That's an interesting, if subtle, point, sog35. Jet aircraft have had autopilot for decades, and auto-landing for a good while too. But one immediate difference I can see is that an auto-driven aircraft does not need to dodge pedestrians. And once it's on the ground, it doesn't even need to avoid other aircraft since AFAIK the system turns off at the end of the runway. Perhaps there are more recent developments though.
Personally, I tend to agree with another here, who suggested that the NDA with CNWS was just a decoy to divert attention while they test out something elsewhere. Did anyone ever figure out what google's barges were for? Shits n giggles?
I don't think they're getting in the car business. I think they are working with a car company to create an autonomous car or cars that drive themselves.
Frankly I'm not sure I want a computer driven car. Or we'll have cars that can be hacked.
what planet are you on...cars currently sold are hack-able (search Jeep Cherokee, Corvette).
As far as I can see nothing to substantiate 'self-driving'.
It would of course be a complete failure if Apple introduced a self-driving car.
All the stories about this Apple connection miss an important fact... This location is not just for Autonomous Vehicle testing, it is also for Connected Vehicle testing. It seems to me any car with CarPlay is knocking on the door as a CV. It makes more sense for Apple to be connecting your car than to build it. They may well build one, but they are already working on connecting them. I would fully expect them to build a non-AV car first too. Add the AV to the platform after you have successfully put a car on the road.
agree with the sog... I never doubted that Apple would at least investigate the possibility of making a car. Cars are now computers on wheels and Apple has almost all the expertise needed...interface, design, material engineering, battery/energy management, software, hardware, etc. what little they don't have they can buy.
People should take Apple at it's word...it is a technology company that explores the intersection of the humanities with technology, after a phone and watch what else fits that mold...our cars?
Tesla cars are high margin products (30 plus %?) and I think Apple is pissed off with their limelight. Apple is scrapping for a fight to show the bedwetters of WS and the doomsayers that they are wrong.
Baloney! The electric car options today suck. There are three major issues.
One: the software systems are rudimentary at best.
Two: battery life is terrible. This is perhaps the place Apple can contribute the most with to masssive on hand cash.
Three: The Cars are to small. If you stand 6 ft + the machines are down right Claustrophobic.
They have spent too much of the past, working as hard as they can just so Tim could walk out on stage and keep saying, "It's the the thinnest iPhone EVER!". (whoopty-
Well at one time that was all the cash they had to do anything with. Now Apple has billions in surplus funds.
Should have bought all of Detroit back in 2009. Now, they really are going to be playing catch-up.
Non sense! Detroit has yet to deliver a viable electric vehicle and certainly not a smart one. Tesla is the only company to really come close to delivering a modern electric vehicle and it has machine that has a long ways to go.
Feel good. Apple is dominos well right now that they almost have to invest in something new to help grow the company. New here means dramatically different businesses. There is only so much they can do wth computing as the gating factor is often improvements in technologies they have limited control over.
If Apple really thinks it can revolutionize the car industry, then yes give it a shot. If they want to get into the car business because they think that is where the growth will be,
Here is where I have a problem, a successful car could result in huge growth for Apple. Consider the size of Ford, Toyota and the like. The only difference here is that these companies have a long history of aggressive completion. Apple will move into a competitive landscape it is simply not familiar with. This is a reasonable cause for concern.
[/Quote]
that is not a good enough reason. It means Apple's DNA has changed.
[/quote]
Again more non senses. If they deliver a reliable car with good human factors then the have the potential to overwhelm the current market leaders.
I theorize that Apple only went to BMW so that AppleInsider would stop using that godawful image of the Marc Newson car on every Apple Car story¡
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! ARE YOU CAPABLE OF LEARNING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ARTICLE AND AN ACTUAL PRODUCT ANNOUNCEMENT!
If I were heading this project that would be a key component I'd be looking into. It's simply safer to look ahead of you then down or away. I would also be looking into making the steering wheel touch-sensitive, and do that typical Appley solution where they take multiple, complex existing elements and make them into a seamlessly integrated service that idiots will then say, "Well, that was obvious." For example, it will probably take a company like Apple to work out all the logistics for figuring out a safe and secure way to integrate autonomous automobiles into an existed wetware-controlled environment.
I think pdq2 and solipsismY are on the money in this thread. The story was broken in the Guardian who have a reputation for good journalism and also publicly and overtly printing their retractions when they get it wrong. So this is better than click-bait and whilst I doubt my post will shift either side of the debate from their entrenched positions the evidence that something related to cars that goes beyond a stereo replacement is becoming difficult to ignore. That is why Pdq2's observation and solipsismy's analysis are so relevant - this would offer a route to a market angle that fits with apple's expertise and would avoid the all-or-nothing leap of self driving cars. I'm not saying anything is certain but dismissing a guardian report as click bait is disingenuous - there is good and interesting debate to be had here amongst the ranting.
Actually this could be the new iMacs. Think about some of the sci-fi moves over the last decade.
The new Apple(4K)TV¡
Seriously though, I do like those 21:9-ish aspect ratios with the 27" iMac display heights, and, for me, that would be great if it were curved, but is that a good fit for those that need graphics to be perfectly represented to do their work? I suppose if those people are too few to consider and/or they offer it up as an additional option that could work.
edit: BREAKING NEWS: Samsung just read wizard69's post and will be coming out with the iSam Edge which looks nearly identical to the current iMac except the screen wraps around the sides of the case. No word on how the **** that will be useful to anyone.
Not a troll at all. Been here a lot longer than you. (and have always enjoyed most of your posts BTW). As an Apple based professional, I call it like I see it with Apple. I have been doing so since the early 1990's.
I actually just went and looked at my post history curious as to what you might see in them that sets you off. I got nuthin (?)
On the other hand, you might consider some medication to help with your anger.
There was no anger in my post. Just trying to wrap my head around the absurdity of thinking Apple shouldn't bother with a car anymore (or any other new project or product) because it missed some magical, impossible launch window you just concocted out of thin air.
It's great that you're an "Apple based professional". Doesn't mean I can't call you out on absurd statements. Oh, and that's for your advice on medication. Have never taken any, and don't plan to. You won't find a single person that knows me that will define me as an angry person. But again, thanks. It's too bad you can't stick to the topic instead of these kinds of attacks.
"the absurdity of thinking Apple shouldn't bother with a car anymore"
Sure. Call me out on my absurd statements. Just please use one that I actually made, and not one you concocted in your in your non-angry mind.
Yeah, ok.
according to you, I'm 'childish', full of 'bullshit', and a 'troll'. Yet, you're not angry, and I am the one who is on the attack.
If they bought Tesla, they'd be taking on a problem. Tesla is losing a lot of money.
1) How far into debt is Telsa?
2a) We need to consider, assuming they are wanting to get into the car design and selling business, if it's worse than "taking on [the] problem" or building a car from scratch. Sure, they have Tesla's patents in which to use, but Tesla is already a Silicon Valley neighbor, with an Apple-like pursuit and following, and may have worked out innumerable issues that Apple could push forward, thus saving themselves a great deal of time and money. And if that money saved is greater than Telsa's cost plus debt it may very well be advantageous.
2b) However, if Telsa is such a great buy, why hasn't Google et al. bought them out?
2a) We need to consider, assuming they are wanting to get into the car design and selling business, if it's worse than "taking on [the] problem" or building a car from scratch. Sure, they have Tesla's patents in which to use, but Tesla is already a Silicon Valley neighbor, with an Apple-like pursuit and following, and may have worked out innumerable issues that Apple could push forward, thus saving themselves a great deal of time and money. And if that money saved is greater than Telsa's cost plus debt it may very well be advantageous.
2b) However, if Telsa is such a great buy, why hasn't Google et al. bought them out?
"The Silicon Valley automaker is losing more than $4,000 on every Model S electric sedan it sells, using its reckoning of operating losses, and it burned $359 million in cash last quarter in a bull market for luxury vehicles. The company on Wednesday cut its production targets for this year and next. Chief Executive Elon Musk said he's considering options to raise more capital, and didn't rule out selling more stock."
Their problem is cost of materials, plus an inability to achieve scale to make a profit on each vehicle. They don't even make their own batteries. Their drive train (if I recall correctly) is being licensed to Mercedes-Benz, because it is well engineered.
"The Silicon Valley automaker is losing more than $4,000 on every Model S electric sedan it sells, using its reckoning of operating losses, and it burned $359 million in cash last quarter in a bull market for luxury vehicles. The company on Wednesday cut its production targets for this year and next. Chief Executive Elon Musk said he's considering options to raise more capital, and didn't rule out selling more stock."
Their problem is cost of materials, plus an inability to achieve scale to make a profit on each vehicle. They don't even make their own batteries. Their drive train (if I recall correctly) is being licensed to Mercedes-Benz, because it is well engineered.
I see opportunity there for Apple. If we were talking about a bad or obsolete design like, say, buying Blackberry, I don't see what Apple could do with that; but if we're talking about finding a way of taking good design (so good that even Mercedes is licensing) and finding ways to reduce costs by making it more efficient, then I can absolutely see why Apple's chocolate would find its way into Telsa's peanut butter.
I see opportunity there for Apple. If we were talking about a bad or obsolete design like, say, buying Blackberry, I don't see what Apple could do with that; but if we're talking about finding a way of taking good design (so good that even Mercedes is licensing) and finding ways to reduce costs by making it more efficient, then I can absolutely see why Apple's chocolate would find its way into Telsa's peanut butter.
Maybe a licensing deal for certain IP would be in order, but I don't think them buying the company would be a smart move. Plus, it really depends on what Apple could be planning to offer as a significant product differentiator. One so attractive that all other cars would seem obsolete in comparison?
All the stories about this Apple connection miss an important fact... This location is not just for Autonomous Vehicle testing, it is also for Connected Vehicle testing. It seems to me any car with CarPlay is knocking on the door as a CV. It makes more sense for Apple to be connecting your car than to build it. They may well build one, but they are already working on connecting them. I would fully expect them to build a non-AV car first too. Add the AV to the platform after you have successfully put a car on the road.
I think you are on the right track but you need to think further ahead. The future is Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication. The US government and the EU are seriously pursuing this technology as a way to greatly reduce vehicle deaths, while also improving traffic flow (lower gas consumption, lower insurance rates, etc.). This field is developing (the standards/specs are not finalized), so Apple can get in the ground floor, which I believe they are doing, based on these Apple car rumors.
Comments
I'd like a quadcopter autopilot car instead of an obsolete land-based one.
do you fly in passenger planes?
That's an interesting, if subtle, point, sog35. Jet aircraft have had autopilot for decades, and auto-landing for a good while too. But one immediate difference I can see is that an auto-driven aircraft does not need to dodge pedestrians. And once it's on the ground, it doesn't even need to avoid other aircraft since AFAIK the system turns off at the end of the runway. Perhaps there are more recent developments though.
Personally, I tend to agree with another here, who suggested that the NDA with CNWS was just a decoy to divert attention while they test out something elsewhere. Did anyone ever figure out what google's barges were for? Shits n giggles?
what planet are you on...cars currently sold are hack-able (search Jeep Cherokee, Corvette).
All the stories about this Apple connection miss an important fact... This location is not just for Autonomous Vehicle testing, it is also for Connected Vehicle testing. It seems to me any car with CarPlay is knocking on the door as a CV. It makes more sense for Apple to be connecting your car than to build it. They may well build one, but they are already working on connecting them. I would fully expect them to build a non-AV car first too. Add the AV to the platform after you have successfully put a car on the road.
People should take Apple at it's word...it is a technology company that explores the intersection of the humanities with technology, after a phone and watch what else fits that mold...our cars?
Tesla cars are high margin products (30 plus %?) and I think Apple is pissed off with their limelight. Apple is scrapping for a fight to show the bedwetters of WS and the doomsayers that they are wrong.
Plus they are bored.
One: the software systems are rudimentary at best.
Two: battery life is terrible. This is perhaps the place Apple can contribute the most with to masssive on hand cash.
Three: The Cars are to small. If you stand 6 ft + the machines are down right Claustrophobic. Well at one time that was all the cash they had to do anything with. Now Apple has billions in surplus funds.
Non sense! Detroit has yet to deliver a viable electric vehicle and certainly not a smart one. Tesla is the only company to really come close to delivering a modern electric vehicle and it has machine that has a long ways to go.
[/Quote]
that is not a good enough reason. It means Apple's DNA has changed.
[/quote]
Again more non senses. If they deliver a reliable car with good human factors then the have the potential to overwhelm the current market leaders.
Actually this could be the new iMacs. Think about some of the sci-fi moves over the last decade.
Actually this could be the new iMacs. Think about some of the sci-fi moves over the last decade.
Curved widescreen iMac..? Possibly.
I think pdq2 and solipsismY are on the money in this thread. The story was broken in the Guardian who have a reputation for good journalism and also publicly and overtly printing their retractions when they get it wrong. So this is better than click-bait and whilst I doubt my post will shift either side of the debate from their entrenched positions the evidence that something related to cars that goes beyond a stereo replacement is becoming difficult to ignore. That is why Pdq2's observation and solipsismy's analysis are so relevant - this would offer a route to a market angle that fits with apple's expertise and would avoid the all-or-nothing leap of self driving cars. I'm not saying anything is certain but dismissing a guardian report as click bait is disingenuous - there is good and interesting debate to be had here amongst the ranting.
The new Apple(4K)TV¡
Seriously though, I do like those 21:9-ish aspect ratios with the 27" iMac display heights, and, for me, that would be great if it were curved, but is that a good fit for those that need graphics to be perfectly represented to do their work? I suppose if those people are too few to consider and/or they offer it up as an additional option that could work.
edit: BREAKING NEWS: Samsung just read wizard69's post and will be coming out with the iSam Edge which looks nearly identical to the current iMac except the screen wraps around the sides of the case. No word on how the **** that will be useful to anyone.
Not a troll at all. Been here a lot longer than you. (and have always enjoyed most of your posts BTW). As an Apple based professional, I call it like I see it with Apple. I have been doing so since the early 1990's.
I actually just went and looked at my post history curious as to what you might see in them that sets you off. I got nuthin (?)
On the other hand, you might consider some medication to help with your anger.
There was no anger in my post. Just trying to wrap my head around the absurdity of thinking Apple shouldn't bother with a car anymore (or any other new project or product) because it missed some magical, impossible launch window you just concocted out of thin air.
It's great that you're an "Apple based professional". Doesn't mean I can't call you out on absurd statements. Oh, and that's for your advice on medication. Have never taken any, and don't plan to. You won't find a single person that knows me that will define me as an angry person. But again, thanks. It's too bad you can't stick to the topic instead of these kinds of attacks.
"the absurdity of thinking Apple shouldn't bother with a car anymore"
Sure. Call me out on my absurd statements. Just please use one that I actually made, and not one you concocted in your in your non-angry mind.
Yeah, ok.
according to you, I'm 'childish', full of 'bullshit', and a 'troll'. Yet, you're not angry, and I am the one who is on the attack.
Got it...
The buzz about Apple buying Tesla is now really the buzz that Apple will be another Tesla but not just for fans of $100k electric cars.
They're going to build and either partner with someone like Porsche, BMW, VW/Audi or create a new brand like Tesla.
The buzz about Apple buying Tesla is now really the buzz that Apple will be another Tesla but not just for fans of $100k electric cars.
If they bought Tesla, they'd be taking on a problem. Tesla is losing a lot of money.
1) How far into debt is Telsa?
2a) We need to consider, assuming they are wanting to get into the car design and selling business, if it's worse than "taking on [the] problem" or building a car from scratch. Sure, they have Tesla's patents in which to use, but Tesla is already a Silicon Valley neighbor, with an Apple-like pursuit and following, and may have worked out innumerable issues that Apple could push forward, thus saving themselves a great deal of time and money. And if that money saved is greater than Telsa's cost plus debt it may very well be advantageous.
2b) However, if Telsa is such a great buy, why hasn't Google et al. bought them out?
1) How far into debt is Telsa?
2a) We need to consider, assuming they are wanting to get into the car design and selling business, if it's worse than "taking on [the] problem" or building a car from scratch. Sure, they have Tesla's patents in which to use, but Tesla is already a Silicon Valley neighbor, with an Apple-like pursuit and following, and may have worked out innumerable issues that Apple could push forward, thus saving themselves a great deal of time and money. And if that money saved is greater than Telsa's cost plus debt it may very well be advantageous.
2b) However, if Telsa is such a great buy, why hasn't Google et al. bought them out?
"The Silicon Valley automaker is losing more than $4,000 on every Model S electric sedan it sells, using its reckoning of operating losses, and it burned $359 million in cash last quarter in a bull market for luxury vehicles. The company on Wednesday cut its production targets for this year and next. Chief Executive Elon Musk said he's considering options to raise more capital, and didn't rule out selling more stock."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/10/tesla-burns-cash-loses-more-than-4000-on-every-car-sold.html
They are bleeding money like crazy.
(Story from February of this year): http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/02/11/tesla-earnings-sales-stock/23240599/
Their problem is cost of materials, plus an inability to achieve scale to make a profit on each vehicle. They don't even make their own batteries. Their drive train (if I recall correctly) is being licensed to Mercedes-Benz, because it is well engineered.
I see opportunity there for Apple. If we were talking about a bad or obsolete design like, say, buying Blackberry, I don't see what Apple could do with that; but if we're talking about finding a way of taking good design (so good that even Mercedes is licensing) and finding ways to reduce costs by making it more efficient, then I can absolutely see why Apple's chocolate would find its way into Telsa's peanut butter.
I see opportunity there for Apple. If we were talking about a bad or obsolete design like, say, buying Blackberry, I don't see what Apple could do with that; but if we're talking about finding a way of taking good design (so good that even Mercedes is licensing) and finding ways to reduce costs by making it more efficient, then I can absolutely see why Apple's chocolate would find its way into Telsa's peanut butter.
Maybe a licensing deal for certain IP would be in order, but I don't think them buying the company would be a smart move. Plus, it really depends on what Apple could be planning to offer as a significant product differentiator. One so attractive that all other cars would seem obsolete in comparison?
All the stories about this Apple connection miss an important fact... This location is not just for Autonomous Vehicle testing, it is also for Connected Vehicle testing. It seems to me any car with CarPlay is knocking on the door as a CV. It makes more sense for Apple to be connecting your car than to build it. They may well build one, but they are already working on connecting them. I would fully expect them to build a non-AV car first too. Add the AV to the platform after you have successfully put a car on the road.
I think you are on the right track but you need to think further ahead. The future is Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication. The US government and the EU are seriously pursuing this technology as a way to greatly reduce vehicle deaths, while also improving traffic flow (lower gas consumption, lower insurance rates, etc.). This field is developing (the standards/specs are not finalized), so Apple can get in the ground floor, which I believe they are doing, based on these Apple car rumors.
This is a good article explaining V2V.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/176093-v2v-what-are-vehicle-to-vehicle-communications-and-how-does-it-work
Edit: another good article explaining that V2V will be a US government mandate at some time in the future.
http://www.wired.com/2014/02/feds-v2v/