The Dodge Caravans have nothing directly to do with Apple's autonomous mass transit plans.
They are related in that Apple needs really good mapping data so their vehicles can reliably get to their destination.
I assume that you live in SoCal, from your identifier. But the rest of the country isn't as mass transit oriented as some in that area. Indeed, here in NYC, with the biggest and most complex subway system in the world, cars are still choking the roads. Even though we have massive bus routes, it hardly matters.
There is horrible traffic in Southern California as well. There is not as much public transportation one might think.
In many of the trendy California areas there is no parking anywhere. Young people get along just fine because there are clubs and restaurants, shopping malls, colleges all within walking distance or a short bus ride. Also the whole notion of owning a car as some expression of identity is not as popular as it once was.
I would think that Apple sees this new urban generation as their target market. If they live, work, and socialize all inside the urban core, why would they spend a huge chunk of money on an Apple car when they have no place to park it?
When I worked in NYC I lived in the suburbs of Connecticut and took the train everyday. None of the commuters drove into the city. Sure we all had cars in the suburbs but we didn't drive them much. Some people had "station cars", some old beater left in the parking lot at the train station. I still use public transportation here in Southern California and it is very convenient, plus I get a little exercise walking back and forth to the bus stop. An Apple car may appeal to suburbanites but the suburbs represents too small of a market for a mass market global company like Apple. In Japan for example everyone rides the train. Not sure about anywhere else.
I would expect Apple to keep making gadgets that urban dwellers can buy online and install themselves. HomeKit automation seems like a wide open market. I just don't see an actual car in Apple's near term future and I would agree with those who think the mapping vans are just that, mapping vans, to improve Apple maps and CarPlay.
I assume that you live in SoCal, from your identifier. But the rest of the country isn't as mass transit oriented as some in that area. Indeed, here in NYC, with the biggest and most complex subway system in the world, cars are still choking the roads. Even though we have massive bus routes, it hardly matters.
People want their cars. With conservatives in the government, mass transit is impossible. As we sit and write these posts, these conservatives are still trying to shut down the train system in this country. Amtrak is just a fraction of what it could have been, but for the massive budget cuts they made over the years, when they weren't trying to shut it down entirely.
Mel, you're right about people wanting to own and drive their own cars. No matter how much taxpayer funded public transportation is created, it will never be the solution for everyone. I took public buses for about a year and was almost fired from my job because of the unreliability of the service. Sometimes the bus never even showed up! Buses and trains are no substitute for a privately owned vehicle and blaming "conservatives" is not a valid reason.
Mel, you're right about people wanting to own and drive their own cars. No matter how much taxpayer funded public transportation is created, it will never be the solution for everyone. I took public buses for about a year and was almost fired from my job because of the unreliability of the service. Sometimes the bus never even showed up! Buses and trains are no substitute for a privately owned vehicle and blaming "conservatives" is not a valid reason.
In reality, it is a valid reason. They have made it almost impossible to improve public transportation in this country. Where do enough busses come from? They don't appear on the road magically. They need to be paid for. And how does that happen? Taxes, and fees. Like it or not, it's better for the country to cut down on car use, but we won't see that happen because the money allowed for public transportation is limited by shortsighted groups.
In reality, it is a valid reason. They have made it almost impossible to improve public transportation in this country. Where do enough busses come from? They don't appear on the road magically. They need to be paid for. And how does that happen? Taxes, and fees. Like it or not, it's better for the country to cut down on car use, but we won't see that happen because the money allowed for public transportation is limited by shortsighted groups.
I have a sense that the privately owned automobile is tomorrows CD, an item whose ownership also puzzles a lot of the rising demographic.
Uber, rideshare, bikeshare, the digital connected world: a large portion of current car user base is heading away from needing a private vehicle. Provide a convenient alternative at a reasonable cost (versus the upfront cost of a private car...) and still exceed the route flexibility public transport never offers and some one is set up to make a lot of money, no public subsidy or expenditure necessary. Could this be Apple? Might be.
I have a sense that the privately owned automobile is tomorrows CD, an item whose ownership also puzzles a lot of the rising demographic.
I have a sense that I don’t want to use a vehicle after some disease-riddled crackhead. If self-driving vehicles are even possible, we’ll see an uptick in rental services (and the death of the cab), followed immediately by the death of rental services and people refusing to get into a cab unless it’s driven by a human.
Why would I want to be limited to someone(thing) else’s schedule to get somewhere I want to go?
I have a sense that I don’t want to use a vehicle after some disease-riddled crackhead. If self-driving vehicles are even possible, we’ll see an uptick in rental services (and the death of the cab), followed immediately by the death of rental services and people refusing to get into a cab unless it’s driven by a human.
Why would I want to be limited to someone(thing) else’s schedule to get somewhere I want to go?
1) Huh?! How would you limited to someone/thing else's schedule any different from taking a cab, town car, bus or shuttle? These are all common forms of public and private transportation in cities.
2) Don't automatically jump to some Phillip K. Dick future where everything is automated. This is an all-or-nothing scenario. Consider how cruise control works. Consider how cars with forward and backup sensors work? Consider how cars that can self parallel park work? These all exist and they are well automation that fall well before self driving cars that will eventually rise up and kill humanity. Now consider that these current technologies will be added to cars so that a more intelligent cruise control will not only be able to maintain a speed, but know when there is an obstacle in the way so it can slow down. Then imagine what the next incremental step to that would be. Now the one after that, and so o. That's how this will play out until one day the human driver clearly becomes the liability, and with most accidents being the fault of the driver not making safe decisions the only people that will have a problem with this 5 decades are the same ones that have a problem with planes because they aren't in control, but that's an irrational thought which i trust most will be able to get past.
3) It reads like you're making a classic mistake of conflating self-driving cars with driverless cars. It's one thing to let the machine with faster reaction times and better awareness run the system that will keep you statistically more safe, it's another to let them operate autonomously without any human component being able to check up on the machine. It's the difference between using Siri dictation or auto-correct on an iPhone to write a comment in a text field and letting your iPhone replay to iMessages on your behalf without your approval. Perhaps one day we'll have semi-tractor trailers that are operated remotely by people in a data center in some large but impoverished country halfway around the world without any driver on-board to check systems, fluids, fill up the tank, etc., but that's not even close to being the next step in this evolution. I could even see separate roads just for these vehicles on highways. Perhaps a single lane dedicated for self-driving vehicles, but that require the human driver to take over when not on these type of protected roadways. That's a lot of infrastructure, even if can be adapted from the current one, save fuel, time, expense, and reduce accidents so if that were to be set in stone it would still be a long ways away.
I have a sense that the privately owned automobile is tomorrows CD, an item whose ownership also puzzles a lot of the rising demographic.
I have a sense that I don’t want to use a vehicle after some disease-riddled crackhead. If self-driving vehicles are even possible, we’ll see an uptick in rental services (and the death of the cab), followed immediately by the death of rental services and people refusing to get into a cab unless it’s driven by a human.
Why would I want to be limited to someone(thing) else’s schedule to get somewhere I want to go?
Indeed.
Sometimes, it’s necessary to state the obvious when people miss what's under their noses.
And yet the "laws of physics" are in no way related to "someone else's/thing's schedule", so perhaps you are.
In comparison to public transport that keep their set schedules and routes and so are an issue in terms of personal flexibility versus personally owned cars. Into the balance for many comes the issue of initial cost of purchase, insurance and for more densely occupied urban areas, storage where ride share can offer value. (the crack potential would no doubt be variable much as it is in your own car). Much like any other town car a system would take the travel time from the charge station into account to arrive at the requested time. Preferable to the scheduled mass public transport I would judge.
For those that absolutely MUST have a vehicle at their immediate disposal 24/7? Private vehicles remain the choice. For those seeing the additional expense as justified at any rate.
And yet the "laws of physics" are in no way related to "someone else's/thing's schedule", so perhaps you are.
In comparison to public transport that keep their set schedules and routes and so are an issue in terms of personal flexibility versus personally owned cars. Into the balance for many comes the issue of initial cost of purchase, insurance and for more densely occupied urban areas, storage where ride share can offer value. (the crack potential would no doubt be variable much as it is in your own car). Much like any other town car a system would take the travel time from the charge station into account to arrive at the requested time. Preferable to the scheduled mass public transport I would judge.
For those that absolutely MUST have a vehicle at their immediate disposal 24/7? Private vehicles remain the choice. For those seeing the additional expense as justified at any rate.
You say that a ride share doesn't limit you to someone else's schedule. So, somehow, the four other people riding with you will be going to exactly the same place as you and even leaving from your front door, every day!
Some kind of magical temporal displacement, perhaps.
You say that a ride share doesn't limit you to someone else's schedule. So, somehow, the four other people riding with you will be going to exactly the same place as you and even leaving from your front door, every day!
Some kind of magical temporal displacement, perhaps.
"Car sharing" might have been a better choice then: I'm referring to the Zipcar etc. model where users pick up a system owned car as needed. I cited Bikeshares as well: that's where people use bikes on an as needed basis then return them to a storage station located at multiple points within a city. Paris has one of those, NYC, any number of other places.
You say that a ride share doesn't limit you to someone else's schedule. So, somehow, the four other people riding with you will be going to exactly the same place as you and even leaving from your front door, every day!
Some kind of magical temporal displacement, perhaps.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I'm referring to the Zipcar etc. model where users pick up a system owned car as needed. I cited Bikeshares as well: that's where people use bikes on an as needed basis then return them to a storage station located at multiple points within a city. Paris has one of those, NYC, any number of other places.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">It's not carpooling.</span>
I've looked in detail at Zipcar. It's a very limiting and flawed system for many reasons. It's comparable in cost to an expensive taxi, but much less convenient.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">"Car sharing" might have been a better choice then: I'm referring to the Zipcar etc. model where users pick up a system owned car as needed. I cited Bikeshares as well: that's where people use bikes on an as needed basis then return them to a storage station located at multiple points within a city. Paris has one of those, NYC, any number of other places.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">It's not carpooling.</span>
I do look forward to a future of autonomous vehicles, since roads are littered with careless and distracted drivers. I'll never be comfortable with the car sharing idea. Sharing shopping carts at stores is enough of a disease exchange to put me off the idea. Imagine stepping into a shared vehicle after someone just changed their baby's diaper, or someone puked or cigarettes are everywhere. Not for me.
I do look forward to a future of autonomous vehicles, since roads are littered with careless and distracted drivers. I'll never be comfortable with the car sharing idea. Sharing shopping carts at stores is enough of a disease exchange to put me off the idea. Imagine stepping into a shared vehicle after someone just changed their baby's diaper, or someone puked or cigarettes are everywhere. Not for me.
Since everyone's credit card will be on file any cleaning from such abuse will get directly charged: which would go a long ways to subdue such.
Living in a rural area the convenience of having my own bike and car is apparent and I have both, for a city for daily chores not so much: once I get to my destination what to do with the thing? parking is expensive and no matter the size of the locks and chains a bike is an expensive item to leave unattended on a street (at least mine is, city friends do tend to have "beaters" for that sort of thing). Yet with my directing the vehicle I can get to a lot more places a lot more directly than the fixed routes and schedules of subways and busses which I submit is where they could compete with private cars since it's that freedom component mass public transportation is most vulnerable versus a private car.
As to the germaphobic aspects, there's always the ubiquitous sanitary wipes, which have long been at dispensers near the grocery carts around here... the steering wheel being the main culprit for a shared car (outside of the more autonomous vehicle anyway, then you "run" it from your iPhone app).
Bottom line is were Apple having a project I agree with those that say they can't compete with BMW etc. I'm thinking then that they won't, they'll compete with busses and subways.
Comments
Thank you for agreeing with me.
There is horrible traffic in Southern California as well. There is not as much public transportation one might think.
In many of the trendy California areas there is no parking anywhere. Young people get along just fine because there are clubs and restaurants, shopping malls, colleges all within walking distance or a short bus ride. Also the whole notion of owning a car as some expression of identity is not as popular as it once was.
I would think that Apple sees this new urban generation as their target market. If they live, work, and socialize all inside the urban core, why would they spend a huge chunk of money on an Apple car when they have no place to park it?
When I worked in NYC I lived in the suburbs of Connecticut and took the train everyday. None of the commuters drove into the city. Sure we all had cars in the suburbs but we didn't drive them much. Some people had "station cars", some old beater left in the parking lot at the train station. I still use public transportation here in Southern California and it is very convenient, plus I get a little exercise walking back and forth to the bus stop. An Apple car may appeal to suburbanites but the suburbs represents too small of a market for a mass market global company like Apple. In Japan for example everyone rides the train. Not sure about anywhere else.
I would expect Apple to keep making gadgets that urban dwellers can buy online and install themselves. HomeKit automation seems like a wide open market. I just don't see an actual car in Apple's near term future and I would agree with those who think the mapping vans are just that, mapping vans, to improve Apple maps and CarPlay.
I assume that you live in SoCal, from your identifier. But the rest of the country isn't as mass transit oriented as some in that area. Indeed, here in NYC, with the biggest and most complex subway system in the world, cars are still choking the roads. Even though we have massive bus routes, it hardly matters.
People want their cars. With conservatives in the government, mass transit is impossible. As we sit and write these posts, these conservatives are still trying to shut down the train system in this country. Amtrak is just a fraction of what it could have been, but for the massive budget cuts they made over the years, when they weren't trying to shut it down entirely.
Mel, you're right about people wanting to own and drive their own cars. No matter how much taxpayer funded public transportation is created, it will never be the solution for everyone. I took public buses for about a year and was almost fired from my job because of the unreliability of the service. Sometimes the bus never even showed up! Buses and trains are no substitute for a privately owned vehicle and blaming "conservatives" is not a valid reason.
In reality, it is a valid reason. They have made it almost impossible to improve public transportation in this country. Where do enough busses come from? They don't appear on the road magically. They need to be paid for. And how does that happen? Taxes, and fees. Like it or not, it's better for the country to cut down on car use, but we won't see that happen because the money allowed for public transportation is limited by shortsighted groups.
In reality, it is a valid reason. They have made it almost impossible to improve public transportation in this country. Where do enough busses come from? They don't appear on the road magically. They need to be paid for. And how does that happen? Taxes, and fees. Like it or not, it's better for the country to cut down on car use, but we won't see that happen because the money allowed for public transportation is limited by shortsighted groups.
I have a sense that the privately owned automobile is tomorrows CD, an item whose ownership also puzzles a lot of the rising demographic.
Uber, rideshare, bikeshare, the digital connected world: a large portion of current car user base is heading away from needing a private vehicle. Provide a convenient alternative at a reasonable cost (versus the upfront cost of a private car...) and still exceed the route flexibility public transport never offers and some one is set up to make a lot of money, no public subsidy or expenditure necessary. Could this be Apple? Might be.
I have a sense that I don’t want to use a vehicle after some disease-riddled crackhead. If self-driving vehicles are even possible, we’ll see an uptick in rental services (and the death of the cab), followed immediately by the death of rental services and people refusing to get into a cab unless it’s driven by a human.
Why would I want to be limited to someone(thing) else’s schedule to get somewhere I want to go?
1) Huh?! How would you limited to someone/thing else's schedule any different from taking a cab, town car, bus or shuttle? These are all common forms of public and private transportation in cities.
2) Don't automatically jump to some Phillip K. Dick future where everything is automated. This is an all-or-nothing scenario. Consider how cruise control works. Consider how cars with forward and backup sensors work? Consider how cars that can self parallel park work? These all exist and they are well automation that fall well before self driving cars that will eventually rise up and kill humanity. Now consider that these current technologies will be added to cars so that a more intelligent cruise control will not only be able to maintain a speed, but know when there is an obstacle in the way so it can slow down. Then imagine what the next incremental step to that would be. Now the one after that, and so o. That's how this will play out until one day the human driver clearly becomes the liability, and with most accidents being the fault of the driver not making safe decisions the only people that will have a problem with this 5 decades are the same ones that have a problem with planes because they aren't in control, but that's an irrational thought which i trust most will be able to get past.
3) It reads like you're making a classic mistake of conflating self-driving cars with driverless cars. It's one thing to let the machine with faster reaction times and better awareness run the system that will keep you statistically more safe, it's another to let them operate autonomously without any human component being able to check up on the machine. It's the difference between using Siri dictation or auto-correct on an iPhone to write a comment in a text field and letting your iPhone replay to iMessages on your behalf without your approval. Perhaps one day we'll have semi-tractor trailers that are operated remotely by people in a data center in some large but impoverished country halfway around the world without any driver on-board to check systems, fluids, fill up the tank, etc., but that's not even close to being the next step in this evolution. I could even see separate roads just for these vehicles on highways. Perhaps a single lane dedicated for self-driving vehicles, but that require the human driver to take over when not on these type of protected roadways. That's a lot of infrastructure, even if can be adapted from the current one, save fuel, time, expense, and reduce accidents so if that were to be set in stone it would still be a long ways away.
I have a sense that I don’t want to use a vehicle after some disease-riddled crackhead. If self-driving vehicles are even possible, we’ll see an uptick in rental services (and the death of the cab), followed immediately by the death of rental services and people refusing to get into a cab unless it’s driven by a human.
Why would I want to be limited to someone(thing) else’s schedule to get somewhere I want to go?
Indeed.
Sometimes, it’s necessary to state the obvious when people miss what's under their noses.
"Why would I want to be limited to someone(thing) else’s schedule to get somewhere I want to go?"
In the rideshare model you aren't limited to anyone else's schedule even now.
"Why would I want to be limited to someone(thing) else’s schedule to get somewhere I want to go?"
In the rideshare model you aren't limited to anyone else's schedule even now.
They beat the laws of physics?
I'm more behind the times than I thought.
They beat the laws of physics?
I'm more behind the times than I thought.
And yet the "laws of physics" are in no way related to "someone else's/thing's schedule", so perhaps you are.
In comparison to public transport that keep their set schedules and routes and so are an issue in terms of personal flexibility versus personally owned cars. Into the balance for many comes the issue of initial cost of purchase, insurance and for more densely occupied urban areas, storage where ride share can offer value. (the crack potential would no doubt be variable much as it is in your own car). Much like any other town car a system would take the travel time from the charge station into account to arrive at the requested time. Preferable to the scheduled mass public transport I would judge.
For those that absolutely MUST have a vehicle at their immediate disposal 24/7? Private vehicles remain the choice. For those seeing the additional expense as justified at any rate.
You say that a ride share doesn't limit you to someone else's schedule. So, somehow, the four other people riding with you will be going to exactly the same place as you and even leaving from your front door, every day!
Some kind of magical temporal displacement, perhaps.
You say that a ride share doesn't limit you to someone else's schedule. So, somehow, the four other people riding with you will be going to exactly the same place as you and even leaving from your front door, every day!
Some kind of magical temporal displacement, perhaps.
"Car sharing" might have been a better choice then: I'm referring to the Zipcar etc. model where users pick up a system owned car as needed. I cited Bikeshares as well: that's where people use bikes on an as needed basis then return them to a storage station located at multiple points within a city. Paris has one of those, NYC, any number of other places.
It's not carpooling.
Here's the NYC system for bikes: http://www.citibikenyc.com
And one for cars:
http://www.zipcar.com
The Paris bikeshare system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vélib'
I've looked in detail at Zipcar. It's a very limiting and flawed system for many reasons. It's comparable in cost to an expensive taxi, but much less convenient.
I do look forward to a future of autonomous vehicles, since roads are littered with careless and distracted drivers. I'll never be comfortable with the car sharing idea. Sharing shopping carts at stores is enough of a disease exchange to put me off the idea. Imagine stepping into a shared vehicle after someone just changed their baby's diaper, or someone puked or cigarettes are everywhere. Not for me.
I do look forward to a future of autonomous vehicles, since roads are littered with careless and distracted drivers. I'll never be comfortable with the car sharing idea. Sharing shopping carts at stores is enough of a disease exchange to put me off the idea. Imagine stepping into a shared vehicle after someone just changed their baby's diaper, or someone puked or cigarettes are everywhere. Not for me.
Since everyone's credit card will be on file any cleaning from such abuse will get directly charged: which would go a long ways to subdue such.
Living in a rural area the convenience of having my own bike and car is apparent and I have both, for a city for daily chores not so much: once I get to my destination what to do with the thing? parking is expensive and no matter the size of the locks and chains a bike is an expensive item to leave unattended on a street (at least mine is, city friends do tend to have "beaters" for that sort of thing). Yet with my directing the vehicle I can get to a lot more places a lot more directly than the fixed routes and schedules of subways and busses which I submit is where they could compete with private cars since it's that freedom component mass public transportation is most vulnerable versus a private car.
As to the germaphobic aspects, there's always the ubiquitous sanitary wipes, which have long been at dispensers near the grocery carts around here... the steering wheel being the main culprit for a shared car (outside of the more autonomous vehicle anyway, then you "run" it from your iPhone app).
Bottom line is were Apple having a project I agree with those that say they can't compete with BMW etc. I'm thinking then that they won't, they'll compete with busses and subways.