Apple has a lot of distance to catch up to Telsa. They are about to release their 4th Car and have built a large charging network across the world. Titan just sounds like a money drain. Siri still needs great improvement (I didn't hear anything in the iPhone announcement to indicate a better Siri). Apple has no competitor to Amazon Echo. The new iPhone 7 only had small incremental improvements over the 6 and 6S (The 7Plus's camera should have been on both models ).
Apple definitely needs a new CEO. One with more vision and less Carpool Karaoke.
Respectfully disagree. The whole Beats acquisition was lambasted at the time and still is by the losers over on MR. But Beats gave Apple a vital component to not only building a robust music streaming service, but rebuild their music image in the world. And they got the Beats hardware business. As time goes on Beats seem to be steadily improving their products and providing customers with a range of audio wearable options. It's also a great Brand. It's positioned in a very clever way with clear marketing and iconography. It was a great acquisition and a financially sound investment of $3B for Apple.
I also think the 7 is a great phone. The low-light capabilities are a great improvement. Water resistance. More reliable Home button. Better display (I find the SE display well good enough already). And the processor is a monster and battery life has improved. Also personally never loved the audio jack connector—I prefer Lighting and Bluetooth is only getting better now thanks to the W1. I do wish Beats new products used Lighting for charging though. I really dislike Micro-USB. That's another matter.
Apple can add their software to cars forever thanks to CarPlay, but it's not in Apple's nature to be happy adding things on to other cars. Every time Apple thinks of entering a new market there are doubters ad haters. Tesla has a huge lead no doubt, but their design is lacking company-wide. Their car design language is pretty weak and something as important as their iconography and logos are amateurish at best. Apple has 1,000 on this project and a huge amount of money to bankroll it. I certainly wouldn't bet against them. If they released a really beautiful car with an intuitive user experience that was reliable but technologically behind Tesla it'd still sell by the millions, because it's Apple and people know and trust the Apple brand. The company has to brach out. Car and TV are good areas to choose IMO. Health and wearables are already on track.
Look at their stores. Look at Apple watch. Look at iPhone business. Look at Macs by the end of this year. Apple are solid and Tim is doing a fine, but imperfect job. I really can't think of anyone else who'd better run Apple. And I like that Tim is socially and globally conscious and stands for things and sticks up for stuff when he feels it's right. He has contributed greatly to Apple over the years, but if his only contribution was the successful fighting off the FBI I'm glad he's there.
I'm glad that Apple did due diligence on a car, but now hopeful that it will focus on in-car technology as opposed to manufacturing the entire device.
I still see them producing an entire Car. And I believe they have the talent and the taste to do a nice one. Add-on software is just not at Apple's core. "The whole banana", as Steve would say. Apple need to control the entire experience and has some of the best designers in the world. I can wait to see what they do. The mere thought of it has other companies shaking in their boots.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Apple excels at the combination of hardware, software and services. If they don't think they can create that magic here I think they should shut the whole thing down. All the big car companies are far down the road of autonomous and self driving vehicles. Even Uber is testing vehicles. What do they need Apple for? To provide a nice looking dashboard UI?
What confuses me is if Apple has decided to shift focus to providing software to existing manufacturers why did Cook put a former hardware executive in charge of the project?
Eventually Apple will give up on car/autonomous driving, because there is a Tesla. Shutting down now would be a smart thing to do, but they can't do that yet. That's like saying "I was wrong, go find another CEO".
People look at Tesla as if they're the holy grail for the future of the automobile.
How are they not? What Tesla has done as a start up has changed the future of the automotive industry. They are now following Tesla's lead into the future.
Lots of companies have been working on autonomous driving. Just because Tesla has been making a big noise and being public about it doesn't necessarily mean that they are at the forefront, "...lead[ing] into the future". We all know know that there's the Google approach to shouting from rooftops about the latest and the greatest, and Apple's more subdued approach of waiting until they actually have something close to perfect. The auto industry is no different.
There's no guarantee Tesla will even be around in 5-10 years. The company just sought out another 1/2 billion in new loans. They seem to be teetering on the edge of failure more often and if they miss their deliveries or sales goals too often, they're toast. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that Musk is working like a man possessed to make Tesla and SpaceX work, but he's rushing it because he has to rush it. He has almost no cushion.
No guarantee, yes. But I wouldn't bet against Tesla. He took out some new big loans but the company is far in the lead in the electric car market and that market is set to explode with the launch of the Model 3. All up side. They'll also be selling people home batteries and solar panels to charge their car and power their home. They are well positioned.
[Tesla] have built a large charging network across the world.
What a ridiculous, laughable assertion. Stopped reading right there.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Apple excels at the combination of hardware, software and services. If they don't think they can create that magic here I think they should shut the whole thing down. All the big car companies are far down the road of autonomous and self driving vehicles. Even Uber is testing vehicles. What do they need Apple for? To provide a nice looking dashboard UI?
What confuses me is if Apple has decided to shift focus to providing software to existing manufacturers why did Cook put a former hardware executive in charge of the project?
Eventually Apple will give up on car/autonomous driving, because there is a Tesla. Shutting down now would be a smart thing to do, but they can't do that yet. That's like saying "I was wrong, go find another CEO".
People look at Tesla as if they're the holy grail for the future of the automobile.
How are they not? What Tesla has done as a start up has changed the future of the automotive industry. They are now following Tesla's lead into the future.
Lots of companies have been working on autonomous driving. Just because Tesla has been making a big noise and being public about it doesn't necessarily mean that they are at the forefront, "...lead[ing] into the future". We all know know that there's the Google approach to shouting from a rooftops about the latest and the greatest, and Apple's more subdued approach of waiting until they actually have something close to perfect. The auto industry is no different.
So Tesla is simply louder than the big car companies when it comes to designing a quality electric car that looks great, is fast, and has great range? Tesla is simply the vocal of the giant car companies when it comes to using modern technology in the cockpit, like a giant IPS display for displaying data to cab? Tesla is simply louder than the giant car companies when it comes to implementing an Autopilot service that allows for useful autonomous, safe driving?
Can you remind me again as to all these other companies and their products that have beaten Tesla and this apparent snake oil salesman that is Elon Musk to the punch at every time in making a truly modern automobile?
There's no guarantee Tesla will even be around in 5-10 years. The company just sought out another 1/2 billion in new loans. They seem to be teetering on the edge of failure more often and if they miss their deliveries or sales goals too often, they're toast. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that Musk is working like a man possessed to make Tesla and SpaceX work, but he's rushing it because he has to rush it. He has almost no cushion.
No guarantee, yes. But I wouldn't bet against Tesla. He took out some new big loans but the company is far in the lead in the electric car market and that market is set to explode with the launch of the Model 3. All up side. They'll also be selling people home batteries and solar panels to charge their car and power their home. They are well positioned.
[Tesla] have built a large charging network across the world.
What a ridiculous, laughable assertion. Stopped reading right there.
What's ridiculous about it? There are 703 Supercharger stations with 4,343 Superchargers on 4 continents: North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It's not everywhere in the world, but it's across the world, in the same vein that Apple Stores across the world—only 486 of those and they had a much longer head start. You might as well say that McDonald's being world-wide is a laughable assertion because there isn't a restaurant on the summit of Everest (there is a Starbucks¡).
[Tesla] have built a large charging network across the world.
What a ridiculous, laughable assertion. Stopped reading right there.
What's ridiculous about it? There are 703 Supercharger stations with 4,343 Superchargers on 4 continents: North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It's not everywhere in the world, but it's across the world, in the same vein that Apple Stores across the world—only 486 of those and they had a much longer head start. You might as well say that McDonald's being world-wide is a laughable assertion because there isn't a restaurant on the summit of Everest (there is a Starbucks¡).
There's nothing ridiculous about it. Its charging network is a phenomenal advantage.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Producing an electric car changes nothing, even if the industry went upside down.
There are some very, very big conglomerates that have gentlemen agreements between them that makes the ME VS ALL approach to an auto-product not worth it at all. I'm not saying that Apple couldn't make a fantastic car, superior on every metric to any other mass market car. They could, as time goes on it's all about electronics and software and supply chain, and no one can touch Apple on those parameters.
What I'm saying is: Unlike the cellphone industry, where Apple managed to get the support of big, big players like Google + AT&T in order to have a chance to sell and show a great product, there's no way in hell that Apple can hold a candle Vs FIAT + Daimler + Volkswagen + Exxon + Shell + PetroChina and so on.
Apple should and will completely ignore cars. More than ever, cars are toys and will become toys to petrolheads like me (911R, please). The real goldmine, the real issue, the real treasure, is transportation.
Apple should focus on Buses, Trains, Trucks and so on in order to have a big, global level impact. They should make a fully electric, modern bus that people actually want to use, and sell it to companies and countries (like Phone Carriers). Same for trains and trucks.
Cars are already a liability on big, with high population density, cities. The trillion dollars opportunity is transportation. Change and modernize that.
I'm amazed that only one of the comments, this one by MacBAir, hints at the real future.
The car of the future is already here. It's called a Smartphone. Think about it. If you were to clear the slate, look at the modern world and ask yourself, how would I design a transportation system given existing and soon-to-come technologies, like autonomous driving, real-time availability scheduling. Route optimization, etc, no way you'd conclude there should be a car, or two, in every garage. You'd create a technology/software infrastructure to allow individuals to call up the transportation they need (car, truck, van, etc) on-demand. And it would show up wherever they are, or wherever they are going to be, when it's needed. You'd be able to schedule transportation in advance, like the airport shuttles of yesteryear that you'd schedule a week in advance. Über pretty much killed that business, I expect.
Or schedule recurring transportation, such as to take the kids to soccer practice and back. In this case the transportation technology system might suggest a shared van service, that knows the schedules for local after school sports practice and offers up and constructs pick-up and drop-off routes based upon participation; a regular route to gather up the kids and deliver them. Accommodation for security will be considered when children are being transported without accompanying parents, such as real-time tracking and a constant open line of communication, both audio and video streaming from the vehicle to parent's smartphones.
The specific vehicle that arrives can be determined by number of passengers, whether you'll be transporting something large or just yourself, etc. The notion of owning, maintaining, accommodating parking requirements of, insuring, etc, a personal vehicle, for many people, has already begun to feel like 'the old paridigm.'
To create this infrastructure, you need route optimization software, that incorporates the real-time whereabouts of all vehicles in a local fleet. You need scheduling software. You need to deal with remaining charge/range of each vehicle out in service to know when a vehicle can accommodate an additional requested or scheduled route without running out of juice. You need to accommodate stand-by, where the vehicle drops someone off at a location and is requested to stand-by for an indeterminate time while the person goes into a store or bank to run an errand. In short, you need a very sophisticated set of interacting technologies to accommodate smooth operation of a transportation network that provides near immediate responsiveness to a population's constantly fluctuating needs.
If I were Tim Cook, this is exactly the way I'd envision the future, and this is what I'd set out to create. It's not so much about constructing vehicles yourself, but about getting sign-in from all vehicle manufacturers such that their vehicles can work within the envisioned transportation network. And that means that people who do own vehicles could lend them into their local autonomous transportation fleet in order to earn money (this has already been suggested by Musk and makes sense for a maker of vehicles to accommodate, as it helps him sell more Teslas direct to consumers). It means that new rental fleets will simply be staged in large metro areas, with one or more depots that the vehicles come back to for recharging, maintenance, cleaning, etc. And that means that there's a path forward for the rental companies, because they already have such staging areas for their existing fleets. The big picture can be accommodated during a transition phase from the world we have today to a world where almost all transportation is shared and autonomous.
Extend this to trucking, inter-city bussing, etc, and the whole thing becomes a future that Apple could play a major role in developing. Without ever producing, on their own, a single vehicle.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Apple excels at the combination of hardware, software and services. If they don't think they can create that magic here I think they should shut the whole thing down. All the big car companies are far down the road of autonomous and self driving vehicles. Even Uber is testing vehicles. What do they need Apple for? To provide a nice looking dashboard UI?
What confuses me is if Apple has decided to shift focus to providing software to existing manufacturers why did Cook put a former hardware executive in charge of the project?
Eventually Apple will give up on car/autonomous driving, because there is a Tesla. Shutting down now would be a smart thing to do, but they can't do that yet. That's like saying "I was wrong, go find another CEO".
People look at Tesla as if they're the holy grail for the future of the automobile.
How are they not? What Tesla has done as a start up has changed the future of the automotive industry. They are now following Tesla's lead into the future.
Lots of companies have been working on autonomous driving. Just because Tesla has been making a big noise and being public about it doesn't necessarily mean that they are at the forefront, "...lead[ing] into the future". We all know know that there's the Google approach to shouting from a rooftops about the latest and the greatest, and Apple's more subdued approach of waiting until they actually have something close to perfect. The auto industry is no different.
So Tesla is simply louder than the big car companies when it comes to designing a quality electric car that looks great, is fast, and has great range? Tesla is simply the vocal of the giant car companies when it comes to using modern technology in the cockpit, like a giant IPS display for displaying data to cab? Tesla is simply louder than the giant car companies when it comes to implementing an Autopilot service that allows for useful autonomous, safe driving?
Can you remind me again as to all these other companies and their products that have beaten Tesla and this apparent snake oil salesman that is Elon Musk to the punch at every time in making a truly modern automobile?
You must remember that the major auto manufacturers are beholden to big oil whereas Tesla is not. Moves that jeopardize that relationship are done quietly, and slowly.
It seems, however, that Project Titan lacks that most basic of Apple qualities, as people working on the project said they are not sure what, exactly, would set Apple Car apart from similar vehicles currently in development by would-be competitors, the NYT report said.
What's wrong with cars today? And what could we be doing to change it?
1. Too many cars on the roads, creating jams. - Uber car pool? 2. Too many cars not in use, is a waste. - Uber car pool? 3. Too many cars with one person, (creating jams). - Uber car pool? 4. Most cars fuelled by phossile fuel. Emissions. - Electric? 5. Good cars are for the rich, not helping at a broad scale. - Uber car pool? 6. Batteries of electric vehicles, are they really that environmentally friendly to produce? - Nano Flow Cell perhaps? 7. Autonomous tech is perhaps too immature to work under extreme or unforeseen conditions: rain, snow, mud, old roads, old towns, protesters, countryside, road blocks, no proper roads, places with bad or non existing map data? - Nail it! Until nailed, only authorised roads can be driven autonomously.. 8. Difficult to find a parking spot, (due to too many inactive cars) - Uber car pool.
I've heard some startups working on electric autonomous cars that you don't own, but share in a car pool and access like Uber. This would be contributing. But more one-passenger cars on the roads won't change or contribute in any way. It's only gonna make things worse. So what if the make a really beautiful wonder, if they don't contribute to cleaning up the infrastructure car mess, it's gonna make things worse. the strongest indication we have is Apple's partnership with Didi.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Apple excels at the combination of hardware, software and services. If they don't think they can create that magic here I think they should shut the whole thing down. All the big car companies are far down the road of autonomous and self driving vehicles. Even Uber is testing vehicles. What do they need Apple for? To provide a nice looking dashboard UI?
What confuses me is if Apple has decided to shift focus to providing software to existing manufacturers why did Cook put a former hardware executive in charge of the project?
Eventually Apple will give up on car/autonomous driving, because there is a Tesla. Shutting down now would be a smart thing to do, but they can't do that yet. That's like saying "I was wrong, go find another CEO".
People look at Tesla as if they're the holy grail for the future of the automobile.
How are they not? What Tesla has done as a start up has changed the future of the automotive industry. They are now following Tesla's lead into the future.
Lots of companies have been working on autonomous driving. Just because Tesla has been making a big noise and being public about it doesn't necessarily mean that they are at the forefront, "...lead[ing] into the future". We all know know that there's the Google approach to shouting from a rooftops about the latest and the greatest, and Apple's more subdued approach of waiting until they actually have something close to perfect. The auto industry is no different.
So Tesla is simply louder than the big car companies when it comes to designing a quality electric car that looks great, is fast, and has great range? Tesla is simply the vocal of the giant car companies when it comes to using modern technology in the cockpit, like a giant IPS display for displaying data to cab? Tesla is simply louder than the giant car companies when it comes to implementing an Autopilot service that allows for useful autonomous, safe driving?
Can you remind me again as to all these other companies and their products that have beaten Tesla and this apparent snake oil salesman that is Elon Musk to the punch at every time in making a truly modern automobile?
You must remember that the major auto manufacturers are beholden to big oil whereas Tesla is not. Moves that jeopardize that relationship are done quietly, and slowly.
1) Oil companies are beholden to those that use oil, not the other way around. If Ford had the technology Tesla did today a decade ago they would had it on the market because that would push them ahead of all the other automotive companies.
2) Jets use fuel and they still have an autopilot option. Are you saying that jet fuel isn't made from petroleum?
Google has been on the record saying they want to partner with existing auto companies primarily. Where are the doom and gloom articles how their project is falling apart?
AFAIK that's always been Google's plan, build the software and let someone else build the cars. I don't think that changed. What might have changed were any plans to use it primarily for "driverless taxis". From what I've read lately they're shopping the software to various manufacturers instead of solely Uber-type uses. But yeah Google is still searching for the right market too. FWIW Apple hasn't ever said they were working on autonomous cars either. It's all supposition that they ever planned to.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Apple excels at the combination of hardware, software and services. If they don't think they can create that magic here I think they should shut the whole thing down. All the big car companies are far down the road of autonomous and self driving vehicles. Even Uber is testing vehicles. What do they need Apple for? To provide a nice looking dashboard UI?
What confuses me is if Apple has decided to shift focus to providing software to existing manufacturers why did Cook put a former hardware executive in charge of the project?
Eventually Apple will give up on car/autonomous driving, because there is a Tesla. Shutting down now would be a smart thing to do, but they can't do that yet. That's like saying "I was wrong, go find another CEO".
People look at Tesla as if they're the holy grail for the future of the automobile.
How are they not? What Tesla has done as a start up has changed the future of the automotive industry. They are now following Tesla's lead into the future.
Lots of companies have been working on autonomous driving. Just because Tesla has been making a big noise and being public about it doesn't necessarily mean that they are at the forefront, "...lead[ing] into the future". We all know know that there's the Google approach to shouting from a rooftops about the latest and the greatest, and Apple's more subdued approach of waiting until they actually have something close to perfect. The auto industry is no different.
So Tesla is simply louder than the big car companies when it comes to designing a quality electric car that looks great, is fast, and has great range? Tesla is simply the vocal of the giant car companies when it comes to using modern technology in the cockpit, like a giant IPS display for displaying data to cab? Tesla is simply louder than the giant car companies when it comes to implementing an Autopilot service that allows for useful autonomous, safe driving?
Can you remind me again as to all these other companies and their products that have beaten Tesla and this apparent snake oil salesman that is Elon Musk to the punch at every time in making a truly modern automobile?
Um.. This blog is about autonomous vehicles. My point is explicitly about autonomous vehicles.
I trust that whatever the fuck Apple is doing, they're making the right call, as they've gotten a shitload more insight into this than I do. Anyway, nothing is wasted time or $$. It's all part of the learning experience. There is no obvious "right" solution now- Apple just needs to keep working, and investing in this sector, and seeing where that takes them.
There's no guarantee Tesla will even be around in 5-10 years. The company just sought out another 1/2 billion in new loans. They seem to be teetering on the edge of failure more often and if they miss their deliveries or sales goals too often, they're toast. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that Musk is working like a man possessed to make Tesla and SpaceX work, but he's rushing it because he has to rush it. He has almost no cushion.
No guarantee, yes. But I wouldn't bet against Tesla. He took out some new big loans but the company is far in the lead in the electric car market and that market is set to explode with the launch of the Model 3. All up side. They'll also be selling people home batteries and solar panels to charge their car and power their home. They are well positioned.
[Tesla] have built a large charging network across the world.
What a ridiculous, laughable assertion. Stopped reading right there.
What's ridiculous about it? There are 703 Supercharger stations with 4,343 Superchargers on 4 continents: North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It's not everywhere in the world, but it's across the world, in the same vein that Apple Stores across the world—only 486 of those and they had a much longer head start. You might as well say that McDonald's being world-wide is a laughable assertion because there isn't a restaurant on the summit of Everest (there is a Starbucks¡).
Here's the map. I am not sure that it qualifies as "large network across the world." But I suppose it's in the eyes of the beholder.
I trust that whatever the fuck Apple is doing, they're making the right call, as they've gotten a shitload more insight into this than I do. Anyway, nothing is wasted time or $$. It's all part of the learning experience. There is no obvious "right" solution now- Apple just needs to keep working, and investing in this sector, and seeing where that takes them.
"Firing" != "Laying off", but this article uses the words interchangably.
Firing is triggered by the individual employee doing something wrong or being unable to do the job. Laying-off is triggered by the company eliminating the position, independent of who is in that position.
Apple's situation sounds like layoffs, so the headline is wrong.
Semantics, at the end of the day the employee is without a job.
No, there is a very big difference in terms of the root cause and what it might mean for Apple. If the employees were fired, there is no change for Apple because the issue was just individual performance. But if they were laid off, the root cause may be (a) Apple has moved in a new direction or (b) the R&D has reached a stage where a certain job category is no longer necessary.
You are right about them both affecting the employees the same way.
One reason Apple may not manufacture a car is that autonomous navigations is not restricted to only cars. Moreover there are all sorts of specialized vehicles in which Apple can contribute such as Medical Ambulances.
Vehicle OS will need to be infinitely scalable to support busses, trucks, trains, airplanes, space shuttles and spaceships etc...
1. The current roads and traffic control infrastructures will need to be updated to support autonomous vehicles. 2. Apple beacons will be instrumental in the new traffic infrastructure. 3. Apple Maps and SIRI will actually be instrumental in Apple vehicles. 4. Coherent navigation can provide much more accurate GPS. 5. Iris Engine and Iris Image Engine can use beacons instead of just computer vision.
This car project of their's seems to be a mess. Everybody seems to be working on autonomous electric vehicles nowadays, with many of these companies way ahead of Apple. There's nothing Apple can offer over anybody else. They should just cut their losses and mothball this money pit of a project.
This car project of their's seems to be a mess. Everybody seems to be working on autonomous electric vehicles nowadays, with many of these companies way ahead of Apple. There's nothing Apple can offer over anybody else. They should just cut their losses and mothball this money pit of a project.
That may be true, but I'd also argue that the R&D of any new product category is chaotic, it's just that we don't normally see it. And look at the AR space with Google Glass and the Microsoft solution... there's lots of experimentation but no guarantee of which will succeed commercially.
Comments
I also think the 7 is a great phone. The low-light capabilities are a great improvement. Water resistance. More reliable Home button. Better display (I find the SE display well good enough already). And the processor is a monster and battery life has improved. Also personally never loved the audio jack connector—I prefer Lighting and Bluetooth is only getting better now thanks to the W1. I do wish Beats new products used Lighting for charging though. I really dislike Micro-USB. That's another matter.
Apple can add their software to cars forever thanks to CarPlay, but it's not in Apple's nature to be happy adding things on to other cars. Every time Apple thinks of entering a new market there are doubters ad haters. Tesla has a huge lead no doubt, but their design is lacking company-wide. Their car design language is pretty weak and something as important as their iconography and logos are amateurish at best. Apple has 1,000 on this project and a huge amount of money to bankroll it. I certainly wouldn't bet against them. If they released a really beautiful car with an intuitive user experience that was reliable but technologically behind Tesla it'd still sell by the millions, because it's Apple and people know and trust the Apple brand. The company has to brach out. Car and TV are good areas to choose IMO. Health and wearables are already on track.
Look at their stores. Look at Apple watch. Look at iPhone business. Look at Macs by the end of this year. Apple are solid and Tim is doing a fine, but imperfect job. I really can't think of anyone else who'd better run Apple. And I like that Tim is socially and globally conscious and stands for things and sticks up for stuff when he feels it's right. He has contributed greatly to Apple over the years, but if his only contribution was the successful fighting off the FBI I'm glad he's there.
Can you remind me again as to all these other companies and their products that have beaten Tesla and this apparent snake oil salesman that is Elon Musk to the punch at every time in making a truly modern automobile?
The car of the future is already here. It's called a Smartphone. Think about it. If you were to clear the slate, look at the modern world and ask yourself, how would I design a transportation system given existing and soon-to-come technologies, like autonomous driving, real-time availability scheduling. Route optimization, etc, no way you'd conclude there should be a car, or two, in every garage. You'd create a technology/software infrastructure to allow individuals to call up the transportation they need (car, truck, van, etc) on-demand. And it would show up wherever they are, or wherever they are going to be, when it's needed. You'd be able to schedule transportation in advance, like the airport shuttles of yesteryear that you'd schedule a week in advance. Über pretty much killed that business, I expect.
Or schedule recurring transportation, such as to take the kids to soccer practice and back. In this case the transportation technology system might suggest a shared van service, that knows the schedules for local after school sports practice and offers up and constructs pick-up and drop-off routes based upon participation; a regular route to gather up the kids and deliver them. Accommodation for security will be considered when children are being transported without accompanying parents, such as real-time tracking and a constant open line of communication, both audio and video streaming from the vehicle to parent's smartphones.
The specific vehicle that arrives can be determined by number of passengers, whether you'll be transporting something large or just yourself, etc. The notion of owning, maintaining, accommodating parking requirements of, insuring, etc, a personal vehicle, for many people, has already begun to feel like 'the old paridigm.'
To create this infrastructure, you need route optimization software, that incorporates the real-time whereabouts of all vehicles in a local fleet. You need scheduling software. You need to deal with remaining charge/range of each vehicle out in service to know when a vehicle can accommodate an additional requested or scheduled route without running out of juice. You need to accommodate stand-by, where the vehicle drops someone off at a location and is requested to stand-by for an indeterminate time while the person goes into a store or bank to run an errand. In short, you need a very sophisticated set of interacting technologies to accommodate smooth operation of a transportation network that provides near immediate responsiveness to a population's constantly fluctuating needs.
If I were Tim Cook, this is exactly the way I'd envision the future, and this is what I'd set out to create. It's not so much about constructing vehicles yourself, but about getting sign-in from all vehicle manufacturers such that their vehicles can work within the envisioned transportation network. And that means that people who do own vehicles could lend them into their local autonomous transportation fleet in order to earn money (this has already been suggested by Musk and makes sense for a maker of vehicles to accommodate, as it helps him sell more Teslas direct to consumers). It means that new rental fleets will simply be staged in large metro areas, with one or more depots that the vehicles come back to for recharging, maintenance, cleaning, etc. And that means that there's a path forward for the rental companies, because they already have such staging areas for their existing fleets. The big picture can be accommodated during a transition phase from the world we have today to a world where almost all transportation is shared and autonomous.
Extend this to trucking, inter-city bussing, etc, and the whole thing becomes a future that Apple could play a major role in developing. Without ever producing, on their own, a single vehicle.
1. Too many cars on the roads, creating jams.
- Uber car pool?
2. Too many cars not in use, is a waste.
- Uber car pool?
3. Too many cars with one person, (creating jams).
- Uber car pool?
4. Most cars fuelled by phossile fuel. Emissions.
- Electric?
5. Good cars are for the rich, not helping at a broad scale.
- Uber car pool?
6. Batteries of electric vehicles, are they really that environmentally friendly to produce?
- Nano Flow Cell perhaps?
7. Autonomous tech is perhaps too immature to work under extreme or unforeseen conditions: rain, snow, mud, old roads, old towns, protesters, countryside, road blocks, no proper roads, places with bad or non existing map data?
- Nail it! Until nailed, only authorised roads can be driven autonomously..
8. Difficult to find a parking spot, (due to too many inactive cars)
- Uber car pool.
I've heard some startups working on electric autonomous cars that you don't own, but share in a car pool and access like Uber. This would be contributing. But more one-passenger cars on the roads won't change or contribute in any way. It's only gonna make things worse. So what if the make a really beautiful wonder, if they don't contribute to cleaning up the infrastructure car mess, it's gonna make things worse.
the strongest indication we have is Apple's partnership with Didi.
2) Jets use fuel and they still have an autopilot option. Are you saying that jet fuel isn't made from petroleum?
What are you going on about!?
You are right about them both affecting the employees the same way.
Moreover there are all sorts of specialized vehicles in which Apple can contribute such as Medical Ambulances.
Vehicle OS will need to be infinitely scalable to support busses, trucks, trains, airplanes, space shuttles and spaceships etc...
1. The current roads and traffic control infrastructures will need to be updated to support autonomous vehicles.
2. Apple beacons will be instrumental in the new traffic infrastructure.
3. Apple Maps and SIRI will actually be instrumental in Apple vehicles.
4. Coherent navigation can provide much more accurate GPS.
5. Iris Engine and Iris Image Engine can use beacons instead of just computer vision.