[bradleyland]

I think the i3 looks incredible on the road and in person. I don't think it looks bad in photos either, but that's all preference. I owned five VW hatchbacks, so clearly the hatchback look isn't a put off for me. FWIW, it should be considered that in Europe, hatchbacks are way more popular than they are here. I think that has a lot to do with the i3 design. IMO, it was designed for the European buyer first, and other markets second.

There are a couple around town here (small city), and one lives just up the street from me, so I see it zipping by all the time. I'm pretty sure it's actually the sales manager at the BMW dealer closest to me. He does not drive the thing slow either lol. I love it when I'm outside and I see it float by nearly silently.

[Imola.ZHP]

click bait rumor, please stop spreading this click bait disease

Plenty of company's get into and out of talks about sharing products, deals fall through all of the time. This is a RUMOR, not a press release, it is not news.

[3s-a-charm]

Apple was also in talks with Tesla and many were calling for Apple to just buy/rebrand Tesla but that never went anywhere either.

There was a great article recently (can't find it now) on why Apple could not make a car work as it would completely devalue their share value.

It is virtually impossible to match the profitability of Apple's product lineup with a vehicle. It would be somewhat profitable but would dilute the share prices so it was said they would use the iCar to do R&D for Apple CarPlay and other automotive integration technologies and leave it at that.

Perhaps they want to get into the Autonomy market?

[sdunn247]

Originally Posted by JasH

I think it is ugly, but speaking with people it seems the vast majority like it.

Anyway, if they had stuck an Apple badge on it, all the Apple fans would have said it is the best car design in history

Look at the (ugly and pointless) Apple Watch for evidence

What's wrong with the Apple Watch? I'm happy to buy BMW (I have a 4GC) but also own an Apple Watch, etc

I think both brands have great design and customer care synergy and find it amusing that some one on a BMW fan blog can be so dismissive of apple, be honest if any of us were bothered about price we wouldn't drive this mark but another

[sdunn247]

Originally Posted by JasH

I think it is ugly, but speaking with people it seems the vast majority like it.

Anyway, if they had stuck an Apple badge on it, all the Apple fans would have said it is the best car design in history

Look at the (ugly and pointless) Apple Watch for evidence

What's wrong with the Apple Watch? I'm happy to buy BMW (I have a 4GC) but also own an Apple Watch, etc

I think both brands have great design and customer care synergy and find it amusing that some one on a BMW fan blog can be so dismissive of apple, be honest if any of us were bothered about price we wouldn't drive this mark but another

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by 3s-a-charm

Apple was also in talks with Tesla and many were calling for Apple to just buy/rebrand Tesla but that never went anywhere either.

There was a great article recently (can't find it now) on why Apple could not make a car work as it would completely devalue their share value.

It is virtually impossible to match the profitability of Apple's product lineup with a vehicle. It would be somewhat profitable but would dilute the share prices so it was said they would use the iCar to do R&D for Apple CarPlay and other automotive integration technologies and leave it at that.

Perhaps they want to get into the Autonomy market?

Bingo, the bmw i3 is a perfect car for autonomous. And you add a fully integrated Apple entertainment system with apple music and you have quite a car. I am not surprised it fell through though, apple would be too demanding and bmw would not want to forgo any profits.

[ORIGIN M.]

I am not sure how much an iPhone costs in Dreiländereck, but I think all brands are overpriced.

Originally Posted by Levi

Sure, owning 95% of smartphone market profit, Apple has "a hard time keeping costs down".


Apple the most overpriced and overrated brand the world has ever seen (after Tesla).

[MFNATIK]

The i3 punches above its weight. People lump it and compare it a Volt or a Leaf and it is light years more advanced. It's technologically the most advanced automobile ever produced. Monroe and Associates disassembled one and found that the engineering is significantly more advanced than any other production car on the road. I too was initially put off by its quirkly looks but after a 3 day test drive I put one in my garage.

[JasH]

Originally Posted by sdunn247

What's wrong with the Apple Watch?...........find it amusing that some one on a BMW fan blog can be so dismissive of apple

Where was I dismissive of Apple? I am saying the Apple watch is crap.

Equally, I think the iPad and iPhone are the best products on the market in their segments.

[Spineless]

Originally Posted by Epirali

Technologically and in daily use there have been few companies as impactful as Apple, whether you like their product or use any one of a number of direct rip offs (Windows, Android, modern tablets, modern music players, ultra portable laptops). They also revived or moved forward many manufacturing techniques that are now common (gorilla glass, unibody aluminum laptop frames, high dpi displays).

Tesla: jury is out.

Wow... the Apple fandom strong in you. But I must correct you on a few things. Of all the things that you credit Apple for, in none of these categories was Apple the first in the market. Windows isn't a rip off on any Apple product. Apple appropriated the idea, like Microsoft did, from Xerox-Parc. Microsoft created the modern tablet market, not Apple. Apple just improved upon it. Modern music players existed before the iPod. Apple just improved upon it. "Ultra" portable laptops have existed before the MacBook Air. Only over time has the definition evolved to what it is today. So for only a couple generations of laptops has Apple held the portability crown. Before that it was Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM, etc.

Gorilla glass was created by Corning, not Apple.

If you look at the history of Apple, they have never actually created a new market. That's not something they have ever proven to be capable of doing. They have only ever improved upon an existing category, which is kind of like being a rip off, as you put it.

The best analogy for Apple is that of BASF. Yea, the company that goes around saying that they don't create the product, they just make it better. That's Apple to a t.

[-c-]

Originally Posted by Spineless

Wow... the Apple fandom strong in you. But I must correct you on a few things. Of all the things that you credit Apple for, in none of these categories was Apple the first in the market. Windows isn't a rip off on any Apple product. Apple appropriated the idea, like Microsoft did, from Xerox-Parc. Microsoft created the modern tablet market, not Apple. Apple just improved upon it. Modern music players existed before the iPod. Apple just improved upon it. "Ultra" portable laptops have existed before the MacBook Air. Only over time has the definition evolved to what it is today. So for only a couple generations of laptops has Apple held the portability crown. Before that it was Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM, etc.

Gorilla glass was created by Corning, not Apple.

If you look at the history of Apple, they have never actually created a new market. That's not something they have ever proven to be capable of doing. They have only ever improved upon an existing category, which is kind of like being a rip off, as you put it.

The best analogy for Apple is that of BASF. Yea, the company that goes around saying that they don't create the product, they just make it better. That's Apple to a t.

Yea didn't SONY create the first small portable MP3 player? They just didn't market it well, Apple was just better getting it noticed and marketing the white ear buds.....

[Epirali]

Originally Posted by Spineless

Wow... the Apple fandom strong in you. But I must correct you on a few things. Of all the things that you credit Apple for, in none of these categories was Apple the first in the market. Windows isn't a rip off on any Apple product. Apple appropriated the idea, like Microsoft did, from Xerox-Parc. Microsoft created the modern tablet market, not Apple. Apple just improved upon it. Modern music players existed before the iPod. Apple just improved upon it. "Ultra" portable laptops have existed before the MacBook Air. Only over time has the definition evolved to what it is today. So for only a couple generations of laptops has Apple held the portability crown. Before that it was Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM, etc.

Gorilla glass was created by Corning, not Apple.

If you look at the history of Apple, they have never actually created a new market. That's not something they have ever proven to be capable of doing. They have only ever improved upon an existing category, which is kind of like being a rip off, as you put it.

The best analogy for Apple is that of BASF. Yea, the company that goes around saying that they don't create the product, they just make it better. That's Apple to a t.

Apple actually made products, refined the process and created markets for everything I listed. That is in itself innovation. Apple convinced Corning to manufacture gorilla glass (it was abandoned), refined and made common the GUI UI, popularized the music player by doing something no one else did: simplify it rather than make geek toys like Creative (not sony).

And you are very wrong: they created the market for all of these, others like Microsoft, Google just followed. Saying they just made it better is missing the entire point. Until technology is adopted by people it is just a laboratory project. Innovation has many facets, and understanding the human use case of technology is very innovative. Sadly Apple no longer seems good at that.

And btw think twice before you throw around the word fanboy. I have been in the tech field for many years, understand the tech and market for these products, and am happy to defend my assertions with facts and information.

[Kiwi]

To be correct Japan or any Asia country have never invented a thing. They copy and have been very good and selling due to cheap pricing only.

I don't need Apples watch but it's not crap. Apple designs and manufactures excellent products as does BMW. Both will back their products with excellent support.

I've owned many BMW cars and motor bikes and never has BMW not look after me and my toys. Apple has done the same with my many Apple purchases.

The best thing Apple and BMW could do is join together and produce a car. Apple may have been involved with BMW i cars since the beginning.

[-c-]

Originally Posted by Epirali

Apple actually made products, refined the process and created markets for everything I listed. That is in itself innovation. Apple convinced Corning to manufacture gorilla glass (it was abandoned), refined and made common the GUI UI, popularized the music player by doing something no one else did: simplify it rather than make geek toys like Creative (not sony).

And you are very wrong: they created the market for all of these, others like Microsoft, Google just followed. Saying they just made it better is missing the entire point. Until technology is adopted by people it is just a laboratory project. Innovation has many facets, and understanding the human use case of technology is very innovative. Sadly Apple no longer seems good at that.

And btw think twice before you throw around the word fanboy. I have been in the tech field for many years, understand the tech and market for these products, and am happy to defend my assertions with facts and information.

Yea sadly now that their visionary / support steve is gone it's now run by suites that probably don't or to scared to try anything super risky new.

Innovation takes lots of money, heck look at the billions Bmw spent on the I program.

The design studio at Apple probably have some cool ideas but I'm sure that's what steve was able to do, see a neat idea and have the pull to make it happen, they just go with what they know. Now without him I bet things are very different. Who knows

Just a thought

[jadnashuanh]

FWIW, the I-program should not be looked at as an I-series unique investment. Everything learned and refined on the use of CFRP is being used in their entire line to make things stronger, lighter, and to do things that are just plain impossible with steel or aluminum. IOW, the investment initiated to make the I-series possible, is a game changer for their entire product line, and will differentiate them from the rest for at least a few years. Everyone else that uses CFRP uses a different method that takes MUCH longer to produce parts with less precision and more labor. BMW even figured out a way to reuse some of the cutoffs and scraps in reinforcing sections of the I-series vehicles to minimize waste and make things stronger.

Apple has their way of doing things...they do them for a reason...just like in the I-series, but not everyone likes all of the choices they made. I for one, find some of the Apple stuff restrictive. It has made them safer from a networking standpoint, but I don't always agree on their decisions, and have not felt the need to embrace them. Some people feel the same way about BMW and the i-series cars.

[-c-]

Originally Posted by jadnashuanh

FWIW, the I-program should not be looked at as an I-series unique investment. Everything learned and refined on the use of CFRP is being used in their entire line to make things stronger, lighter, and to do things that are just plain impossible with steel or aluminum. IOW, the investment initiated to make the I-series possible, is a game changer for their entire product line, and will differentiate them from the rest for at least a few years. Everyone else that uses CFRP uses a different method that takes MUCH longer to produce parts with less precision and more labor. BMW even figured out a way to reuse some of the cutoffs and scraps in reinforcing sections of the I-series vehicles to minimize waste and make things stronger.

Apple has their way of doing things...they do them for a reason...just like in the I-series, but not everyone likes all of the choices they made. I for one, find some of the Apple stuff restrictive. It has made them safer from a networking standpoint, but I don't always agree on their decisions, and have not felt the need to embrace them. Some people feel the same way about BMW and the i-series cars.

Yea I knew that it's bigger than that but my point was just it takes an enormous amount of money to create "new" and investors sometimes get skittish about dropping billions into R&d

[Epirali]

Originally Posted by -c-

Yea sadly now that their visionary / support steve is gone it's now run by suites that probably don't or to scared to try anything super risky new.

Innovation takes lots of money, heck look at the billions Bmw spent on the I program.

The design studio at Apple probably have some cool ideas but I'm sure that's what steve was able to do, see a neat idea and have the pull to make it happen, they just go with what they know. Now without him I bet things are very different. Who knows

Just a thought

I completely agree, I think people never understood how much of a functional (not technological) visionary he was, and how much the attention to detail he had created the final results. I see the loss in everything they do, the Apple Watch, the software and even sadly the MacBook on which I am typing. Pretty, yes. Apple quality? No.

Ives is still a once in a couple of generation designer with amazing resources, but looks aren't everything.

[x5love]

Originally Posted by JasH

So funny to read this, as I have always thought that the i3 in white could simply be an Apple iCar if it had a different badge and grille. The styling is VERY Apple.

It would mean a much higher price no doubt, as Apple love massive mark ups. But would also sell 10x more cars...of the same car

Glad they didn't do it, for both those reasons.

I don't mean to be combative, this is all curiosity: I think your posts here are some of the most informative/thoughtful/insightful on this forum, but the i3 has to be one of the least apple like cars in terms of design in the market. Apple is all about straight, smooth lines, rounded corners, utter simplicity--whereas the i3 is all jagged lines and edges, stripes of blue, a window line that expands and contracts around the car... curious to know what you think of as making it apple like?

I can't even think of a current car on the market that's as simply designed as apple products

[x5love]

Originally Posted by Epirali

Tesla: jury is out.

I don't think you can really compare Tesla to what Apple will do with their car.

Tesla is fusing together all the best aspects of leaders in the market to bring a car that's familiar in its design and luxury, but modern in its drivetrain, ability to be updated, ordering process and features.

Tesla represents an evolution of everything that's great in the industry.

Apple doesn't do evolutions, it aims to revolutionize. The iPhone didn't look like anything that came before it (same with iMac, etc). Tesla looks like a Jag.

Pretty sure whatever Apple is cooking up will stand in stark contrast to everything else that's out there. It'll be like comparing an apple to, well, an orange. (forgive me, I had to go there).

[x5love]

Originally Posted by metalspork

I actually think the i3 is too polarizing a design for Apple to go with it. Some people like the futuristic style, but most people I know think it's ugly. The Tesla Model S or perhaps the upcoming Model III would likely fall more in line with Apple's current design aesthetic of sleek, thin, and mass appeal.

They were only interested in the bones of the car, they weren't going to re badge it. Whatever Apple did with the architecture would look very apple, and not at all like the current i3. It was the carbon fiber tech that had them leaning in.

[Epirali]

Originally Posted by x5love

I don't think you can really compare Tesla to what Apple will do with their car.

Tesla is fusing together all the best aspects of leaders in the market to bring a car that's familiar in its design and luxury, but modern in its drivetrain, ability to be updated, ordering process and features.

Tesla represents an evolution of everything that's great in the industry.

Apple doesn't do evolutions, it aims to revolutionize. The iPhone didn't look like anything that came before it (same with iMac, etc). Tesla looks like a Jag.

Pretty sure whatever Apple is cooking up will stand in stark contrast to everything else that's out there. It'll be like comparing an apple to, well, an orange. (forgive me, I had to go there).

No disagreement here. Except the pun. I think I hurt something!

[JasH]

Originally Posted by x5love

I don't mean to be combative.... the i3 has to be one of the least apple like cars in terms of design in the market..

Thanks for your kind words, and no I don't take your question as combative in the least.

In fact I agree with all the points you make.

Nevertheless, I still see the i3 as being a car that could have rolled off the production line with Apple logos and a revised front grille, and been an Apple car. If of course we had never seen the i3/i8 and i8 Concept cars before, or related to BMW.

The reason is that in white especially, the visual look of the i3 looks very "Apple design" to my eyes. It is revolutionary, divisive, clean/electric, uses state of the art construction technologies and materials, lightweight (cf thin, for Apple products), does what others do but at the premium end of the market (for a City electric car).

Anyway, that ship has sailed for Apple - luckily. I am no BMW fan, but I prefer the i3 coming from BMW than Apple.