8 ms·

If you're asking this question seriously, I have to ask a clarification question: what are we actually talking about? Are we comparing just certain aspects of p

If you're asking this question seriously, I have to ask a clarification question: what are we actually talking about? Are we comparing just certain aspects of production of the whole thing? If you think about this from an engineering perspective for even 30 seconds there are so many differences that come to mind. - Pack has to go through an order of magnitude more charge cycles than a phone - Must operate in a much wider variety of conditions than a phone - iPhones don't need to drive themselves - iPhones don't need to pass crash tests - Brakes don't exist on iPhones - Suspension does not exist on iPhones - iPhones don't propel themselves at 100 mph - iPhones weight orders of magnitude less than a car - Regulatory requirements are way less stringent for phones - Lights - ... I'm sort of dumbfounded by the level of conversation here given this is HN and the reputation is one of very thoughtful discourse on current events relating to technology and engineering. EDIT: line breaks, looks like I'm further contributing to the downward spiral here.

dcolkitt 6y ago
> Pack has to go through an order of magnitude more charge cycles than a phone I don't think this is true. Most electric cars are re-charged once a day, which is about the same as a phone. > Must operate in a much wider variety of conditions than a phone Also, not really true if you look at the range of temperature and conditions an iPhone is rated for. (Including water resistance. Mine went through a washing machine cycle and came out fine.) > iPhones don't need to pass crash tests iPhones protected highly delicate components against hard impact on concrete. That requires similar engineering delicacy as protecting human meat in car crashes. > Brakes... suspension The complexity of the accelerometers and camera systems deal with similar engineering challenges of the same quality. > iPhones weight orders of magnitude less than a car Does weighing less make something harder to engineer? If anything making complex machines that are feather-weight seems more challenging. Certainly you'd acknowledge that smartphones are harder to build than mainframes, even though the latter is an order of magnitude heavier. > Regulatory requirements are way less stringent for phones This is true. But given Apple's unrelenting engineering excellence, there's very little chance they'll design a substandard or unsafe product. Therefore regulatory compliance is merely an issue of hiring enough lawyers. Apple has plenty of cash to hire lawyers. Certainly much more than GM. > Lights iPhones definitely have lights.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  > iPhones definitely have lights. I am sorry, are you trolling? Are you seriously comparing smash test on a phone with regulatory crash test on a car? Have you thought about this at all? Do iPhones have crumple zones designed in? Do they asses performance of the chassis after 30 years of corrosion? Do they operate in 50 degree Dubai or -30 Siberia? Do they travel at 100 m/h? How many Gs does an SSD (~100) survive as opposed to a human brain (~10)? I am sorry for namecalling, but this post comes across as very arrogant.
  - foxtr0t 6y ago
    Especially hilarious given I left the "lights" bullet (with zero explanation as the last item) as fool's bait. It was gloriously taken.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Did i say arrogance?
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Joke's on them, I was only acting dumb! Seriously, you putting a bullet point with no explanation, and got an equally terse rebuttal. You didn't "win" that.
      - foxtr0t 6y ago
        Let me help you. I offered "Lights" as a design requirement unique to vehicles with respect to phones. Without any explanation it leaves the door open to a surface level counter point "Phones also have lights" that requires a functioning brain and the most basic level of reasoning. Lights on modern vehicles (high beams, low beams, DRLs, blinkers, brake lights) are certainly not simple components, especially those on vehicles sold in the EU where the regulatory body has taken up new technology much faster than in the US. This wasn't a dumb point, cell phone lighting requirements are child's play compared with the requirements of a vehicle lighting. It is 100% valid, but was also placed as bait as explained above. Make sense?
agumonkey 6y ago
I simply asked a question you know, I'm neither a proponent nor an adversary of anything here. I get you have a lot of knowledge on the matter.. but you're biased and quite emotional it seems. You're shifting topic a bit. You were talking about part count, not part complexity. My iPhone battery doesn't have a cooling system and my car doesn't need to fit in my pocket (<= absurd arguments for the sake or arguing outside of the original question)

dcolkitt 6y ago

> Pack has to go through an order of magnitude more charge cycles than a phone I don't think this is true. Most electric cars are re-charged once a day, which is about the same as a phone. > Must operate in a much wider variety of conditions than a phone Also, not really true if you look at the range of temperature and conditions an iPhone is rated for. (Including water resistance. Mine went through a washing machine cycle and came out fine.) > iPhones don't need to pass crash tests iPhones protected highly delicate components against hard impact on concrete. That requires similar engineering delicacy as protecting human meat in car crashes. > Brakes... suspension The complexity of the accelerometers and camera systems deal with similar engineering challenges of the same quality. > iPhones weight orders of magnitude less than a car Does weighing less make something harder to engineer? If anything making complex machines that are feather-weight seems more challenging. Certainly you'd acknowledge that smartphones are harder to build than mainframes, even though the latter is an order of magnitude heavier. > Regulatory requirements are way less stringent for phones This is true. But given Apple's unrelenting engineering excellence, there's very little chance they'll design a substandard or unsafe product. Therefore regulatory compliance is merely an issue of hiring enough lawyers. Apple has plenty of cash to hire lawyers. Certainly much more than GM. > Lights iPhones definitely have lights.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
> iPhones definitely have lights. I am sorry, are you trolling? Are you seriously comparing smash test on a phone with regulatory crash test on a car? Have you thought about this at all? Do iPhones have crumple zones designed in? Do they asses performance of the chassis after 30 years of corrosion? Do they operate in 50 degree Dubai or -30 Siberia? Do they travel at 100 m/h? How many Gs does an SSD (~100) survive as opposed to a human brain (~10)? I am sorry for namecalling, but this post comes across as very arrogant.
- foxtr0t 6y ago
  Especially hilarious given I left the "lights" bullet (with zero explanation as the last item) as fool's bait. It was gloriously taken.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Did i say arrogance?
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Joke's on them, I was only acting dumb! Seriously, you putting a bullet point with no explanation, and got an equally terse rebuttal. You didn't "win" that.
    - foxtr0t 6y ago
      Let me help you. I offered "Lights" as a design requirement unique to vehicles with respect to phones. Without any explanation it leaves the door open to a surface level counter point "Phones also have lights" that requires a functioning brain and the most basic level of reasoning. Lights on modern vehicles (high beams, low beams, DRLs, blinkers, brake lights) are certainly not simple components, especially those on vehicles sold in the EU where the regulatory body has taken up new technology much faster than in the US. This wasn't a dumb point, cell phone lighting requirements are child's play compared with the requirements of a vehicle lighting. It is 100% valid, but was also placed as bait as explained above. Make sense?

agumonkey 6y ago

I simply asked a question you know, I'm neither a proponent nor an adversary of anything here. I get you have a lot of knowledge on the matter.. but you're biased and quite emotional it seems. You're shifting topic a bit. You were talking about part count, not part complexity. My iPhone battery doesn't have a cooling system and my car doesn't need to fit in my pocket (<= absurd arguments for the sake or arguing outside of the original question)