Apple Is Said to Be Rethinking Strategy on Self-Driving Cars(mobile.nytimes.com)
mobile.nytimes.com
Apple Is Said to Be Rethinking Strategy on Self-Driving Cars
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/10/technology/apple-is-said-to-be-rethinking-strategy-on-self-driving-cars.html
164 comments
It's not dead. With dollar signs in their eyes Apple went balls to the wall with Project Titan.
2013ish everyone looked at the Google car and thought 'OMG, it isn't some pie in the sky thing, this is real, we need to act now and act fast.' Remember how much hype there was around deep learning then- it seemed like it could do anything.
Now Tesla, Uber, Apple and the carmakers are all figuring out just how hard a problem autonomy really is.
Project Titan initially set out with a (rumoured and ridiculous) 2019 production goal. Now they're like, 'okay more like 2025 if not later', and adjusting their strategy accordingly.
2013ish everyone looked at the Google car and thought 'OMG, it isn't some pie in the sky thing, this is real, we need to act now and act fast.' Remember how much hype there was around deep learning then- it seemed like it could do anything.
Now Tesla, Uber, Apple and the carmakers are all figuring out just how hard a problem autonomy really is.
Project Titan initially set out with a (rumoured and ridiculous) 2019 production goal. Now they're like, 'okay more like 2025 if not later', and adjusting their strategy accordingly.
[deleted]
Ok. Why do you think that?
It's dead? But it hadn't even begun yet!
This is the Apple of 2016, leaking that it's killing moonshot projects it didn't ever announce. Meanwhile you can't buy a MacBook with a '16 processor..
This is the Apple of 2016, leaking that it's killing moonshot projects it didn't ever announce. Meanwhile you can't buy a MacBook with a '16 processor..
The '16 processor is more Intel's fault than anything with late delivery on Kabylake, if new Mac's are announced at the rumoured October event I would assume they are Skylake.
This report refers to the earlier Bloomberg report but basically contradicts it [1]. In that report they said the strategy was shifting towards making the underlying tech for self-driving rather than a car, but that never made any sense to me.
The value in the business to Apple will be in the design, interior, and performance of the vehicle. Self-driving technology is going to be a commodity; buyers are certainly not going to be evaluating the self-driving capabilities when deciding which car to buy. The most important part is making a nice car, the self-driving tech is an implementation detail (and it will be like deciding whether to use Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi for a wireless protocol like AirPlay). Many companies are working on self-driving tech, including Uber which Apple is indirectly an investor in now (and won't be competing with each other, like Google). There will be plenty of time to work on it internally, license/buy it or collaborate with someone like Uber. Their development efforts should be focused on everything else (like manufacturing processes to enable scale and avoid Tesla's problems), that's what their business will really be about.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/apple-taps...
The value in the business to Apple will be in the design, interior, and performance of the vehicle. Self-driving technology is going to be a commodity; buyers are certainly not going to be evaluating the self-driving capabilities when deciding which car to buy. The most important part is making a nice car, the self-driving tech is an implementation detail (and it will be like deciding whether to use Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi for a wireless protocol like AirPlay). Many companies are working on self-driving tech, including Uber which Apple is indirectly an investor in now (and won't be competing with each other, like Google). There will be plenty of time to work on it internally, license/buy it or collaborate with someone like Uber. Their development efforts should be focused on everything else (like manufacturing processes to enable scale and avoid Tesla's problems), that's what their business will really be about.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/apple-taps...
>"Self-driving technology is going to be a commodity; buyers are certainly not going to be evaluating the self-driving capabilities when deciding which car to buy."
Totally disagree here. We have no idea what the range of capabilities will be with self driving cars. I could easily see some versions which would be more independent than others. For example, perhaps one manufacturer can only make them drive well on highways with your hands on the steering wheel, while others can be completely autonomous so it can drive itself over to pick your kids up from school or make its way over snowy and icy roads or dirt roads with no markings.
That kind of difference would easily surmount the tribal brand loyalty most car buyers have. It's a killer feature, not a commodity.
Totally disagree here. We have no idea what the range of capabilities will be with self driving cars. I could easily see some versions which would be more independent than others. For example, perhaps one manufacturer can only make them drive well on highways with your hands on the steering wheel, while others can be completely autonomous so it can drive itself over to pick your kids up from school or make its way over snowy and icy roads or dirt roads with no markings.
That kind of difference would easily surmount the tribal brand loyalty most car buyers have. It's a killer feature, not a commodity.
Agree.
The "skill level" of an autonomous vehicle is continuous, not binary. I could totally see people buying a car based on how trustworthy it is (crash statistics).
Perhaps there will be some legally standard terms or discrete statistical thresholds makers will have to meet in order to legally claim certain levels of autonomy.
The "skill level" of an autonomous vehicle is continuous, not binary. I could totally see people buying a car based on how trustworthy it is (crash statistics).
Perhaps there will be some legally standard terms or discrete statistical thresholds makers will have to meet in order to legally claim certain levels of autonomy.
It will probably be "collisions per million miles" or "fatalities per million miles" or something of the sort.
Right now those numbers are roughly tabulated by insurance companies, but they're not really published as part of the boilerplate posted on the car where miles-per-gallon are often shown.
If people knew they were buying a death trap they'd probably give it some sober second thought.
Right now those numbers are roughly tabulated by insurance companies, but they're not really published as part of the boilerplate posted on the car where miles-per-gallon are often shown.
If people knew they were buying a death trap they'd probably give it some sober second thought.
> I could totally see people buying a car based on how trustworthy it is (crash statistics).
The problem with such an idea is that even if you sell 100 000 cars in the first year after launch (really good), you'll have to wait for about five years before you have the statistics to claim you car has any better than average safety record. But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter.
And that's with safety records today. As cars keep getting safer, this gets worse and worse. Remember, NHTSA averages today are over the entire car population. Today that population has a significant tail of cars from the late 80s or early 90s without basic safety measures like airbags and crumple zones. These will have a much higher fatality rate. But it ten years, when those are mostly gone from the roads, it's going to be ludicrously difficult to make statistically valid statements about car model safety while that model is still being sold.
The problem with such an idea is that even if you sell 100 000 cars in the first year after launch (really good), you'll have to wait for about five years before you have the statistics to claim you car has any better than average safety record. But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter.
And that's with safety records today. As cars keep getting safer, this gets worse and worse. Remember, NHTSA averages today are over the entire car population. Today that population has a significant tail of cars from the late 80s or early 90s without basic safety measures like airbags and crumple zones. These will have a much higher fatality rate. But it ten years, when those are mostly gone from the roads, it's going to be ludicrously difficult to make statistically valid statements about car model safety while that model is still being sold.
What is stopping from robotcars inc. from claiming "no autonomous driving AI from our company has been at fault or caused an accident ever." There is safety of the vehicle in an accident and safety of the autonomous driver which are getting conflated. You don't need to wait for the glacially paced NHTSA to post your accident statistics to brag about your AI avoiding accidents.
>But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter.
I don't get this reasoning at all. Brand reputation matters a great deal. For example, Toyota put out a new Tacoma this year but people already assume it will be reliable and safe based on Toyota's track record. They don't have to start all over again and win all the customers back.
While models change and structural safety will change slightly model to model The brain of the car will continue to improve and we won't be starting over because they change the body lines a little bit.
>But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter.
I don't get this reasoning at all. Brand reputation matters a great deal. For example, Toyota put out a new Tacoma this year but people already assume it will be reliable and safe based on Toyota's track record. They don't have to start all over again and win all the customers back.
While models change and structural safety will change slightly model to model The brain of the car will continue to improve and we won't be starting over because they change the body lines a little bit.
Its not the NHTSA that's glacially paced. It's the simple fact that at current accident rates, statements about safety after one year of a model being on the road are statistically unfounded. It's simply not physically possible to say "this car is safer than average", because on average you would expect less than one fatality. Having zero fatalities in the first one or two or even five years after launch proves nothing.
Saying "our AI avoided four potentially-fatal accidents" is also a vacuous statement, since a) you don't know whether an accident would be fatal or not, since accidents are ridiculously chaotic systems and b) there is no way to say that a human driver would not also have avoided all those accidents.
In fact, most accidents are caused by people driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or falling asleep, or being on their phones. Using AI to detect and deny these people from driving would be orders of magnitude easier than autonomous cars, and provide 95% of the potential safety increase with none of the drawbacks. Why don't we do that? Consumer backlash is the answer. Even alcohol-preventing locks, mature tech today, is not being made mandatory because consumers would be mad.
I agree that brand reputation matters a lot. But people think we are going to see huge paradigm shifts in autonomous driving over the next ten years, and then your track record is for something completely different. Meanwhile the Tacoma is just a slight update and restyling of mature technology.
Adding to this is the fact that one freak accident will completely shatter a company's records. Imagine if a Tesla with next-gen Autopilot filled with seven passengers is driving through the Alps in October at 2°C: while the car is inside a tunnel, subcooled rain starts falling, covering the road in an invisible layer of super slippery ice. (This actually happens). The car goes off a cliff and kills all seven. Yes it's far-fetched, sure. But it will still be seven fatalities caused while the AI was driving, and that suddenly puts the AI car on par with a 2002 Honda Civic.
Saying "our AI avoided four potentially-fatal accidents" is also a vacuous statement, since a) you don't know whether an accident would be fatal or not, since accidents are ridiculously chaotic systems and b) there is no way to say that a human driver would not also have avoided all those accidents.
In fact, most accidents are caused by people driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or falling asleep, or being on their phones. Using AI to detect and deny these people from driving would be orders of magnitude easier than autonomous cars, and provide 95% of the potential safety increase with none of the drawbacks. Why don't we do that? Consumer backlash is the answer. Even alcohol-preventing locks, mature tech today, is not being made mandatory because consumers would be mad.
I agree that brand reputation matters a lot. But people think we are going to see huge paradigm shifts in autonomous driving over the next ten years, and then your track record is for something completely different. Meanwhile the Tacoma is just a slight update and restyling of mature technology.
Adding to this is the fact that one freak accident will completely shatter a company's records. Imagine if a Tesla with next-gen Autopilot filled with seven passengers is driving through the Alps in October at 2°C: while the car is inside a tunnel, subcooled rain starts falling, covering the road in an invisible layer of super slippery ice. (This actually happens). The car goes off a cliff and kills all seven. Yes it's far-fetched, sure. But it will still be seven fatalities caused while the AI was driving, and that suddenly puts the AI car on par with a 2002 Honda Civic.
>In fact, most accidents are caused by people driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or falling asleep, or being on their phones.
Which can't ever happen with AI driving. That's a huge sales pitch to consumers in itself without even having to wait for the data.
>Meanwhile the Tacoma is just a slight update and restyling of mature technology.
Wrong!
>A: What is carried over from the previous Tacoma in this new truck?
>S: Not much. Maybe a seatbelt bracket! The base frame has been modified. The base frame rail design is similar but it’s not carryover. The body shell and body structure are new. For the structure, we use hot-stamped steel.
http://www.automobilemag.com/news/q-a-with-2016-toyota-tacom...
If that's a slight update new models of autonomous cars can also be slight updates.
Average consumers aren't sitting around arguing statistics either. They will be marketed as safer. It's plain to see how autonomous cars will be safer in many respects already (Drunk driving or distracted driving for example). The convenience factor is by far the biggest selling point though. Sleep/work/read on your commute! Rent your car out as an autonomous taxi to earn more cash!
Which can't ever happen with AI driving. That's a huge sales pitch to consumers in itself without even having to wait for the data.
>Meanwhile the Tacoma is just a slight update and restyling of mature technology.
Wrong!
>A: What is carried over from the previous Tacoma in this new truck?
>S: Not much. Maybe a seatbelt bracket! The base frame has been modified. The base frame rail design is similar but it’s not carryover. The body shell and body structure are new. For the structure, we use hot-stamped steel.
http://www.automobilemag.com/news/q-a-with-2016-toyota-tacom...
If that's a slight update new models of autonomous cars can also be slight updates.
Average consumers aren't sitting around arguing statistics either. They will be marketed as safer. It's plain to see how autonomous cars will be safer in many respects already (Drunk driving or distracted driving for example). The convenience factor is by far the biggest selling point though. Sleep/work/read on your commute! Rent your car out as an autonomous taxi to earn more cash!
Sure, incremental changes have been made to the new Tacoma, and you can argue "nothing has been carried over". But there is nothing revolutionary, on the same scale as a car not even having a steering wheel.
Because that's what you're talking about, steering wheel-less autonomous cars. It surely isn't plain to see that they will be safer. We've already seen the first fatality on Autopilot. And I, for one, don't think these will be in the hands of consumers for at least another decade or two. Simply because of costs and liability.
Because that's what you're talking about, steering wheel-less autonomous cars. It surely isn't plain to see that they will be safer. We've already seen the first fatality on Autopilot. And I, for one, don't think these will be in the hands of consumers for at least another decade or two. Simply because of costs and liability.
never dismiss the power of spin:
>Tesla says Autopilot has been used for more than 130 million miles, noting that, on average, a fatality occurs every 94 million miles in the US and every 60 million miles worldwide. The NHTSA investigation, Tesla says, is a "preliminary evaluation" to determine if the Autopilot system was working properly, which can be a precursor to a safety action like a recall.
so according to this, autopilot is already safer than the "average" driver.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12072408/tesla-autopilot-c...
>Tesla says Autopilot has been used for more than 130 million miles, noting that, on average, a fatality occurs every 94 million miles in the US and every 60 million miles worldwide. The NHTSA investigation, Tesla says, is a "preliminary evaluation" to determine if the Autopilot system was working properly, which can be a precursor to a safety action like a recall.
so according to this, autopilot is already safer than the "average" driver.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12072408/tesla-autopilot-c...
130 million miles is not a statistically significant enough distance to make claims about safety if the national average is one fatality per 94 million miles. With so little data on autopilot compared to other vehicles (a few fatalities vs thousands), this could just be natural randomness or a small effect caused by drivers being more cautious of autopilot.
Given that there have been at least 3 Autopilot-related fatalities this summer over approximately 130 million miles driven worldwide, that is an average of roughly one fatality per 43 million miles, or significantly less safe than even the worldwide average.
One of the problems with this is that it inevitably leads to creativity with the definition of "at fault". For example, a few months back an autonomous car lost control, steered towards a parked cars, and crashed into them. The spin in the media blamed the driver for not managing to seize control and stop it from crashing. Of course, what really matters is whether autonomous cars make driving safer, not whether we can blame all the crashes on the driver or a perfect driver would've avoided them.
I think the problem in that example is with the definition of autonomous.
I hope these autonomous vehicles refuse to drive if the vehicle isn't meeting certain safety standards. The last thing a company needs is headlines being made because some jackass took their car out when the brakes were worn down to nubs or the tires were completely bald.
Incidents of that sort with a human driver are easily explained. If that happened with a self-piloting car it could scare people off the very idea.
The cars should have some kind of basic self-preservation tests.
Incidents of that sort with a human driver are easily explained. If that happened with a self-piloting car it could scare people off the very idea.
The cars should have some kind of basic self-preservation tests.
As I said in the comments above, the single most effective measure for reducing accidents would be checking for alcohol- or drug-influenced drivers. Those cause much more accidents than mechanical failures.
Yet even though "alcohol-locks" have been mature tech for five years, no car manufacturer nor politician dares to make it default, simply because there would be public outrage.
Also, stuff like brake pads or tires completely worn down already comes with basic safety features: both will cause the car to make relatively loud, screeching/rumbling ominous noises.
Yet even though "alcohol-locks" have been mature tech for five years, no car manufacturer nor politician dares to make it default, simply because there would be public outrage.
Also, stuff like brake pads or tires completely worn down already comes with basic safety features: both will cause the car to make relatively loud, screeching/rumbling ominous noises.
As a person who almost never drinks alcohol (that stuff tastes nasty) an alcohol-lock would just be a big annoyance.
Well, current-gen tech is. But an AI/camera based version that quickly checks your pupil dilation when you put the engine in gear could work just fine. It could also catch drugs other than alcohol.
Or you could do near-infrared spectroscopy built into the gear lever (this is already being pushed by the NHTSA, and will probably be in cars in a few years).
Or it could even have a selective alcohol-lock using current-gen tech that only triggers a check if alcohol is detected in the air circulating in the car.
Or you could do near-infrared spectroscopy built into the gear lever (this is already being pushed by the NHTSA, and will probably be in cars in a few years).
Or it could even have a selective alcohol-lock using current-gen tech that only triggers a check if alcohol is detected in the air circulating in the car.
Probably the most advantageous part of fully computerized cars will be DRM and part management. Like your printer which refuses to print black because the yellow cartridge (which is half full) is past its expiration date, your car will in the future refuse to drive because the dealer hasn't changed its oil with the DRM oil filter in the past 1500 miles.
Mandatory adherence to the OEM's maintenance schedule (and every appointment dealer-only!) is every car maker's dream.
Mandatory adherence to the OEM's maintenance schedule (and every appointment dealer-only!) is every car maker's dream.
Although you're right, they probably will just force maintenance at particular intervals, it would be nice if the car could do a quick self-test that, if it fails, it'll refuse to drive, or at least drive quickly.
Low tire pressure? Breaks not operating outside of acceptable parameters? Tires behaving strangely? It's manual or nothing at that point.
Low tire pressure? Breaks not operating outside of acceptable parameters? Tires behaving strangely? It's manual or nothing at that point.
They would probably refuse to drive autonomously if it detects the maintenance period has been exceeded without being reset or there is some sensor or mechanical issue detected. But you will always be able to drive it manually in case of emergency.
In the case of Apple, they will have plenty of early adopters willing to buy those batches of cars.
I disagree. Self-drive tech will indeed become a commodity - eventually. What technology hasn't?
For a time, when it's brand new, having better self-driving tech certainly will be a differentiator. But the question is how long that window will last and how it aligns with regulatory changes.
If I have a perfect fully autonomous car but I have to keep my eyes on the road and hands hovering over the steering wheel at all times, and can't "operate" it after having had a couple of drinks, then what's the point?
I'm not sure if there will be time for better self-driving tech to ever be a meaningful differentiator because for a long time it will probably be illegal to use.
Apple's exceptional skill has generally been in building consumer brands, managing operations, and timing when to release a new product after the underlying tech has been somewhat commoditized. I suspect they will not rush to release the best underlying tech six months or a year ahead of the competition. They'll wait until other people have figured out what works and then release their take on it.
For a time, when it's brand new, having better self-driving tech certainly will be a differentiator. But the question is how long that window will last and how it aligns with regulatory changes.
If I have a perfect fully autonomous car but I have to keep my eyes on the road and hands hovering over the steering wheel at all times, and can't "operate" it after having had a couple of drinks, then what's the point?
I'm not sure if there will be time for better self-driving tech to ever be a meaningful differentiator because for a long time it will probably be illegal to use.
Apple's exceptional skill has generally been in building consumer brands, managing operations, and timing when to release a new product after the underlying tech has been somewhat commoditized. I suspect they will not rush to release the best underlying tech six months or a year ahead of the competition. They'll wait until other people have figured out what works and then release their take on it.
Before an self-driving car is allowed on the road it is going to have to pass some sort of driving test.
What you are talking about is assisted driving and auto-pilots.
Therefore, to most consumers, all real self-driving cars will be driving good enough, whether they are powered by Google, Tesla, Ford, BMW or Apple, but some are going to look nice and have a thought-out design.
What you are talking about is assisted driving and auto-pilots.
Therefore, to most consumers, all real self-driving cars will be driving good enough, whether they are powered by Google, Tesla, Ford, BMW or Apple, but some are going to look nice and have a thought-out design.
I disagree, once a self driving cars are on the market, there will be a complete shift in the way you think about cars !
Why anyone would own one ? Why park a car when they can drive all the time and you can hail one for super cheap ? Cities will have zero parking space, streets would be reduced to one lane for most of them, no red lights, etc...
Why anyone would own one ? Why park a car when they can drive all the time and you can hail one for super cheap ? Cities will have zero parking space, streets would be reduced to one lane for most of them, no red lights, etc...
>Why anyone would own one ?
Cleanliness, customization, storing of personal items, availability at odd timings or locations. There are plenty of reasons why many will still own a car.
Cleanliness, customization, storing of personal items, availability at odd timings or locations. There are plenty of reasons why many will still own a car.
Cleanliness is completely subjective. I know many people with cars so cluttered it's absurd. I've also been in many shared vehicles that are utterly spotless.
There are many reasons why you'd want to own a car, but the number of reasons for you to need to own a car plunges dramatically when the quality offered by shared rides meets or exceeds the experience your average car-owner has.
Imagine a car that always has sufficient fuel or battery power to get you where you're going, that is clean every time you use it, that never has to be parked, that comes reliably within minutes of being summoned, and never, ever has to be taken in to the garage to be fixed.
That's the future if things come together as they should.
Rich people will own their own cars, probably several of them, but your average person won't see the need. If they want to splurge they'll rent a car solo. If they want to save money, ride-share with a few others.
There are many reasons why you'd want to own a car, but the number of reasons for you to need to own a car plunges dramatically when the quality offered by shared rides meets or exceeds the experience your average car-owner has.
Imagine a car that always has sufficient fuel or battery power to get you where you're going, that is clean every time you use it, that never has to be parked, that comes reliably within minutes of being summoned, and never, ever has to be taken in to the garage to be fixed.
That's the future if things come together as they should.
Rich people will own their own cars, probably several of them, but your average person won't see the need. If they want to splurge they'll rent a car solo. If they want to save money, ride-share with a few others.
I know me and a lot of other parents with young kids probably wouldn't go with this. Our cars are stocked with a diaper bag, stroller, some books, a few car-friendly toys and a stroller. If I had to haul all that in the house everyday, it'd be a pain in the ass. If the car never 'parked', that'd be a pain in the ass because I'd be hauling it into wherever we'd go...if I was shopping I'd need a shopping cart just for that stuff. Then when our 2nd kid comes around and I have to work but my tiny wife had to haul our two boys around, there's no way that'd be possible.
Autonomous cars may be the future, but it'll be decades before not owning a car really takes off. Maybe for single people or couples without kids it will be possible, or those times you don't have the kids, but for the rest of us it's just not feasible.
Autonomous cars may be the future, but it'll be decades before not owning a car really takes off. Maybe for single people or couples without kids it will be possible, or those times you don't have the kids, but for the rest of us it's just not feasible.
There are parents that don't own cars. Shocker, I'm sure, for some families. They get by with things like strollers, or child-carrying bicycles with ample storage space.
The amount of junk you carry seems to scale in proportion to the convenient carrying capacity of your transportation. If you have a huge SUV of course it will be packed with all kinds of stuff. If all you have is a stroller you'll scale back accordingly.
"There's no way that'd be possible" is utter defeatism. Somehow as a species we survived for tens of thousands of years before cars. I doubt autonomous cars won't be embraced by millions just because you personally find them inconvenient.
The amount of junk you carry seems to scale in proportion to the convenient carrying capacity of your transportation. If you have a huge SUV of course it will be packed with all kinds of stuff. If all you have is a stroller you'll scale back accordingly.
"There's no way that'd be possible" is utter defeatism. Somehow as a species we survived for tens of thousands of years before cars. I doubt autonomous cars won't be embraced by millions just because you personally find them inconvenient.
So how to ensure that the autonomous vehicle isn't full of fast food containers and used condoms when picking up a new customer?
A combination of computer vision, periodic inspections, feedback from customers, plus stiff penalties for abusing the vehicles would be one way.
If the vehicle is detected as being "messy" it can swing back to the depot for a cleaning or have someone dispatched to clear it out.
If the vehicle is detected as being "messy" it can swing back to the depot for a cleaning or have someone dispatched to clear it out.
This isn't a difficult problem. You give your car-calling app a "reject" button, which will send the car back to a central location for cleaning, and send you a new car.
Yes, and before the cleaner starts, a picture is taken, that generates a $100 charge to the previous customer for every separate bit of garbage.
A slightly customer-friendlier option would be to take the picture every time the car is vacated, and then clean (and charge) when the detritus reaches a certain level. After all it wouldn't be right to penalize people who are simply in too much of a hurry to care about previous travelers' candy wrappers.
A slightly customer-friendlier option would be to take the picture every time the car is vacated, and then clean (and charge) when the detritus reaches a certain level. After all it wouldn't be right to penalize people who are simply in too much of a hurry to care about previous travelers' candy wrappers.
Same way potato chip factories can sort out bad chips faster than the eyes can see: machine vision. A couple of cameras inside the car can take a picture, compare to a sample of a clean car and identify extraneous objects. Smell can be automatically checked as well.
Yes, but those many will be much less than they are now. I believe we'll own a car only if and when we can't avoid it (having babies to carry around could be a reason for many of us) or if we want to brag about our money.
I don't own a car since 2012 because I was not using it enough. I'm using car sharing now and a little more trains. It's much less expensive, maybe a little more time consuming, but that time is gained because I have less things to care about. Cars became a commodity for me, and I see no reasons why they shouldn't be. All I ask from them is be safe.
I don't own a car since 2012 because I was not using it enough. I'm using car sharing now and a little more trains. It's much less expensive, maybe a little more time consuming, but that time is gained because I have less things to care about. Cars became a commodity for me, and I see no reasons why they shouldn't be. All I ask from them is be safe.
Taking things places, like bikes, surfboards etc.
Well, you'd think it would be smart to license someone elses software but Tesla, GM, Ford, Uber, Mobileye, a couple dozen startups and any number of other players are all pursuing their own proprietary autonomous drivng OSs. The data is invaluable.
Google, on the other hand, who intended from the beginning to license it's OS out to carmakers has yet to secure any meaningful partnerships.
Google, on the other hand, who intended from the beginning to license it's OS out to carmakers has yet to secure any meaningful partnerships.
If we equate today's car buyer with the self-driving car buyer, I agree with this statement, with one caveat, speed. Speed and the resulting driving safety at that speed will be a major deciding factor for the self-driving car buyer.
That being said, I believe Apple will still build the self-driving car. This could really be Bob just shaking up the entire team, given his hardware background. One explanation - there's just no other sensible way to spend their humungous, growing cash pile.
That being said, I believe Apple will still build the self-driving car. This could really be Bob just shaking up the entire team, given his hardware background. One explanation - there's just no other sensible way to spend their humungous, growing cash pile.
Wait until the safety facts come out for self driving cars:
1) $CAR_PROVIDER_X: 00.005% your daughter dies in a car crash
2) $CAR_PROVIDER_Y: 00.0045% your daughter dies in a car crash
3) $CAR_PROVIDER_Z: 00.009% your daughter dies in a car crash
IMO it's going to completely transcend previous safety ratings. People will evaluate the quality of self-driving tech in the beginning, maybe after awhile people start viewing it as "god like" but in the beginning they will be PICKY.
1) $CAR_PROVIDER_X: 00.005% your daughter dies in a car crash
2) $CAR_PROVIDER_Y: 00.0045% your daughter dies in a car crash
3) $CAR_PROVIDER_Z: 00.009% your daughter dies in a car crash
IMO it's going to completely transcend previous safety ratings. People will evaluate the quality of self-driving tech in the beginning, maybe after awhile people start viewing it as "god like" but in the beginning they will be PICKY.
Sure, but there's absolutely no way to get such numbers in a statistically valid fashion without many years worth of statistics since fatal collisions / mile driven is such a low number. And since vendors push new software every few months, those numbers won't be available at all.
But you're right that people will choose their cars based on this. But the information they will have will just be rumour, innuendo, fear-mongering click bait journalism and other sources of FUD. It's going to be ugly.
But you're right that people will choose their cars based on this. But the information they will have will just be rumour, innuendo, fear-mongering click bait journalism and other sources of FUD. It's going to be ugly.
There are a bunch of ways you can test the systems apart from just looking at fatality numbers. Here's a TV show testing auto-braking systems for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzHM6PVTjXo
You could easily extend that to a test track with all sorts of stuff self driving cars find hard - oil spills, diversions, people / animals / plastic bags jumping out and so on.
You could easily extend that to a test track with all sorts of stuff self driving cars find hard - oil spills, diversions, people / animals / plastic bags jumping out and so on.
This. Apple is already a luxury brand and has the money to make what Tesla cannot: a truly no-compromise electric car. Teslas, while perhaps faster than traditional ICE vehicles, have comparably less luxurious interiors. Additionally, Apple has such brand power that they could release a car tomorrow and have a guaranteed level of sales. Few companies would have the cash, expertise and brand value to develop such a product.
I have to say that's the first time I've heard a Tesla called a compromised electric car.
Seriously. No amount of design savvy and fandom is going to allow Apple to displace Tesla's core competency that easily.
The Model S is the best performing electric car on the market. It is a luxury vehicle with nearly every modern accommodation for comfort, the ability to accelerate to 60 mph in as little as 2.5 seconds and well over 200 miles to a single charge.
I can't even conceive of how someone could say Apple is the company to make a no compromises car to beat Tesla with a straight face. I can't even see a compromise.
The Model S is the best performing electric car on the market. It is a luxury vehicle with nearly every modern accommodation for comfort, the ability to accelerate to 60 mph in as little as 2.5 seconds and well over 200 miles to a single charge.
I can't even conceive of how someone could say Apple is the company to make a no compromises car to beat Tesla with a straight face. I can't even see a compromise.
Several of the Model S features (enhanced unibody strength due to friction stir welding, the fuse that enables Ludicrous mode) are enabled by tech sharing from SpaceX. This is not something Apple (or any non-integrated manufacturer really) can easily replicate.
[deleted]
Really? Their cheap interiors seem to come up in every single comparison with BMW/etc
I don't understand the obsession with ‘luxury’ interiors and I think it's a symptom of what's wrong with the car industry.
No, I'm obviously not in the target demographic for an expensive BMW but I don't think everyone who can afford to buy an expensive car is simply looking for luxury. If the trade-off is between driving around in hihgh luxury in a smelly, polluting car or driving around in modest ‘luxury’ in a car that is a much more elegant technical solution to private transport than I know which side of the fence I fall.
Yes, an electric car should look good, have good performance and be elegant. But I don't think it needs to reach the high end of luxury, even in the present price bracket in which the model S sits.
No, I'm obviously not in the target demographic for an expensive BMW but I don't think everyone who can afford to buy an expensive car is simply looking for luxury. If the trade-off is between driving around in hihgh luxury in a smelly, polluting car or driving around in modest ‘luxury’ in a car that is a much more elegant technical solution to private transport than I know which side of the fence I fall.
Yes, an electric car should look good, have good performance and be elegant. But I don't think it needs to reach the high end of luxury, even in the present price bracket in which the model S sits.
A $40,000 3 series BMW has a nicer interior than a $130,000 Tesla. That's what people are referring to. Not comparing to equally priced cars, comparing to cars that are literally 6 figures cheaper.
People who are buying the S don't care. You're getting the third fastest production vehicle in existence (at the price point you quoted) with autopilot that runs on electricity.
Someone forgot to take off their HN goggles.
It's a huge sedan with a cheap interior, and very mediocre (now discontinued) executive seats.
Or alternatively
It's a sports car, but in the form factor of a huge sedan.
Those are definitely big compromises, not that there's anything wrong with compromises.
Or alternatively
It's a sports car, but in the form factor of a huge sedan.
Those are definitely big compromises, not that there's anything wrong with compromises.
You mean unlike Tesla that just announced and got billions worth of sales? I don't think the magic is reserved for Apple only
But this would be their 4th car. Tesla has been in the car industry for 13 years, building brand awareness.
Additionally, a lot of the people still buy Teslas with the motivation of saving the environment and abandoning fossil fuels. Where as hopefully Apple would just make an all around superior car.
Additionally, a lot of the people still buy Teslas with the motivation of saving the environment and abandoning fossil fuels. Where as hopefully Apple would just make an all around superior car.
> Tesla has been in the car industry for 13 years, building brand awareness.
... and building domain expertise. Apple is at the top of the smartphone game and still gets manufacturing significantly wrong at times - see the bendy iphone or the antenna-case that can't call if you hold it the wrong way. Jumping the fence to the world of vehicles is a brand new domain to make mistakes in.
Keep in mind also that Apple has gone back on things they've said in the past. Radios in ipods were never going to happen, then they did. Mocked users of a stylus, then released Pencil. The iPhone is the perfect size for your hand... then they embiggened it. Getting it right the first time is something Apple sometimes does, and sometimes fails at.
Apple has also released a lot of turkeys over the years that people conveniently forget about. I just can't see them jumping the fence to a significantly different product domain and simply beating everyone else there at the game.
... and building domain expertise. Apple is at the top of the smartphone game and still gets manufacturing significantly wrong at times - see the bendy iphone or the antenna-case that can't call if you hold it the wrong way. Jumping the fence to the world of vehicles is a brand new domain to make mistakes in.
Keep in mind also that Apple has gone back on things they've said in the past. Radios in ipods were never going to happen, then they did. Mocked users of a stylus, then released Pencil. The iPhone is the perfect size for your hand... then they embiggened it. Getting it right the first time is something Apple sometimes does, and sometimes fails at.
Apple has also released a lot of turkeys over the years that people conveniently forget about. I just can't see them jumping the fence to a significantly different product domain and simply beating everyone else there at the game.
Could you name one of the turkeys? Sure, some of the things you name weren't ideal, but I don't think they bothered most people and it certainly didn't seem to hit the bottom line.
Apple III?
Pippin?
Many of the godawful mice? (Some are nice, some terrible)
The iPod boom box speaker?
Ping?
Pippin?
Many of the godawful mice? (Some are nice, some terrible)
The iPod boom box speaker?
Ping?
If you want to save the environment, a Leaf or Prius is far cheaper and has been around much longer than the Model 3 will have been. It's mostly a status symbol masquerading as an environmental benefit, something that I think Apple could play to easily.
I disagree with your implicit premise that Tesla has any significant compromises to be corrected. I enjoy driving Tesla vehicles more than comparable BMW, Audi and Mercedes vehicles. Most cars as fast as a Tesla look more like supercars, but they're smaller and less luxurious on the inside. And most cars as luxurious as Teslas internally are not as fast or have the same technology (to say nothing of the car being the best performing electric car).
I agree with your argument that few companies could leverage the needed resources to compete with Tesla on a comparable electric vehicle, but I strongly disagree that Apple would be the company to do it.
I agree with your argument that few companies could leverage the needed resources to compete with Tesla on a comparable electric vehicle, but I strongly disagree that Apple would be the company to do it.
Apple is not a luxury brand. They tried to become one in the watch space, and failed.[1]
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/7/12839686/apple-event-2016-s...
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/7/12839686/apple-event-2016-s...
They can't even make a watch. A car is way out of Apple's league.
The new strategy should be: Tesla is "Apple Cool" already, and at the head of the pack. Apple has ungodly amounts of cash kicking around and could easily (at least cash wise), buy Tesla.
This feels like an obvious "buy don't build" scenario.
This feels like an obvious "buy don't build" scenario.
I feel like this would work well but both parties would never agree.
Elon gets ungodly amounts of money and mass production experience to execute his vision. Apple gets to make a ton of money if it works out.
But would Elon join one of the big cos when he thinks he could be a big co? I don't think so?
Elon gets ungodly amounts of money and mass production experience to execute his vision. Apple gets to make a ton of money if it works out.
But would Elon join one of the big cos when he thinks he could be a big co? I don't think so?
I could actually see it happening if there was another strong recession before Tesla got bigger. Aside from that, no.
That's why I said "(at least cash wise)" :-)
Having Elon focus on SpaceX would be a win IMO. I'm not sure when you're talking $20bn+ acquisitions that the founder/CEO would stick around beyond being an adviser.
Having Elon focus on SpaceX would be a win IMO. I'm not sure when you're talking $20bn+ acquisitions that the founder/CEO would stick around beyond being an adviser.
There are also other new things that Elon has mentioned he would likely do after Tesla, with building an example hyperloop being one.
Why? I can't imagine Apple cares about anything that Tesla would bring to the table.
To me it doesn't seem likely that Apple can do to the car what they did to the smartphone. It is such a strange "me too" move that it's almost as if a big shareholder or some exec saw one of those Apple stickers in a car's rear window and decided it would look better as a real badge. Apple's value add isn't immediately clear, that's for sure.
Apple's value add is the same as it has been since the very first iPod: User Experience. Apple is a UX company; they've been successful because everything they did was laser focussed on the UX.
Right now buying and operating a car kinda sucks in a lot of ways [0] because GM doesn't have anyone whose job it is to subordinate all business functions to UX. Steve Jobs did that at Apple and maybe today somebody is still carrying the torch. The fact that Apple has a culture of design and implementation oriented around UX is the value add.
Imagine the process of purchasing and repairing your car feeling like an Apple store. Imagine Jony Ive designing the fit and finish of the car hardware, inside and out. Imagine a center-console human interface that was designed by someone with taste [1]. All of this is going to be packaged seamlessly with that beautiful attention to detail in subsystems integration that makes my grandma want an iPad, just because it feels amazing, even though it does literally nothing useful.
Obligatory disclaimer: For political reasons I strongly disagree with Apple's walled garden philosophy, and it makes me so angry that the best laptops available run closed source OS's natively. But I have to admit that Cupertino's hardware, shopping process, and unboxing experience is beautifully designed, and that their focus on UX does lead to a nice experience if you stay within their ecosystem.
[0] e.g. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147352433956/how-not-to-buy-a-c... but really just talk to anyone who has been near a dealership or repair shop
[1] We have been stuck in the center console design dark ages for decades, even in luxury automotive.
Right now buying and operating a car kinda sucks in a lot of ways [0] because GM doesn't have anyone whose job it is to subordinate all business functions to UX. Steve Jobs did that at Apple and maybe today somebody is still carrying the torch. The fact that Apple has a culture of design and implementation oriented around UX is the value add.
Imagine the process of purchasing and repairing your car feeling like an Apple store. Imagine Jony Ive designing the fit and finish of the car hardware, inside and out. Imagine a center-console human interface that was designed by someone with taste [1]. All of this is going to be packaged seamlessly with that beautiful attention to detail in subsystems integration that makes my grandma want an iPad, just because it feels amazing, even though it does literally nothing useful.
Obligatory disclaimer: For political reasons I strongly disagree with Apple's walled garden philosophy, and it makes me so angry that the best laptops available run closed source OS's natively. But I have to admit that Cupertino's hardware, shopping process, and unboxing experience is beautifully designed, and that their focus on UX does lead to a nice experience if you stay within their ecosystem.
[0] e.g. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147352433956/how-not-to-buy-a-c... but really just talk to anyone who has been near a dealership or repair shop
[1] We have been stuck in the center console design dark ages for decades, even in luxury automotive.
"GM doesn't have anyone whose job it is to subordinate all business functions to UX."
They've had such people. Read "Car Guys vs. Bean Counters" by Bob Lutz.
They've had such people. Read "Car Guys vs. Bean Counters" by Bob Lutz.
My user experience when I step into any future autonomous car will be the same as it is in the present autonomous (or non-autonomous) Uber - my smartphone.
Around a decade ago when I was an Apple intern (pre-iPhone) we got to go to a Q&A session with Steve Jobs. One of the questions was something like "What other products do you think are badly designed / could be improved?" and I remember him mentioning two products, phones and cars specifically. I don't really have any idea what Apple plans to do there either, but at least the interest there probably isn't new...
Apple has never been the first to a field - they just tend to get more right on their first go-round with it.
The iPod seemed like a strange and expensive me-too product even after it was unveiled.
iPod was a initially a failure. Only when they created iTunes it became successful.
It is strange to think that a piece of software lots of people hate so much was so decisive in turning around Apple.
It is strange to think that a piece of software lots of people hate so much was so decisive in turning around Apple.
[deleted]
I can't wait till Porsche makes their self driving vehicle:
- Porsche Self Driving: there's no substitute to getting there faster
- Optimum signaling (lying) to other cars about size
- Pre-emptive lane changes to get other cars to yield to it
... etc
Soeone is going to game the system and make cars that if not advertised to, known to be bad actors in that they'll take advantage of others to move faster through traffic. Especially if one of the favorite fantasy's, swarm driving comes true.
Someone is also going to realize if they pulse their sensors in a certain way they can get other cars to move, slow down, speed, up, etc that will be to their advantage.
Self driving cars aren't going to be some communist utopia where everyone gets there equally, it's going to be Darwinian capitalist just like everythign else. I mean if the car drives you what does any nice car have to differentiate itself from any other than the nicest tv, leather, etc. You might as well ride in an RV at that point. Who cares if your car is fast and sweet like a tesla? if everything is self driving in a utopia you can't acutally make use of that. It's about as useful as the top end speed of a ferrari in manhattan.
Soeone is going to game the system and make cars that if not advertised to, known to be bad actors in that they'll take advantage of others to move faster through traffic. Especially if one of the favorite fantasy's, swarm driving comes true.
Someone is also going to realize if they pulse their sensors in a certain way they can get other cars to move, slow down, speed, up, etc that will be to their advantage.
Self driving cars aren't going to be some communist utopia where everyone gets there equally, it's going to be Darwinian capitalist just like everythign else. I mean if the car drives you what does any nice car have to differentiate itself from any other than the nicest tv, leather, etc. You might as well ride in an RV at that point. Who cares if your car is fast and sweet like a tesla? if everything is self driving in a utopia you can't acutally make use of that. It's about as useful as the top end speed of a ferrari in manhattan.
I think this will go differently. When people are removed from the task of driving their focus will instead be on reading, sleeping, conversing etc, instead of insisting that they should pass every other vehicle. Traffic runs smoother when cars cooperate well, so there is a shared incentive for good behavior.
Traffic laws and regulations will become more precise in general, and especially with regards to cooperation between vehicles. Just as pollution is tested for today's cars, self-driving cars will be tested both in software and physical environments by regulatory agencies to verify that they behave within limits and cooperate correctly with other vehicles in the environment.
> Someone is also going to realize if they pulse their sensors in a certain way they can get other cars to move, slow down, speed, up, etc that will be to their advantage.
When requirements for self-driving behavior and cooperation are more precisely described, the data logged from real situations will make it far easier than today to identify bad actors after the fact. As long as there are manual cars and autonomous cars, some human drivers may find it amusing to exploit the carefulness of the autonomous vehicles. However if such exploits becomes problematic, the data available from the autonomous vehicles will make it easy to fine the offending drivers.
Traffic laws and regulations will become more precise in general, and especially with regards to cooperation between vehicles. Just as pollution is tested for today's cars, self-driving cars will be tested both in software and physical environments by regulatory agencies to verify that they behave within limits and cooperate correctly with other vehicles in the environment.
> Someone is also going to realize if they pulse their sensors in a certain way they can get other cars to move, slow down, speed, up, etc that will be to their advantage.
When requirements for self-driving behavior and cooperation are more precisely described, the data logged from real situations will make it far easier than today to identify bad actors after the fact. As long as there are manual cars and autonomous cars, some human drivers may find it amusing to exploit the carefulness of the autonomous vehicles. However if such exploits becomes problematic, the data available from the autonomous vehicles will make it easy to fine the offending drivers.
Synchronized car and traffic signs is such a bliss. When you hit long avenues with just the adequate amount of cars at the right timing, you smoothly roll through it in no time, at 30mph; I take great pleasure in this. I wish cities tried to find more ways to ensure that. Maybe in these days of Uber like data sharing it might be worth thinking.
Of course this will have to exist for emergency services vehicles, but if you use the "I am an emergency vehicle get out of the way" pulse and it's not true, you get arrested.
And if there is a market for paying people('s cars) to give way so you can make your meeting, I swear most people will ignore the market just to piss off the wanker in the braces.
But yes I can see there would be a market. Now, how are we doing on payment processing?
And if there is a market for paying people('s cars) to give way so you can make your meeting, I swear most people will ignore the market just to piss off the wanker in the braces.
But yes I can see there would be a market. Now, how are we doing on payment processing?
Another way to look at it is basic traffic violations will become federal offenses and you go away for years instead of paying a small fine.
I think people are overestimating how many companies will be involved. Google, Uber, and others are going to try to get cities to sign transportation rights over to them and run much of the show. Because it is simpler to control all the cars than some of them, this happens first rather than later. It also explains the sudden interest in trucking, because you have to deal with delivery vehicle solutions in cities too.
It changes the way cities deal with crime because criminals literally will have no where to go. Every method of transportation will require biometric identification. Rob a bank and you may be flagged before you even walk out of the front door. Good luck on foot.
I think people are overestimating how many companies will be involved. Google, Uber, and others are going to try to get cities to sign transportation rights over to them and run much of the show. Because it is simpler to control all the cars than some of them, this happens first rather than later. It also explains the sudden interest in trucking, because you have to deal with delivery vehicle solutions in cities too.
It changes the way cities deal with crime because criminals literally will have no where to go. Every method of transportation will require biometric identification. Rob a bank and you may be flagged before you even walk out of the front door. Good luck on foot.
Also, paying everyone else at the stop sign to let you go first. Making room for your lane change. High speed transactions at their finest.
If the tech exists for cars to negotiate access like this, stops signs won't exist any longer. It'll be easier for perfect, non-stop merging to take place.
stop signs are there not to help decide who passes intersections in which order. they are there to slow down traffic in areas where pedestrians can get on the road.
I'm a lifelong Apple fan. I own almost everything they sell, but I don't want an Apple car. Not even a little bit. I'm not even curious to see what they do. I just am not interested. With phones it was obvious that Apple could improve them. TV and smartwatches were obvious too. I fail to see how Apple's expertise can translate from personal electronics to something like a car. I'm not even interested in what the other smartcar people are up to. Cars are boring and should be completely utilitarian. I'd rather not even own a car.
I on the other hand really enjoy using my car and I would love for it to be even better. Most cars have terrible usability for most of their functionality. Terrible touch screens, sluggish performance, confusing settings, it's a mess.
However I feel like Tesla is the Apple of cars and it's not clear what value Apple would provide above and beyond Tesla.
But perhaps more competition in that space would be a good thing. Or maybe Apple has the scale to take what Tesla started and bring it to the next level. Maybe they should buy Tesla instead.
However I feel like Tesla is the Apple of cars and it's not clear what value Apple would provide above and beyond Tesla.
But perhaps more competition in that space would be a good thing. Or maybe Apple has the scale to take what Tesla started and bring it to the next level. Maybe they should buy Tesla instead.
Tesla replaced the tactile controls with a big touch screen. In my mind that is going backwards. The great thing about cars is the physical tactile controls that can be used without looking. Aftermarket stereos always have a worse interface than the OEM interface. Granted, I don't have a car with a touchscreen, but I would specifically look for a car with physical tactile controls if I was in the market. Disclaimer: not a Tesla fan at all.
I don't have a Tesla but my Dodge Charger also uses the touch screen for most controls. I don't have a problem with it. It still had physical buttons and knobs for things that matter. I have physical buttons on the wheel for phone/medial controls, and physical buttons for adjusting temperature. There are a few more physical buttons. Everything else I do on the touch screen and it works great. And this is on a much smaller touch screen than the Tesla. Touch screen per se is not an issue as long as the important controls are not buried deep in the UI.
The Charger isn't a great example of using the touch screen for "most controls", because if the inside of your Charger looks anything like this (I just Googled for a photo)
http://cdn.pinthiscars.com/images/dodge-charger-2013-interio...
Then you have buttons and knobs for turning the sound system on and off, adjusting the volume, adjusting the temperature, turning the fan on and off, adjusting the fan speed, toggling the A/C, recirculating air, front defrost, and rear defrost, as well as having a physical knob to scroll through and select options on the screen.
I'm sure that there are additional things you can do on the screen, like navigation and more advanced climate control, but you can definitely operate the important controls without needing to take your eyes off the road. That's the complaint about the Tesla screen - not that it exists, but that there aren't buttons and knobs for the important controls.
http://cdn.pinthiscars.com/images/dodge-charger-2013-interio...
Then you have buttons and knobs for turning the sound system on and off, adjusting the volume, adjusting the temperature, turning the fan on and off, adjusting the fan speed, toggling the A/C, recirculating air, front defrost, and rear defrost, as well as having a physical knob to scroll through and select options on the screen.
I'm sure that there are additional things you can do on the screen, like navigation and more advanced climate control, but you can definitely operate the important controls without needing to take your eyes off the road. That's the complaint about the Tesla screen - not that it exists, but that there aren't buttons and knobs for the important controls.
Most of the controls you just described have tactile steering wheel controls in a Tesla.
Tesla has lots of tactile controls. This point gets made in most threads about Tesla on HN.
I don't think Apple wants you to own a car either. Their billion dollar investment in Didi Chuxing and pursuit of autonomy points to something else.
It was so obvious with phone nobody did it before Apple, and most people criticize iPhone when it came out.
Same with iPad, it was so obvious with tablet that everyone ridicule it for being an oversized iPhone.
Same with iPad, it was so obvious with tablet that everyone ridicule it for being an oversized iPhone.
Cars are boring and should be completely utilitarian. I'd rather not even own a car.
Phones are boring and utilitarian too. The difference is I used my pre-iPhones and could nitpick about the UI and other aspects to no end. I get in my car and the only thing I nitpick is the shit integration with my iPhone, but I don't have a CarPlay stereo yet. Literally every other aspect of my car can't be improved. I see a lot of things that could regress in the name of advancing technology, but if I wanted that, I'd probably want a Tesla.
The iPhone is a pocket PC with a phone bolted on. The phone part can remain be just as boring and utilitarian as ever - I think my "phone" experience might have even been better with a Nokia.
You will have to own their car, otherwise you are not a true fan.
I understand Apples standard secrecy policies, but in developing a self driving car it feels highly counter-productive. It's hard to test software and gather data in the real world while simultaneously keeping everything under wraps.
Anybody who was laid off want to talk about what Apple was doing?
They had a thousand people on this. Doing what?
They had a thousand people on this. Doing what?
Not sure what the upside would be there. I'd dummy up too.
"Anyone feel like breaking their legal documents for my personal curiosity?"
In my last comment towards the Apple Car i talked about it being the best out of a bunch of bad choices when it comes to capital intensive businesses ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12161248 ) .
This seems to me like the recognition of the fact that its not fun competing in the space where the large margins are to be found in the services and components, less in the assembly and sales aspect.
This seems to me like the recognition of the fact that its not fun competing in the space where the large margins are to be found in the services and components, less in the assembly and sales aspect.
What was Apple planning to bring to self-driving cars that Tesla cannot or other car companies cannot bring? I struggle to understand the unique capabilities that Apple would have brought to bear. Was this a moonshot project? or Was it just something to get back at Tesla?
I really think companies like Apple and Google can execute like nobodies business in the car market, but then I see how uniformly terrible software made by car companies is, and wonder if they didn't think the same...
Here's to hoping they knock it out.
Here's to hoping they knock it out.
Who would want an Apple-controlled car? probably lots of people but not me...
Who would want a software controlled car? Probably lots of people but not me. I'm keeping my completely mechanical, manual shift cars as long as I can.
you still run a carburetor?
I dont run one now but will soon. Old tech can still be fast.
It really isn't usually - a top 60s sports car is generally bested by pretty much any modern car in terms of speed, reliability, comfort etc. But noise, smell and style matter and older cars have that. Then the bill arrives and depression sets in.
i was being snarky and pointing out that you don't run a mechanical car. if it's fuel injected, it's controlled by software.
...unless it's mechanical fuel injection.
...unless it's mechanical fuel injection.
It's hard to see what compelling offering they could bring having started so late in the game, considering what the pioneers like Google have been doing.
Self driving cars are coming off peak hype and beginning their long descent into the trough of disillusionment.
If we're talking about a robust, reliable, commercially successful transportation service, really, nobody is early.
CEOs are talking ~2020, but the roboticists are like 'well, actually there are some fundamental unsolved problems that have to be adressed before level 4 autonomy can be much more than an amusement park ride.'
Google pioneers like Anthony Levandowsky and Chris Urmson are talking 30ish years now before we'll see unmanned cars driving across the country. This may have something to do with why so many google vets have jumped ship over the last year.
If we're talking about a robust, reliable, commercially successful transportation service, really, nobody is early.
CEOs are talking ~2020, but the roboticists are like 'well, actually there are some fundamental unsolved problems that have to be adressed before level 4 autonomy can be much more than an amusement park ride.'
Google pioneers like Anthony Levandowsky and Chris Urmson are talking 30ish years now before we'll see unmanned cars driving across the country. This may have something to do with why so many google vets have jumped ship over the last year.
> Google pioneers like Anthony Levandowsky and Chris Urmson are talking 30ish years now before we'll see unmanned cars driving across the country. This may have something to do with why so many google vets have jumped ship over the last year.
Source?
Source?
Here's Urmson:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self...
Levandowski said “In 30 years, every single new car will be autonomous. That’s completely obvious", so I guess he's a little more optimistic.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/19/self-driv...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self...
Levandowski said “In 30 years, every single new car will be autonomous. That’s completely obvious", so I guess he's a little more optimistic.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/19/self-driv...
> But he took exception to the notion that Google was announcing any sort of delay, instead describing Urmson's new decades-long delivery window as an "expansion" of what he has said in the past.
There seems to be no change here. Silicon Valley will have autonomous taxis in this decade. You can't guarantee 100% of new cars sold will be autonomous until you have a plan for Calcutta and Barrow, Alaska.
There seems to be no change here. Silicon Valley will have autonomous taxis in this decade. You can't guarantee 100% of new cars sold will be autonomous until you have a plan for Calcutta and Barrow, Alaska.
We'll see autonomous cars being implemented quite soon, but don't expect to see some kind of Uber-like conquest for world domination in the next decade. It will be slow, plodding, and bound by the constraints of the technology.
And John Leonard at MIT has said in the last couple years "not in my lifetime." He's in his forties or so. At least the particular quote I looked up was "taxis in Manhattan."
It's certainly possible that at least subsets of highway driving could come much sooner. Which would be useful but you don't get to the whole potentially not own a car until you can self-drive without a human present on most roads under a wide range of conditions.
It's certainly possible that at least subsets of highway driving could come much sooner. Which would be useful but you don't get to the whole potentially not own a car until you can self-drive without a human present on most roads under a wide range of conditions.
Rewind to December 2006 and I could just as easily imagine someone saying the same about smartphones.
It's early days in self-driving cars, and Apple has a lot of talent, a ton of cash, and (generally) a huge amount of desire to nail the user experience in ways other companies cannot or will not. Clearly their project is experiencing issues, but I wouldn't count them out.
It's early days in self-driving cars, and Apple has a lot of talent, a ton of cash, and (generally) a huge amount of desire to nail the user experience in ways other companies cannot or will not. Clearly their project is experiencing issues, but I wouldn't count them out.
The difference is that people working on the Apple car project "struggled to explain what Apple could bring to a self-driving car that other companies could not". I doubt Jony Ive faced such a struggle with the iPhone.
A lot of people said exactly that. The established smartphone people were quoted as saying, approximately, this stuff is hard, and PC people aren't just going to walk in and take over.
However, just because that sentiment was wrong in 2006 doesn't mean it's wrong now.
In hindsight, what was important about smartphone isn't what the established companies thought was important. Apple's core competencies translated over extremely well to what was actually important, which turned out to be user experience, full internet access, apps, and such, rather than things like telephony and data frugality which is what the established players concentrated on.
It's possible that the same thing would play out with cars. But I'm skeptical, and I'd want to see some explanation of just what advantages Apple would have, not just "they did it before with phones."
However, just because that sentiment was wrong in 2006 doesn't mean it's wrong now.
In hindsight, what was important about smartphone isn't what the established companies thought was important. Apple's core competencies translated over extremely well to what was actually important, which turned out to be user experience, full internet access, apps, and such, rather than things like telephony and data frugality which is what the established players concentrated on.
It's possible that the same thing would play out with cars. But I'm skeptical, and I'd want to see some explanation of just what advantages Apple would have, not just "they did it before with phones."
Apple had the iPod line. The evolution to smartphone was pretty obvious. Apple have 0 things which are cars at the moment.
It's also not clear they understand the market or sales environment at all.
It's also not clear they understand the market or sales environment at all.
It wasn't obvious at all. The leap from the iPod of the time to the first iPhone was massive. If it was so obvious it wouldn't have caught the entire industry off guard. Apple changed the entire industry with the announcement of the iPhone. If it was obvious to you I hope you bought massive amounts of Apple stock back in '06.
When even CNN makes a big feature article about it more than two years before, it's kinda obvious: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2...
(They even guessed the name)
(They even guessed the name)
It was obvious in '02 that all-in-ones like Treo 600 would swallow the iPod.
It was obvious and I did.
The iPhone is not that different from the Palm Pilot.
The iPhone is not that different from the Palm Pilot.
The rockr was obvious evolution.
Agreed. What percent of cars on the road are currently self-driving? I guess roughly 0%. Apple has missed 0% marketshare.
There's tons of capital and talent elsewhere also. Late is late.
And the Nokia 9000[1] launched 11 years before the iPhone. Post-Mac, when has Apple ever been first on anything?
They weren't first on MP3 players, smartphones, tablets, online music stores, or smart watches, either.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9000_Communicator
They weren't first on MP3 players, smartphones, tablets, online music stores, or smart watches, either.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9000_Communicator
It's not an issue of being first or not. It's about being late. They weren't late to those other parties.
You keep calling them "late" without explaining how or why. What key metrics would you look for to dub them 'not late'? How are the Ubers and Googles of the world doing in comparison? You may be right, but I want specifics.
Obviously I'm expressing an opinion here. One metric is talent availability. Uber has already hired the available talent. They hired half of CMUs robotics department - presumably with juicy stock options. Apple, being a large public company, isn't in the same position to offer such incentives to lure away the talent. The other metric is data. Uber and to a lesser degree Tesla have been accumulating data for some time. This business is all about talent and data.
I'll also add that this is a service economy, and while Apple get accolades for their physical products, even Apple fans say that their service offerings kind of suck.
I'll also add that this is a service economy, and while Apple get accolades for their physical products, even Apple fans say that their service offerings kind of suck.
Certainly, but I was interested in hearing your opinion elaborated on, and I appreciate that you did so. Upvoted accordingly :)
With the iPod out and the iPhone not yet, people were basically begging Apple to do a phone. It was a super obvious move at the time.
Maybe Apple realized they couldn't one day remove the steering wheel and expect people to still buy Apple cars.
I figured they're backing out because they couldn't convince the government to switch to the proprietary Apple iroads standard which are 3x the price, and incompatible with every other car.
There are hints that Tesla may be looking to remove the steering wheel on the model 3.
Now I have to wait a bit longer to say:
"Siri, take the wheel!".
Why does Apple need its cars to be autonomous to do well in this space? There are plenty of people who would drive an Apple electric car even if it doesn't drive itself.
And since when was Apple any good at building the platform for someone else's hardware? Motorola ROKR E1? Apple CarPlay?
And since when was Apple any good at building the platform for someone else's hardware? Motorola ROKR E1? Apple CarPlay?
> There are plenty of people who would drive an Apple electric car even if it doesn't drive itself.
I don't think that that's true.
I don't think that that's true.
Because so few non-autonomous cars are sold per year?
We are talking about theoretically?
It depends when the car is going to be released. In 2020 self-driving may be a must-have feature.
[deleted]
Do you know what it takes to admit that you are late to the game?
Courage.
Courage.
Well this is Apple's first big new product foray in the post Jobs era and it's flopped.
It's flopped for a reason Jobs would never tolerate, a lack of a unique vision that focuses on a consumers simple human need for a product that requires an immense but reachable extension of current technologies.
This is not a good sign for Apple. It's been several years and there's been nothing innovative big or small out of the behemoth. Elon Musk has run off with Jobs' mantle and Apple is left dithering on a mountain of cash. Now Amazon's Echo/Alexa is a product that would have had Jobs smiling.
At least that's how it looks to me though I would be happy to be proved wrong.
It's flopped for a reason Jobs would never tolerate, a lack of a unique vision that focuses on a consumers simple human need for a product that requires an immense but reachable extension of current technologies.
This is not a good sign for Apple. It's been several years and there's been nothing innovative big or small out of the behemoth. Elon Musk has run off with Jobs' mantle and Apple is left dithering on a mountain of cash. Now Amazon's Echo/Alexa is a product that would have had Jobs smiling.
At least that's how it looks to me though I would be happy to be proved wrong.
There is not even one single proof of what Apple even tried to do. Stop assuming they failed. You're not an insider. These are all just rumors.
And Apple has been doing product research for years even in early years, with phones and other desk devices that never saw the light of day. Apple has cash, they tried something, old news.
I think the scale of this downsizing is being underestimated. I think Apple car is dead.