

The Five Critical Challenges Facing Tesla’s Leadership

1. The “Key Person” Risk

Musk isn’t just CEO – he’s Tesla’s:

  • Chief product architect
  • Primary technology visionary
  • Main public spokesperson

Succession Planning Reality:

  • Apple began grooming Tim Cook years before Steve Jobs’ passing
  • Microsoft had Satya Nadella in leadership pipeline before Ballmer’s exit
  • Tesla has no publicly identified successor

2. Musk’s Divided Attention

The billionaire currently oversees:

  • SpaceX (CEO)
  • Neuralink (Founder)
  • The Boring Company (Founder)
  • xAI (Founder)
  • X/Twitter (Owner)

Time Allocation Impact:

  • 2023 analysis shows Musk spent <40% time at Tesla
  • Critical product launches (Cybertruck, Roadster) repeatedly delayed

3. Brand Erosion and Political Polarization

Musk’s recent activities:

  • Endorsed conservative political candidates
  • Acquired Twitter and reinstated banned accounts
  • Made controversial statements on gender, COVID, and other hot-button issues

Consumer Impact:

  • 2023 survey showed 18% drop in brand favorability among Democrats
  • 7% increase among Republicans (showing increasing politicization)

4. Operational Challenges

Production Issues:

  • Cybertruck production at 25% of targets
  • Model 3 Highland refresh delayed in North America

Financial Pressures:

  • Operating margins fell from 19% (2021) to 8% (2023)
  • $18B debt load with rising interest expenses

5. Technological Crossroads

Autonomy Delays:

  • Full Self-Driving (FSD) still at Level 2 after 10+ years
  • Major competitors (Waymo, Cruise) deploying robotaxis

Battery Innovation:

  • 4680 cells not meeting energy density targets
  • Chinese competitors achieving faster charging speeds

Potential Succession Scenarios and Implications

Internal Candidates Analysis

1. Drew Baglino (Former SVP Powertrain & Energy)

  • Strengths: Deep technical expertise, 18-year Tesla veteran
  • Weaknesses: Limited public-facing experience, resigned April 2024

2. Tom Zhu (SVP Automotive)

  • Strengths: Turned around China operations, production expert
  • Weaknesses: Limited autonomy/AI experience

3. Lars Moravy (VP Vehicle Engineering)

  • Strengths: Product development leader, respected internally
  • Weaknesses: Unknown strategic vision

External Possibilities

Wildcard Option:
Could Tesla recruit an auto industry veteran like:

  • Jim Farley (Ford CEO)
  • Herbert Diess (Former VW CEO)

Tech Industry Options:

  • Jennifer Tejada (Former PagerDuty CEO)
  • Gwynne Shotwell (SpaceX COO)

Investor Perspectives: What the Street Is Saying

Bull Case:

  • “Musk is irreplaceable as a tech visionary” – Dan Ives, Wedbush
  • “Succession planning doesn’t equal imminent change” – Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley

Bear Case:

  • “The board has failed shareholders by not planning sooner” – GLJ Research
  • “Tesla needs an operational CEO to complement Musk’s vision” – Bernstein

Institutional Investor Sentiment:

  • Vanguard and BlackRock both supported shareholder proposals for better succession planning
  • 32% of votes favored independent chair proposal in 2023 (up from 26% in 2022)

Historical Precedents: Lessons From Tech Leadership Transitions

Successful Transitions:

  1. Microsoft (Ballmer → Nadella)
    • Key: Clear succession pipeline
    • Result: $500B+ value creation
  2. Apple (Jobs → Cook)
    • Key: Multi-year transition period
    • Result: Maintained innovation while scaling

Failed Transitions:

  1. Uber (Kalanick → Khosrowshahi)
    • Issue: Crisis-driven change
    • Result: Years of instability
  2. WeWork (Neumann → SoftBank takeover)
    • Issue: No planning
    • Result: Near-collapse

The Path Forward: Strategic Recommendations

For Tesla’s Board

  1. Formalize Succession Plan
    • Identify 2-3 internal candidates
    • Establish mentorship program
  2. Enhance Governance
    • Add independent directors
    • Separate Chair/CEO roles
  3. Manage Transparent Communication
    • Public roadmap for leadership development
    • Clear timelines for any transitions

For Investors

  1. Monitor These Key Metrics:
    • Musk’s time allocation (via jet tracking, public appearances)
    • Board refreshment (any new independent appointments)
    • Succession-related disclosures in next proxy statement
  2. Engagement Priorities:
    • Push for formal succession committee
    • Advocate for board independence

Conclusion: Why This Matters Beyond Tesla

The Tesla leadership saga represents a case study in:

  • Founder-led company challenges
  • Board governance in disruptive tech
  • Investor rights in high-growth firms

As Ark Invest’s Cathie Wood recently noted: “The market isn’t pricing in the key person risk at Tesla. When that changes, it could be dramatic.”

The coming months will prove crucial. Will Tesla:

  • Double down on Musk’s leadership?
  • Begin a gradual transition?
  • Face a crisis-driven change?

One thing is certain: How Tesla navigates this challenge will shape not just its future, but the broader conversation about leadership in transformative companies.

Last night, an audacious new automaker named Slate Auto unveiled its first vehicle—a minimalist, no-frills electric truck designed to combat America’s obsession with oversized, overpowered vehicles. With a target price under $20,000 (after incentives), 150 miles of range, and stripped-back design, the Slate Truck is a bold experiment in right-sizing personal transportation.

But will it succeed in a market dominated by monster trucks and SUVs?


Why America’s Obsession With Bigger Trucks Is a Problem

1. The Rise of the “Land Yacht”

  • In 2024, trucks and SUVs made up 75% of new vehicle sales—up from just 50% a decade ago.
  • The average new car now weighs over 5,000 lbs (2.27 tons), with EVs like the Ford F-150 Lightning pushing 6,500 lbs.
  • Bigger vehicles = deadlier roads:
    • Pedestrian deaths surged 57% from 2013–2022 (NHTSA).
    • Trucks with tall hoods (40+ inches) are 44% more lethal (IIHS).

2. The “Compact Truck” Is Nearly Extinct

  • Ford Maverick (2024):
    • 199.7 inches long, 83.5 inches wide
    • Considered “small” by today’s standards
  • Slate Truck:
    • 174.6 inches long, 70.6 inches wide
    • Closer in size to a classic 1985 Toyota pickup

“Our roads are packed with roving land yachts. The Slate Truck is a throwback to when vehicles were sized for humans, not egos.”


Slate Truck: What You Get (And What You Don’t)

✅ The Good: Simple, Affordable, Functional

✔ **20KPriceTag∗∗–Halfthecostofanaveragenewcar(20KPriceTag∗∗–Halfthecostofanaveragenewcar(49,740).
✔ No Bloatware – No touchscreen, no stereo, no paint (keeps costs down).
✔ Smartphone-Centric – Uses a phone/tablet mount + basic gauge cluster.
✔ Practical Hauling – 1,433 lbs payload, 1,000 lbs towing (enough for most users).

❌ The Trade-Offs

  • 150-Mile Range – Fine for city use, but not for road trips.
  • No Luxury Features – If you want Apple CarPlay or a premium sound system, look elsewhere.
  • Aftermarket Customization Required – Want paint? A stereo? You’ll have to DIY.

Could This Be the Start of a “Small Truck” Revival?

Why the Timing Might Be Right

  • EV Incentives – Federal tax credits could keep prices under $20K.
  • Younger Buyers – Gen Z and Millennials prefer affordability over status symbols.
  • Urban Living – Smaller trucks are easier to park in cities.

The Biggest Challenges

⚠ Consumer Psychology – Will buyers reject a “cheap” truck in a premium-obsessed market?
⚠ Political Risk – A Trump win could kill EV tax credits, raising the price.
⚠ Production Realities – Most EV startups fail. Can Slate deliver by 2026?


Verdict: A Long Shot, But a Necessary One

The Slate Truck isn’t for everyone—but it doesn’t need to be. If even 5% of truck buyers opt for a smaller, cheaper, more efficient alternative, it could shift the auto industry’s trajectory.

Final Question:

Would you drive a $20K electric truck with no frills?

  • Yes, if it saves money!
  • No, I need more power/luxury.

ADVERTISEMENT
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Get notified about new articles