Apple cuts 600 jobs after dropping self-driving car plans(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Apple cuts 600 jobs after dropping self-driving car plans
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98rz9nq9rvo
118 comments
I guess more details would be needed to opine about it but it is hard to believe that a multiple trillion dollar company with 150000 employees can't do anything to keep 600 people no matter what they were doing :(
Apple isn't a jobs scheme or a charity, and its primary purpose is not to keep engineers employed - I'm sure the organisation could have kept those 600 people if it wanted to!
> I'm sure the organisation would have kept those 600 people if it made financial sense to!
Apple is not a charity but is one of the most impactful organizations in the planet and probably should think a little bit ahead of this. Im sure they have enough smart people to find some way of working this around other than making the stakeholders happy.
Employment is a game of matching; the employer wants to match a skill set to a particular job.
It’s entirely likely people on these products don’t easily match internally.
The job market for people capable of working on Apple high end R&D is also likely much better at matching then Apples internal HR, simply because the market has so many more openings.
It’s entirely likely people on these products don’t easily match internally.
The job market for people capable of working on Apple high end R&D is also likely much better at matching then Apples internal HR, simply because the market has so many more openings.
Especially at Apple. Although I've never worked for Apple, I did spend a year at a company that built internal software for Apple, my experience was that their teams are tightly coupled and very, very long-lived (hence they had external software shops building internal tooling for them).
If they are automotive engineers, mechanics, and other auto-specific roles, there is little chance that they would be a match for other jobs that Apple needs. They were given a nice severance deal and will be able to find new job pretty quickly.
the last time I was laid off, it was a relief. The project was clearly failing and the work had become drudgery. When we all got laid off and given severance money, we all went to a bar and celebrated. Then we all went and got other jobs.
Remember, the unemployment rate is under 4% right now.
the last time I was laid off, it was a relief. The project was clearly failing and the work had become drudgery. When we all got laid off and given severance money, we all went to a bar and celebrated. Then we all went and got other jobs.
Remember, the unemployment rate is under 4% right now.
fully agree. Totally ridiculous that a company who makes that much profit is allowed to delete the primary income source of these employees just because they decided to stop their car project.
I would love regulations to make it impossible to eliminate jobs unless the company is bankrupt. Considering how much is of your life is dependent on having an employer, it shouldn't be this easy for a company to toy with that. More so when a company has so much profits.
They could totally offer other positions within the company. If needed support people learning new technologies or languages. Or use these people's expertise to start new projects. but firing it totally unnecessary.
I would love regulations to make it impossible to eliminate jobs unless the company is bankrupt. Considering how much is of your life is dependent on having an employer, it shouldn't be this easy for a company to toy with that. More so when a company has so much profits.
They could totally offer other positions within the company. If needed support people learning new technologies or languages. Or use these people's expertise to start new projects. but firing it totally unnecessary.
We've gone through a round of layoffs, and I've been thinking about the same thing.
It's not that it's too easy—it's that it's too impactful.
The real answer is social safety nets. If you want to protect people, address the root problem that your life is dependent on having an employer. Proper unemployment or UBI plus universal healthcare makes losing a job annoying ("ugh now I have to find another one") vs. terrifying.
Jack up the corporate tax rate (on revenue) to pay for it—which should be a wash after reducing the load of severance, healthcare benefits, etc. that companies are paying today.
Better worker protections like the UK/Europe are mechanisms too—notice periods, guaranteed severance, etc.—but have their own chilling effects.
This has the added benefit of reducing the barriers of entry for individuals: people are more likely to leave bad jobs or pursue their own opportunities, which in turn should drive subsequent job creation.
It's not that it's too easy—it's that it's too impactful.
The real answer is social safety nets. If you want to protect people, address the root problem that your life is dependent on having an employer. Proper unemployment or UBI plus universal healthcare makes losing a job annoying ("ugh now I have to find another one") vs. terrifying.
Jack up the corporate tax rate (on revenue) to pay for it—which should be a wash after reducing the load of severance, healthcare benefits, etc. that companies are paying today.
Better worker protections like the UK/Europe are mechanisms too—notice periods, guaranteed severance, etc.—but have their own chilling effects.
This has the added benefit of reducing the barriers of entry for individuals: people are more likely to leave bad jobs or pursue their own opportunities, which in turn should drive subsequent job creation.
I'm a big fan of social safety nets, but would you agree it needs to stop somewhere? I assume the people laid off here were very well compensated for their work and likely had ample opportunity to build their own reserves. A safety net should be set up in a way that it enables you to have a comfortable, but basic lifestyle. Or should society pay for the CEO's mansion's maintenance should he get fired?
yes social safety nets would be the usual way the impact/consequences are taken care of. At the same time america could also lean into the idea of the employer providing everything, in that case it would make sense for the employer to also take care of the consequences.
> regulations to make it impossible to eliminate jobs unless the company is bankrupt
This is how you zombify your economy.
This is how you zombify your economy.
what was the saying again? the beatings will continue until morale improves?
Is the threat of financial ruin or the threat of starving worth the advantage that you yourself are getting?
Inside the current "free market" do you really have the agency, choice or leverage to choose a different economic relationship with your employer if you would want one?
Is the threat of financial ruin or the threat of starving worth the advantage that you yourself are getting?
Inside the current "free market" do you really have the agency, choice or leverage to choose a different economic relationship with your employer if you would want one?
> Is the threat of financial ruin or the threat of starving worth the advantage that you yourself are getting?
False dichotomy. There are a myriad of options between the status quo and transitioning to a Southern European-style employment model.
> Inside the current "free market" do you really have the agency, choice or leverage to choose a different economic relationship with your employer if you would want one?
The solution isn't in making the current economy sclerotic, but in better distributing its gains. Destroying the gains just makes everyone poorer. And when that happens, empirically, inequality goes up, not down.
False dichotomy. There are a myriad of options between the status quo and transitioning to a Southern European-style employment model.
> Inside the current "free market" do you really have the agency, choice or leverage to choose a different economic relationship with your employer if you would want one?
The solution isn't in making the current economy sclerotic, but in better distributing its gains. Destroying the gains just makes everyone poorer. And when that happens, empirically, inequality goes up, not down.
Bad move from Apple.
Classic instance of the sunken cost fallacy fallacy (not a typo). They prefer to cut their losses and forget about how much they spent recruiting those people.
Keeping them might seem wasteful on the short term, but such skilled workers could likely be made profitable in a big R&D powerhouse.
But the real cost is damaging their reputation among future candidates and current employees, and lowering their perceived value as an employer.
For the most skilled and efficient engineers, choosing to work for big tech is always a tradeoff, a company like Apple is usually very appealing for the most risk-averse.
Classic instance of the sunken cost fallacy fallacy (not a typo). They prefer to cut their losses and forget about how much they spent recruiting those people.
Keeping them might seem wasteful on the short term, but such skilled workers could likely be made profitable in a big R&D powerhouse.
But the real cost is damaging their reputation among future candidates and current employees, and lowering their perceived value as an employer.
For the most skilled and efficient engineers, choosing to work for big tech is always a tradeoff, a company like Apple is usually very appealing for the most risk-averse.
I still don't see why you need to say fallacy twice.
Recruiting employees is a sunk cost. There is a concept that it is a fallacy to maintain the cost because so much has already been spent- in other words, "throwing good money after bad".
In this particular case, GP posits that fallacy is itself a fallacy, insomuch as there is no greater opportunity the company could pursue which required laying those employees off. The reputational harm done, among other things, is a hidden cost not reflected in the numbers of their salaries, and surely they could have participated in other R&D efforts, or something along those lines.
In this particular case, GP posits that fallacy is itself a fallacy, insomuch as there is no greater opportunity the company could pursue which required laying those employees off. The reputational harm done, among other things, is a hidden cost not reflected in the numbers of their salaries, and surely they could have participated in other R&D efforts, or something along those lines.
[deleted]
> Classic instance of the sunken cost fallacy fallacy (not a typo). They prefer to cut their losses and forget about how much they spent recruiting those people.
The Sunken cost fallacy would be to retain those people because of the costs irrevocably incurred (sunk) recruiting them, employing them to date, etc. Apple are (apparently following a theoretical economics position) considering the prospective costs going forward of keeping them, when they no longer have an obvious future revenue stream, and would still generate additional redeployment/retraining costs
The Sunken cost fallacy would be to retain those people because of the costs irrevocably incurred (sunk) recruiting them, employing them to date, etc. Apple are (apparently following a theoretical economics position) considering the prospective costs going forward of keeping them, when they no longer have an obvious future revenue stream, and would still generate additional redeployment/retraining costs
In case you didn’t see, the comment you’re replying to says “sunken cost fallacy fallacy”.
See-also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39942634
See-also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39942634
My heart goes out to those people. I am sure they are dedicated and talented individuals, but I don't understand why this is news. It's a company, and a project got canceled. It's what happens.
It's noteworthy because it's Apple, and it's self driving cars. If this has been 600 employees let go from something else it may not have gotten so much attention. But this is Apple, the world's largest company and it's about its mythical car project.
> the world's largest company
That would be msft currently.
That would be msft currently.
Does it really make a big difference if Apple is first or second? That really wasn’t GP’s point.
We might have not seen these layoffs if their stock was humming along nicely, but that hasn't been the case this year.
So yeah, the fact that they are relatively "struggling" and aren't the top company anymore has some relevance.
So yeah, the fact that they are relatively "struggling" and aren't the top company anymore has some relevance.
They’re the second biggest company in the world now, and by not that much. They’re doing fine.
It would be a different story if they suddenly dropped a magnitude or more, but going from first to second has basically no relevance on the content of the comment. It would have read the exact same if it said “second biggest company”.
It would be a different story if they suddenly dropped a magnitude or more, but going from first to second has basically no relevance on the content of the comment. It would have read the exact same if it said “second biggest company”.
[deleted]
Because they're human beings, not KPI points.
Moreover, 600 is a lot of human beings, and it follows a recent trend of tech companies' mass layoffs from which Apple has mostly avoided.
Moreover, 600 is a lot of human beings, and it follows a recent trend of tech companies' mass layoffs from which Apple has mostly avoided.
Huh, I didn't realize that Apple had mostly avoided it, but you're definitely right. In their defense, the other large tech companies just started trimming fat from everywhere it seems, where as this seems like a direct business decision to abandon an entire project. Still rough for those involved, but it feels less bad than the other mass layoffs to me.
> started trimming fat
I really wish you and others would not equate layoffs with "trimming fat". It's kind of disgusting, and especially when these huge corps are still full of others doing plenty of non-meaningful work. Plenty of layoffs are illogical and due to internal politics.
I really wish you and others would not equate layoffs with "trimming fat". It's kind of disgusting, and especially when these huge corps are still full of others doing plenty of non-meaningful work. Plenty of layoffs are illogical and due to internal politics.
Apologies for the language. I didn't intend it to come off that way. I was using the term in a generic way to mean "getting rid of stuff _they_ don't want". I didn't intend to refer to the actual staff as lesser.
All good - I'm reacting to people who remain at a place after layoffs then scoff at the people let go, like it couldn't happen to them. Usually sounds like drinking too much of HR's Kool-aid.
In context finding new jobs for ~1400 out of ~2000 people working on a car protect seems reasonable simply because it’s very different from their usual project.
I doubt they have much need for mechanical engineers, drivers, mechanics, etc. Still unpleasant for those laid off, but I like seeing companies take these kinds of risks.
I doubt they have much need for mechanical engineers, drivers, mechanics, etc. Still unpleasant for those laid off, but I like seeing companies take these kinds of risks.
> 600 is a lot of human beings, and it follows a recent trend of tech companies' mass layoffs
It’s absurd to describe this as a mass layoff even relative to the 5,000 people Apple employed for this project alone. If a company can’t lay off a few hundred people after cancelling a major project, we’ve effectively banned it from taking risks.
It’s absurd to describe this as a mass layoff even relative to the 5,000 people Apple employed for this project alone. If a company can’t lay off a few hundred people after cancelling a major project, we’ve effectively banned it from taking risks.
Mass layoffs are not illegal, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with the bit about companies taking risks.
> I'm not sure what you're getting at with the bit about companies taking risks
It’s clearly being criticised. If a culture rejects a company hiring five thousand and taking a bet with them for a decade, only for the bet to fail and six hundred be let go, that’s problematic.
It’s clearly being criticised. If a culture rejects a company hiring five thousand and taking a bet with them for a decade, only for the bet to fail and six hundred be let go, that’s problematic.
[deleted]
Coming from defense, projects or contracts end all of the time but usually everyone is able to find other projects to work on. Why are they hiring for a bazillion positions while laying off these people?
https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/search
https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/search
Because they’re different skill sets? The people test driving the cars aren’t hardware engineers.
You don’t know what kind of jobs got layed off. They could be very car specific and not useful for other product lines. I doubt they layed off 600 software engineers.
The project was rumored to have 5000 employees. It’s too much of a leap to assume that nobody working on it was moved to other work. And while any layoffs suck, 12% or so not finding a new place in the company seems remarkably good for a defunct project in a vertical like automotive.
I have heard that some jobs were able to find a new home. The work that was needed for Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) in the car, was adapted within the Vision Pro. But not all expertise translates easily.
It is still important news, however it seems to me this shouldn't be grouped into the same discussion as all of the other tech layoffs since this was tied to a canceled project.
Especially given that the car project was apparently 2000 people from the project, not being able to find other positions for about a quarter of those people is I think valid.
I mean yeah it is unfortunate for the people affected, but projects are canceled. It is entirely possible, especially given some of the unique skills needed specifically for a car, there are people who just won't have a place anywhere else.
Especially given that the car project was apparently 2000 people from the project, not being able to find other positions for about a quarter of those people is I think valid.
I mean yeah it is unfortunate for the people affected, but projects are canceled. It is entirely possible, especially given some of the unique skills needed specifically for a car, there are people who just won't have a place anywhere else.
I'm always surprised they didn't find somewhere else to put the people when this happens, though. Surely Apple has other projects that aren't cancelled?
I can't imagine the sort of people who design cars are going to have much to do elsewhere in Apple, unfortunately.
It's Apple. They are good. They would never do layoffs like those evil companies like Google, Microsoft or Facebook. /s
I thought this was after both the car and the internal smartwatch display projects were canned:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-04/apple-cut... (archive: https://archive.ph/MeaiY)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-04/apple-cut... (archive: https://archive.ph/MeaiY)
600 jobs is impressive.
I guess they won't be building robots either.
Figure and Tesla will benefit.
It was very obvious the Apple car project was never going to happen. So obvious that it never even felt real when I read the headlines. Apple is not a car company and Apple is not willing to transform itself into a car company.
I think it's kind of refreshing. They tried. They failed. They couldn't see how to make it work. They exited.
Much rather this than releasing yet another half-assed, techno-heavy, EV.
600 staff had a great time getting paid to muck around on a dev project at Apple. Priceless.
Much rather this than releasing yet another half-assed, techno-heavy, EV.
600 staff had a great time getting paid to muck around on a dev project at Apple. Priceless.
apple got into cars because other people got into cars. it’s that simple.
Could be, apple is very good at skating to the puck... but the car thing, I really never understood the car thing... it's like learning so much new stuff they don't really do, seem weird, but maybe if they want to make robots and stuff, learning how to build a robot car is a decent learning ground...? I dunno, it's weird, never sat right with me personally.
tech companies compete for talent first and product second; the primary purpose was to slow down competitors from developing a driverless car before apple had evaluated it as a potential platform. it wasn’t to build a platform itself, at least initially. companies, particularly rich ones, do this all the time.
„Apple is not a phone company“, „Apple is not a watch company“,…
> „Apple is not a phone company“, „Apple is not a watch company“,…
Fun quip, but it is the second part of the GP's sentence that's key: "... and Apple is not willing to transform itself into a car company."
Fun quip, but it is the second part of the GP's sentence that's key: "... and Apple is not willing to transform itself into a car company."
Apple is an electronics company. The iPhone was a "small" change from an iPod. The Apple watch is not really a watch. It is essentially a mini iPhone with a wrist strap. Now a car on the other hand, you can't just attach wheels to an iPhone or Mac and call it a car. There's an entire set of rules and regulations they've never dealt with. There's an entire industry of suppliers they've never dealt with. Apple is not a car company. Perhaps they thought doing some sort of EV was close enough to their competencies to make it work. In the end, they probably figured out they had to be a car company to make it work and they very much don't want to be a car company.
> Apple is an electronics company.
Apple is an electronics company in the same sense that Louis Vuitton is a handbag manufacturer. Apple is a fashion company.
Apple is an electronics company in the same sense that Louis Vuitton is a handbag manufacturer. Apple is a fashion company.
I'm not sure how obvious it was or that it still won't happen in the future. Cars have been becoming more and more like a computing device.
They're using more and more computing, but they are not changing into devices that are primarily for computing.
Can you think of any applications for having servers primarily used for processing data on location that are distributed around the world in locations that normally can't have buildings sitting there or that might benefit from moving with traffic?
Except for the wheels and seats and oil and grease. Just like.
Not a very friendly comment and I didn't think electric vehicles needed oil.
Vehicles are doing more and more processing - the work of servers. Distributing moving servers around the world to process data at that specific location is useful and becoming more and more so.
Vehicles are doing more and more processing - the work of servers. Distributing moving servers around the world to process data at that specific location is useful and becoming more and more so.
And still Apple has no idea how to make a car, because cars are extremely different than phones.
Yes there are some incidental parts that Apple has skill at making. Perhaps they should provide touch-panels for the car controls? The interface would be better than what's out there.
The most significant evidence that Apple isn't a car manufacturer is, that they have just thrown up their hands and cancelled the project, with essentially the defense that "We don't know how to do anything involved in making a car" e.g. distribution, manufacturing, certifications and on and on.
Yes there are some incidental parts that Apple has skill at making. Perhaps they should provide touch-panels for the car controls? The interface would be better than what's out there.
The most significant evidence that Apple isn't a car manufacturer is, that they have just thrown up their hands and cancelled the project, with essentially the defense that "We don't know how to do anything involved in making a car" e.g. distribution, manufacturing, certifications and on and on.
Fair enough and all points I agree with
> Cars have been becoming more and more like a computing device
They contain computing devices, but so does my toothbrush and kettle - they are defined by the main thing they do like cars - which move people around in comfort and safety.
They contain computing devices, but so does my toothbrush and kettle - they are defined by the main thing they do like cars - which move people around in comfort and safety.
Am I the only one who doesn't buy the "Apple canceled the car project because it couldn't do full self driving" story?
Obviously they would have had to create a simpler project before the fsd car. Just like they did the iPod before they did the iPhone.
Obviously they would have had to create a simpler project before the fsd car. Just like they did the iPod before they did the iPhone.
Yes. But you can also get into a project and realize a commercially viable output is going to take too long and cost too much. (And pretty much every auto manufacturer already has assistive driving systems at some level.)
My personal guess is that it is related to Apple's ability to use the Chinese supply chain which is no longer politically tenable.
That certainly is a guess.
Wasn't that even stated in one of the reports recently that the problem was not that they couldn't do it but the commercial viability of it and wether to could ever actually make money? A problem with how much it would cost.
I highly doubt the problem was, can Apple build a car? They have enough money that they could probably hire the people to do just about anything they wanted to try.
Not really sure how you simplify making a car enough to make it worth getting into the market at all in the first place.
I highly doubt the problem was, can Apple build a car? They have enough money that they could probably hire the people to do just about anything they wanted to try.
Not really sure how you simplify making a car enough to make it worth getting into the market at all in the first place.
They could outright buy some reasonable profile existing manufacturer.
But actually entering the market and getting Apple like margins and volumes... Very doubtful. Cars are significantly more expensive than even the VR headset or top of the line computers.
But actually entering the market and getting Apple like margins and volumes... Very doubtful. Cars are significantly more expensive than even the VR headset or top of the line computers.
The original goal wasn't to just build a car. lots of companies are doing that and the financial returns are limited. It would have been a poor investment for Apple.
Apple wanted to launch true self-driving transportation. That would have been revolutionary and when they started, many people thought that was a goal that could be realized in 5-10 years. Since then we have learned that self-driving and much more complex and harder to get right.
Apple seems to have tried some different approaches to the problem, but eventually they decided it was not worth pursuing and cancelled the project. It was inevitable that they would have to lay off some people with skills that could not translate to other products. What is amazing is that they seem to have been able to retain 70% of that team.
Apple wanted to launch true self-driving transportation. That would have been revolutionary and when they started, many people thought that was a goal that could be realized in 5-10 years. Since then we have learned that self-driving and much more complex and harder to get right.
Apple seems to have tried some different approaches to the problem, but eventually they decided it was not worth pursuing and cancelled the project. It was inevitable that they would have to lay off some people with skills that could not translate to other products. What is amazing is that they seem to have been able to retain 70% of that team.
If anyone made the claim that the tech was the problem, that’s just naive. I read all the reports as “the totality of the project, from tech to manufacturing to distribution to service to business model, was not viable”.
Failure to do fsd as the key reason was first mentioned here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-03/why-wa...
Apple’s Car Was Doomed by Its Lofty Ambitions to Outdo Tesla
And repeated numerous times.
The article was written by the same Bloomberg journalist who broke the story that the project was canceled.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-03/why-wa...
Apple’s Car Was Doomed by Its Lofty Ambitions to Outdo Tesla
And repeated numerous times.
The article was written by the same Bloomberg journalist who broke the story that the project was canceled.
Yet others have done it. Reads like crying It's too hard for us!
More like, it would take too long to become profitable, and this company is not interested in long-term goals.
More like, it would take too long to become profitable, and this company is not interested in long-term goals.
This is the company selling a $3500 AR headset, and who built a chip design expertise so they have vertical integration to silicon? And who pours money into not directly monetizable ecosystem features like phone calls on laptops and tablets?
Not interested in the long term?
Not interested in the long term?
This is also the company that hired 5000 engineers to work on anything that occurred to them, under some monkeys-typewriter theory of software. Condensed the project down into one totally ridiculous moss-covered three-handled family credenza of a thing that was completely unmarketable. Fired all those same people a couple years later.
If some of us have less confidence than others in their prognostications, well, there are reasons.
If some of us have less confidence than others in their prognostications, well, there are reasons.
Not every company needs to build every single thing. You’re making it seem like axing an unprofitable product is a bad thing.
[dupe]
Some more discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39937426
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39937620
Some more discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39937426
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39937620
> "While this might seem significant given that it relates to Apple as one of the last big tech giants to make job cuts, it is not driven by the need for efficiencies," says Mr Pescatore.
> "It feels more like a shift of strategic focus into other new emerging areas like AI," he adds.
Be mindful when taking your next job in the AI goldrush.
> "It feels more like a shift of strategic focus into other new emerging areas like AI," he adds.
Be mindful when taking your next job in the AI goldrush.
It's interesting because "selfdriving" cars themselves were seen as a form of "AI" at the height of that related goldrush, I'd say 2017-2018 or so.
It's absolutely AI. Perhaps this is one of those weird redefinitions that happens when a gold rush takes over a word, like how "crypto" now means digital currency instead of merely "encryption". But what does "AI" mean now then? Generative AI?
Or when "crypto" meant encryption rather than simply "hidden". (For example crypto zoology)
Self driving cars were supposed to be around the corner because AI was advancing so fast.
Instead of autonomous cars, we get generative AI out of this last rush of AI advances. Today, when people talk about "AI" as a startup they are talking about using this already existing technology.
Self-driving was always a speculation that the science would advance into engineering within a sm timeframe, which is always a risky bet. I was hugely skeptical, told everyone that would listen that I didn't believe for a second that Musk would ever deliver on self driving. But I'm far more bullish on AI, we actually do have something new here, it just takes a lot of skill, talent, and discovery to deploy it in useful ways.
Instead of autonomous cars, we get generative AI out of this last rush of AI advances. Today, when people talk about "AI" as a startup they are talking about using this already existing technology.
Self-driving was always a speculation that the science would advance into engineering within a sm timeframe, which is always a risky bet. I was hugely skeptical, told everyone that would listen that I didn't believe for a second that Musk would ever deliver on self driving. But I'm far more bullish on AI, we actually do have something new here, it just takes a lot of skill, talent, and discovery to deploy it in useful ways.
The industry (OpenAI, DeepMind, et al) are not seriously working on generate AI. Thats a phase. They are working on AGI. AGI definitionally includes all human cognitive capabilities and that includes vehicular operation and real world interaction (in form of embodied robots). It is likely possible that even self driving cars can be done safely without needing AGI with sufficient scale, and I don’t think it’s that far off from happening.
There are those who are working on AGI, who say they do not know when or if it will show up. Those who do think AGI will appear (if you can get them to define it) think it will come from a gradual increase in capability , just exactly the same way current advances have happened.
Then there are those who are using existing generative AI to book revenue today. This includes OpenAI, and other generative AI providers, but it also includes companies like Accenture, which booked $600M in AI consulting last quarter and expects it to continue growing. There's GitHub co-pilot, which is booking revenue.
Then there are those who are using existing generative AI to book revenue today. This includes OpenAI, and other generative AI providers, but it also includes companies like Accenture, which booked $600M in AI consulting last quarter and expects it to continue growing. There's GitHub co-pilot, which is booking revenue.
> Self driving cars were supposed to be around the corner because AI was advancing so fast.
To be fair, that was almost true. Waymo is doing well, Mobileye is looking good in demos, and even Tesla has a solid L2 system now.
It seems inevitable that this will hit a really dramatic exponential growth phase within the next 2-3 years.
To be fair, that was almost true. Waymo is doing well, Mobileye is looking good in demos, and even Tesla has a solid L2 system now.
It seems inevitable that this will hit a really dramatic exponential growth phase within the next 2-3 years.
Inevitability has nothing to do with it at all. And there's zero evidence we'll see a "dramatic exponential growth phase...". That's just the same hucksterism we've heard from Musk for a decade.
Unless you limit "Self driving" cars to L2, there's no supporting evidence indicating anything like a breakthrough.
Unless you limit "Self driving" cars to L2, there's no supporting evidence indicating anything like a breakthrough.
I think your response implies that I'm referring to Tesla as seeing exponential growth in a robotaxi.
Tesla is currently at zero on that dimension. They might get it above zero and grow rapidly in 2-3 years, but I'd give it very low odds.
Waymo OTOH, has increased to 3 fairly difficult areas. It seems extremely likely that their growth rate will increase dramatically sometime within the next 2-3 years. If they don't, there are other competitors with strong technology that might move ahead.
Tesla is currently at zero on that dimension. They might get it above zero and grow rapidly in 2-3 years, but I'd give it very low odds.
Waymo OTOH, has increased to 3 fairly difficult areas. It seems extremely likely that their growth rate will increase dramatically sometime within the next 2-3 years. If they don't, there are other competitors with strong technology that might move ahead.
"To be fair, that was almost true."
No, it was not even close to "almost true" except for hype from the various hypesters.
Waymo currently operates in TWO areas, not three. Phoenix and San Fran are not "fairly difficult." Come to Michigan in the winter for difficult. Come to Denver in the winter. Waymo has (wisely) selected areas that are either very simple in layout, that have sympathetic governments, or both. And what other competitors are out there with "strong technology"?
Robotaxis are a novelty. Just like the monorail at Disneyland.
No, it was not even close to "almost true" except for hype from the various hypesters.
Waymo currently operates in TWO areas, not three. Phoenix and San Fran are not "fairly difficult." Come to Michigan in the winter for difficult. Come to Denver in the winter. Waymo has (wisely) selected areas that are either very simple in layout, that have sympathetic governments, or both. And what other competitors are out there with "strong technology"?
Robotaxis are a novelty. Just like the monorail at Disneyland.
As someone else pointed out in the threads, the Apple Car division was around 2000 people, most of whom (AI folks?) have been redeployed, resulting in a remaining 600 being fired - so it is presumably a set of skills that Apple does not think makes sense to redeploy elsewhere such as other manufacturing plants or retail stores or PR department or finance department, etc.
It's still interesting that self driving cars are framed as being something other than "AI".
But I guess they laid off not the "AI people" working on self-driving cars. They most probably laid off experts in the automotive domain (I don't know, mechanical engineers working on creating parts for the prototypes, for example).
AI is a capability, self driving cars are a product for a vertical; AI is useful for many things beyond self driving cars, and self driving cars need a lot of ingredients beyond AI.
If we have to declare that self driving cars “are” a single thing, I’d say it’s manufacturing, not AI.
If we have to declare that self driving cars “are” a single thing, I’d say it’s manufacturing, not AI.
It's a promising sign. Technologies stop being called AI when they actually work.
Or they’re people that refused to be redeployed because they didn’t like the other projects.
Thank goodness, I was dreading the public release of this onto the streets.
I'm of the opinion they never really wanted to do a commercially available car. I think they only did enough R&D to get the new CarPlay software where it needed to be so they could start offering it to the auto OEMs.
No, they genuinely tried with every Tesla reject they could hire.
Fair, but I just still can't believe it. It's not a core competency.
Apple believes that designing technology-mediated experiences is a core competency. That, and a large degree of overconfidence, are what got them into it. As to what kept them there: sunk costs and that same overconfidence?
Their core competency was the Jobs' reality distortion field
iPhones, iPads and hell even the iPod line weren’t core competencies until they were released and did well. Apple for a long time was Apple Computers after all.
phones are computers after all... they just try to limit their features for some reason.
An iPhone/iPad is a variation of a laptop at the end of the day. The iPod was the start of their other core competency, services + licensing, and the iTunes store.
The car project has always seemed like a "we have too much money" project. Or a good idea from someone who never leaves their perfect spaceship campus.
The car project has always seemed like a "we have too much money" project. Or a good idea from someone who never leaves their perfect spaceship campus.
> The iPod was the start of their other core competency, services + licensing, and the iTunes store.
Sure, but when it launched, and while it was developed, this was not even remotely considered a core competency of the company. Which was my point. That core competency did not exist when the iPod was being worked on (and presumably could have been canned). And that’s the same case here.
> An iPhone/iPad is a variation of a laptop at the end of the day.
That’s an extreme stretch. To the point where Apple itself disagrees with how they’re being segmented. If it was just a variation, you’d have seen a combination of product lines and features at this point.
Sure, but when it launched, and while it was developed, this was not even remotely considered a core competency of the company. Which was my point. That core competency did not exist when the iPod was being worked on (and presumably could have been canned). And that’s the same case here.
> An iPhone/iPad is a variation of a laptop at the end of the day.
That’s an extreme stretch. To the point where Apple itself disagrees with how they’re being segmented. If it was just a variation, you’d have seen a combination of product lines and features at this point.
They've pitched the iPad Pro as a laptop replacement many times, segmented only by the fact that they'd prefer you buy one of everything. They built their own framework to run the same apps across all three devices.
More to the point in a discussion about cars, they mostly share the same hardware as well. None of them have a suspension, or a motor, or wheels, or....
More to the point in a discussion about cars, they mostly share the same hardware as well. None of them have a suspension, or a motor, or wheels, or....
iPhones, iPods, Watches, iPads, etc are all variations on computers. Yes, they are very much Apple's core competency. A Car, not so much.
If you want to define a computer that broadly, then what exactly are modern cars but computers with engines/motors and wheels?
Hell, some new cars are literally driven by a computer, both in the AI sense and in that your steering wheel movements are not directly connected to your front wheels. An EPU for a long time has controlled how an engine runs, which is a literal computer. New cars’ components are connected with automotive-grade Ethernet. They use a screen to interface with “apps” like media playback and navigation. They connect to external services and devices like your phone.
What, exactly, makes it not a computer, if we’re defining the term loosely enough to encompass practically all devices Apple makes right now?
Hell, some new cars are literally driven by a computer, both in the AI sense and in that your steering wheel movements are not directly connected to your front wheels. An EPU for a long time has controlled how an engine runs, which is a literal computer. New cars’ components are connected with automotive-grade Ethernet. They use a screen to interface with “apps” like media playback and navigation. They connect to external services and devices like your phone.
What, exactly, makes it not a computer, if we’re defining the term loosely enough to encompass practically all devices Apple makes right now?
Going from a personal computer to a tablet or phone is not a stretch. Trying to include a freaking car is. Come on.
Why, exactly, is that a stretch? I gave reasons as to why a car is a computer. Examples of parallels between it and phones/tablets/computers and examples of the literal interconnected computers being used in modern cars. You’ve done nothing but say it’s a stretch in two different ways now with no justification or reasoning.
If you don’t have any actual reasons or rebuttals, then there’s nothing left to discuss.
If you don’t have any actual reasons or rebuttals, then there’s nothing left to discuss.