While I agree with a lot of the TTAC piece, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the theory of the article MT put out and the concept of enlisting experts to speculate on what an Apple car might be like.
What I object to is the utter turd they came up with, which really does look like some kind of background prop from a 1980s film set in the future*.
It's so poor it's hard to know where to start. Some elements, like the wheels, really do look like they're from the 1980s. The surfacing is unsophisticated and bland - while I don't expect an Apple car to be as busy as some of the cars common today, nor would I expect it to be largely slab-sided with curiously flared wheel arches or ugly lower skirts. I'd not expect the use of space to be so poor either - fitting only four passengers in such a massive form is baffling.
And good god, that colour. At the very least paint the damn thing white if you want it to look futuristic, or go for a bright solid shade like Newson did on the 021C.
On the subject of Newson, much as the 021C is one of my all-time favourite concept cars, I think it's telling that nobody has actually asked him back to design an actual, everyday, practical vehicle. Maybe, having looked at other products he's designed, it's that all barring a few (the Leica camera comes to mind) are hugely form-over-function. You can't really do that with a car designed to be used every day in all weathers and housing dysfunctional families, far less so than making a sofa for someone with more money and sense to shove in the corner of a minimalist flat.
What makes Apple products appealing is that function comes first - and I'd stress, function for those completely disinterested in the nitty-gritty of the technology beneath. My iPhone features the bare minimum of buttons required to work and it's spectacularly easy to navigate its functions. That it's then painted bright green and swish animations for certain things is secondary. It's a nice device to operate first, and a nice one to look at second.
In the same vein, I'd expect an Apple car to be utterly practical. Minimalist, but not to the point of bland design or poor function. Free of embellishment. If those demands are met, then it can be pretty. I'd actually think it'd be relatively utilitarian in most respects - think of a MacBook Air, which is just an unremarkable sliver of aluminium - but incredibly slick in the HMI department, whether that's a touchscreen inside or the actual physical controls.
* Something those movies never got right was brought to my attention by an article I read a while back. I can't remember the source, but the idea was that if you're representing a time only a relatively small distance into the future, what you change must generally be in a 75/25 proportion - 75% of stuff will actually be quite recognisable - buildings, places, the general form of vehicles, daily paraphernalia - and the other 25% can be new and shiny and possibly weird. Break this ratio and you fall further into the uncanny valley.