On June 7, new news came from Apple's "car-making": Apple released a new generation of smart car system Car Play at its Global Developers Conference. In the previous system, the car's entertainment and navigation functions were separated from the car's own operations, such as temperature settings, window and door controls, and the user had to switch between the two systems. The upgraded Car Play has achieved the unification of the two operating systems, which is considered a major breakthrough.
Some people believe that Apple’s push for Car Play may mean that it has given up its plan to build its own cars and instead provides software platforms for other car companies. However, some people believe that Apple's push to launch the software system first is just a phased strategy. "Build a car first and build a soul." The final car-building plan will not change. Immediately afterwards, a reporter who has been tracking Apple for a long time broke the news that Apple is negotiating with suppliers for its automotive business, and the new person in charge of the automotive project is preparing to reorganize the team.
That’s the news, let’s see what we can learn.
As you know, as early as 2014, there were media reports that Apple secretly formed a car-building project team of several hundred people and named the project "Project Titan." Now, 8 years have passed, and "Apple makes cars" will be hyped by the media every once in a while. Various new energy car companies are also facing formidable enemies, and in the end they have all been proven to be "crying wolves." So far, Apple's car-making has not yet entered a substantial stage.
So, what is Apple hesitating about? Ordinarily, Apple has a huge advantage over other new energy car companies.
First of all, Apple has money, which is very important. Building new energy vehicles is very expensive. Weilai CEO Li Bin once said tragically: "Don't build cars without 20 billion!" And 20 billion is nothing to Apple, which has a cash flow of 300 billion US dollars. Who can burn more money than Apple?
Second, in terms of technical reserves, Apple’s software, system, and ecological advantages on mobile phones can be seamlessly transferred to cars, such as the Car Play system released this time. In addition, after all, Apple has been engaged in car research and development for 8 years. Apple already has many patents in aspects such as autonomous driving and body design.
Look, Apple doesn’t lack money, technology, and certainly not a brand. What concerns does Apple have about building a car? I have seen some analysts believe that Apple is worried that its core advantage - supply chain management capabilities - cannot be replicated in car manufacturing. We have talked about Apple's mobile phone supply chain before. Suppliers need to carry out customized development according to Apple's requirements and be strongly bound to Apple. Although the initial investment is large, the shipment volume of Apple mobile phones is large enough to ensure huge returns.
Building cars is different. The automotive supply chain is much more complex than the mobile phone supply chain, and there are far more than 200 core suppliers. It is impossible for Apple to maintain strong control over these suppliers. Moreover, no matter how good Apple is, it will not be able to occupy a high share of the new energy vehicle market from the beginning, and suppliers are unlikely to make large additional investments for "Apple customization." According to Nikkei News, Apple has contacted many car companies such as Hyundai, Kia, and Nissan, seeking OEM car manufacturing. These car companies ultimately rejected it and could not accept Apple's cooperation model.
In short, Apple may not rush to build cars before it has figured out how to deal with the supply chain. This gave me an inspiration: when a company decides whether to enter a new field and what new field to enter, the most important thing to consider may not be "whether there are opportunities in this market", but "whether my core capabilities can be transferred there."
Just recently I saw an interesting case, the "socket king" Bull has entered the new energy vehicle track. At first glance, we may find it unreliable - why would anyone want to get involved in new energy vehicles? However, after listening to the Bulls' own analysis, I find it quite convincing. The Bulls' core capabilities can indeed be transferred to this new track.
The product launched by Bull is a portable charging gun for new energy vehicles. The charging gun and the socket seem to be two completely different things with very different appearances, but if you think about it carefully, their basic functions are the same, they are all used for power connection. Let’s look at it again, what are the core requirements for power connection products? One is standardization, and the other is safety. At present, portable charging guns are still in their infancy, and many products circulating on the market are three-no products, which pose great safety risks and have inconsistent standards.
The bull took a look and realized that this is exactly what I am good at.
In terms of the safety of power connection, Bull has sufficient technical reserves; in terms of standardization, Bull has taken advantage of its existing brand and channel advantages to take the lead and become the standard setter of charging guns. Bull seized this opportunity to enter the charging gun track. Currently, Bull charging gun sales rank first on Tmall and JD.com.
Speaking of this, I also think of a company that can be described as a textbook case of core competency migration. This is Fujifilm Corporation of Japan.
As you know, Fujifilm and Kodak were the two giants in the film era. Kodak failed to recover after filing for bankruptcy ten years ago. It has also tried to transform many times, making action cameras, smartphones, and even... He has appeared in fashion magazines, but he has always been unable to do so, and is considered to have lost his commercial imagination. Kodak's old rival Fujifilm is still alive and well, still among the world's top 500 companies, and developing well in cutting-edge fields such as optical instruments, medical equipment, and biopharmaceuticals.
In fact, Fujifilm, like Kodak, also faced transformation difficulties. How to transfer? Where to turn? At that time, Fujifilm CEO Shigetaka Komori did not rely on his own efforts, nor did he follow the trend to make smartphones. Instead, he spent two years organizing the technical department to conduct inventory and demonstration: What are the company's existing technology assets? What are the markets with the greatest future growth potential? Find out which part of existing technology can match the future market. This is the area where Fuji should transform. Eventually, Fuji found its target markets for transformation: cosmetics, medicine, and high-performance materials.
For example, in the field of cosmetics, 70% of human skin is collagen, and the main component of film happens to be gelatin extracted from collagen; one of the causes of skin aging is oxidation, and This is also the main reason why photos fade. Over the past few decades, Fuji has developed more than 4,000 antioxidant compounds. If these technologies can be used in cosmetics, it will be a dimensionality reduction blow. So Fuji launched the cosmetics brand ASTALIFT, whose main selling point was antioxidant, and its sales once surpassed SK II.
For another example, in the field of medicine, there is a problem that needs to be solved to accurately reach the disease site. Fuji's nano-layered penetration technology can allow colors to appear in specific parts when developing photos. This Technology can be used in pharmaceuticals. At the same time, Fujifilm uses nanoemulsification technology in the film to reduce the particle size of the drug and improve drug absorption efficiency.
Also, in the semiconductor field, Fujifilm uses its own photosensitive material technology to manufacture photoresists, becoming the company with the largest number of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photoresist patents in the world.
You see, Fujifilm's transformation seems to be a huge span, but in fact it is always focusing on its core capabilities. This is why, the output value of film only accounts for 1% of the company, and Fujifilm's full name is still "Fujifilm". Fujifilm has never left film technology.
As Fujifilm CEO Shigetaka Komori said, "Products may die, but capabilities will last forever."