On Tuesday,Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman reported that tech giant Apple, famous for its consumer electronics like MacBooks and iPhones, had canceled its long-gestating plans to build a self-driving electric vehicle (E.V.). Gurman further reported that many of the 2,000 employees working on the car project “will be shifted to the artificial intelligence division” to “focus on generative AI projects, an increasingly key priority for the company.”
Plans for an official Apple E.V.codenamed “Titan”date back a decade, though an Apple board member said in 2014 that company founder Steve Jobs, inspired by what Tesla Motors was doing at the time, “was gonna design an iCar” before his death in 2011. In 2015, Business Insider reported on the existence of an Apple project that a company employee said “will change the landscape and give Tesla a run for its money.”
Interestingly, Tesla CEO Elon Musk claims he offered to sell his company to Apple in 2017 but Apple boss Tim Cook “refused to take the meeting.” At the time the automaker was struggling to deliver its long-delayed Model 3 sedana period Musk has referred to as “production hell.” In his 2021 book Power Play: Tesla, Elon Musk, and the Bet of the Century, Tim Higgins of The Wall Street Journal wrote that Musk and Cook actually did discuss terms of an acquisition, but talks broke down when Musk insisted on being made CEO of Apple. Both Musk and Cook deny having ever even spoken. Responding to the news that Apple planned to shutter its E.V. program, Musk tweeted emojis of a salute and a cigarette, later adding, “The natural state of a car company is dead.”
The Titan project seems to have languished in the years since: By 2016, the company appeared to pivot from building its own car to designing autonomous self-driving technology that it could license to other automakers. Then by 2020, the project had proceeded well enough that Apple reconsidered: The company planned to start production in 2024 on an E.V. with a battery that would boast lower costs and longer ranges than competitors. Between December 2022 and November 2023, the company logged more than 400,000 miles of autonomous test drives on public roads, according to Wired.
By the beginning of this year, however, the company had reached an impasse. Bloomberg’s Gurman wrote in January that Apple was at “a make-or-break point”: The company did not expect to introduce a car until at least 2028, and the final product would have “more limited features” than the “truly driverless car” originally envisioned, but Apple still anticipated a price tag of $100,000 or more.
In canceling the E.V. project, Apple is expected to redouble its efforts into generative AIon an earnings call in January, Cook said “we continue to spend a tremendous amount of time and effort” on artificial intelligence but gave no specificsas well as products like the Vision Pro virtual reality headset.
While the project’s cancellation is bad news for those who support a shift to renewable energy sources, it unfortunately reflects the growing uncertainty in the E.V. market. While the U.S. sold a record number of E.V.s in 2023, the sector’s growth is more sluggish than anticipated. As CNN’s Peter Valdes-Dapena wrote this week, consumers find prices too high, and public charging stations too unreliable, to make the switch. Even legacy automakers like Ford and G.M. have softened previous pledges to switch their production from gas burners to E.V.s.
In fact, the switch from E.V. to AI is expected to be a financial boon for Apple: Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Anurag Rana and Andrew Girard noted that artificial intelligence seems like the safer bet “given the long-term profitability potential of AI revenue streams versus cars.”
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
Image: A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.