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.
Tesla is popular in the U.S., so we naturally tend to dismiss the rest of the world, even the big three, as competition. Tesla is winning on battery production and that a huge edge, but it's not a moat.
I think that Mansfield looked at the project, and is is culling out the low margin parts of that; building an actual car.
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.
I disagree with the statement that "There's nothing Apple can offer over anybody else."... Apple can so much more than what's out there. Just look at CarPlay, HomeKit and AppleTV for example.
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.
Tesla is popular in the U.S., so we naturally tend to dismiss the rest of the world, even the big three, as competition. Tesla is winning on battery production and that a huge edge, but it's not a moat.
I think that Mansfield looked at the project, and is is culling out the low margin parts of that; building an actual car.
More like, they are spreading this lie to buy them some time. They are building a car. People need to accept it.
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.
Where have I heard that before...
“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent [car]. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
PS: In the 1st 8 months on the market Apple is the #2 watch company in the world in revenue in profit, behind the massive Rolex SA that makes aninnumerable number of brands. How do think that will change in the next year?
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¡).
There's 10,000 Seven Eleven's in North America, not to count all the other gas stations, restaurants, fast food establishments, any of which are primed for EV charging stations.
100's of thousands of potential sites that will be electrified. It's a temporary advantage for Tesla, but the real issue is, Tesla will have to start competing on price with everyone else; as Tesla's designs go stale over time, and they will, and existing premium builders enter the market, and they are, Tesla could as easily end up as Saturn, which never made any money and was heavily subsidized by GM.
Tesla make's batteries and that's a huge advantage now, much it won't last indefinitely.
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¡).
There's 10,000 Seven Eleven's in North America, not to count all the other gas stations, restaurants, fast food establishments, any of which are primed for EV charging stations.
Um, you do understand that this helps Tesla sell more cars, not hinders it. One the main reasons people who can afford and want a Tesla are still holding back is because gas stations are so commonplace right now. When that increases then interest in Tesla also increases.
Tesla could as easily end up as Saturn, which never made any money and was heavily subsidized by GM.
1) What did Saturn ever do to revolutionize the automobile's underlying technologies? Again, whether Tesla as a company grows into a juggernaut that can buy, say, GM, or whether they are eventually sold to, say, Ford, it makes no difference when your argument is that Tesla is a "ridiculous" and "pointless" company that has "done nothing" for the automotive industry.
2) It's a weird argument when your claim that Tesla sucks is because a) they have debt, and 2) they aren't the biggest. Perhaps you should stop looking at every company like its Apple, and maybe do a little research to see that the Big 3 in the US and Japan have had massive debts, been on the brink of bankruptcy, and many have taken bailouts. Additionally, you should look at what automobile brands have the largest mindshare that sell considerably fewer units than Tesla.
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".
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.
I think Apple's best direction is to invest in Tesla. Dump 10 bil in Tesla and help get the Model 3 on the road. While they are at it Apple could take on doing the M3 dashboard. The dashboard on the Model 3 is one of the saddest things I have ever seen. Tesla is the best avenue to have influence on what electric cars will look like on the inside. Toyota, Ford, GM are not going to let Apple have much say in how their technology is used. Look at Carplay. While it may work OK it could be so much better. This is similar to the TV. To do it right would mean they would be a very disruptive force in the market. That gets them a tremendous amount of resistance from existing space holders. So a lot of money is spent just trying to overcome the resistance and therefore wasted. The companies in this space are big enough in aggregate to cause Apple a lot of grief.
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.
What a garbage post. You have no clue what Apple is working on or what they've discovered, nor their vision. "Way ahead" is utterly irrelevant when there really is no clear leader or mainstream product. People also said the same shit whenever Apple had entered any market. Everyone was "way ahead" in MP3 players, smartphones, tablets, streaming music, smart watches, etc. There was "no way" Apple would ever "catch up"- and they were actually successful, established, competitive products already in the market in the hands of millions of people, while Apple had nothing. What a short-sighted post. Apple has the skills and the resources to invest in and be successful in any industry they enter. Discounting them because of what X, Y, and Z are doing is just childish. I can't believe, that in 2016, and witnessing Apple's history, you could confidently say "there's nothing Apple can offer". Incredible.
The authors from this NYT's article are frequently biased against Apple. Mansfield has likely gone in and cleaned out the dead wood in this project that was either conflicting or slowing it down. Apple has made a considerable investment in car automation and battery technology. The large automotive companies are looking to build cars with self driving capabilities but don't have the resources or expertise. Iicensing the technology from Apple makes sense. That allows Apple to gain additional resources to build their own vehicles with the traditional Apple premium features and profits.
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¡).
There's 10,000 Seven Eleven's in North America, not to count all the other gas stations, restaurants, fast food establishments, any of which are primed for EV charging stations.
Um, you do understand that this helps Tesla sell more cars, not hinders it. One the main reasons people who can afford and want a Tesla are still holding back is because gas stations are so commonplace right now. When that increases then interest in Tesla also increases.
Tesla could as easily end up as Saturn, which never made any money and was heavily subsidized by GM.
1) What did Saturn ever do to revolutionize the automobile's underlying technologies? Again, whether Tesla as a company grows into a juggernaut that can buy, say, GM, or whether they are eventually sold to, say, Ford, it makes no difference when your argument is that Tesla is a "ridiculous" and "pointless" company that has "done nothing" for the automotive industry.
2) It's a weird argument when your claim that Tesla sucks is because a) they have debt, and 2) they aren't the biggest. Perhaps you should stop looking at every company like its Apple, and maybe do a little research to see that the Big 3 in the US and Japan have had massive debts, been on the brink of bankruptcy, and many have taken bailouts. Additionally, you should look at what automobile brands have the largest mindshare that sell considerably fewer units than Tesla.
I didn't state anything to the point that Tesla sucked; my whole point is that Tesla is deemed to be the leader in the market, and have yet to face much in the way of competition, which is coming, and the Tesla's advantage is battery production, not car production. You made the point of 4500 superchargers; my retort to put that in context is that there are 100,000's of thousands of potential sites for chargers, for all cars, so no, superchargers are a short term advantage for Tesla, not a long term one.
I would did also note that Saturn was a very different and unique branding for GM, which was subsidized and eventually failed in the market. I only speak "ill" of Tesla in that Tesla has a monumental task of turning a profit.
How does that relate to the story? Auto manufacturers have huge levels of assets, a barrier to entry that Tesla, Apple, and others have to penetrate, and most are used to operating on low margins for cars, or put better, they prefer to sell SUV's, Pickups and upscale models. At the time of GM's bankruptcy, there was some 40% of overcapacity in the industry. Tesla needs to prove that it can make money in the automotive business.
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¡).
There's 10,000 Seven Eleven's in North America, not to count all the other gas stations, restaurants, fast food establishments, any of which are primed for EV charging stations.
Um, you do understand that this helps Tesla sell more cars, not hinders it. One the main reasons people who can afford and want a Tesla are still holding back is because gas stations are so commonplace right now. When that increases then interest in Tesla also increases.
Tesla could as easily end up as Saturn, which never made any money and was heavily subsidized by GM.
1) What did Saturn ever do to revolutionize the automobile's underlying technologies? Again, whether Tesla as a company grows into a juggernaut that can buy, say, GM, or whether they are eventually sold to, say, Ford, it makes no difference when your argument is that Tesla is a "ridiculous" and "pointless" company that has "done nothing" for the automotive industry.
2) It's a weird argument when your claim that Tesla sucks is because a) they have debt, and 2) they aren't the biggest. Perhaps you should stop looking at every company like its Apple, and maybe do a little research to see that the Big 3 in the US and Japan have had massive debts, been on the brink of bankruptcy, and many have taken bailouts. Additionally, you should look at what automobile brands have the largest mindshare that sell considerably fewer units than Tesla.
Tesla needs to prove that it can make money in the automotive business.
By that measure Amazon needs to prove it can make money in the internet retail business or we should all assume they will close their doors any day now.
How about making computers for professionals again Apple? A Mac Pro that can be upgraded and doesn't look like a trash can would be nice.
Putting a bunch of extra crap in a box? Bulky, hot and noisy.
No thanks, the CPU core + external peripherals approach is better for professionals. Need more CPU, change the core, keep the other boxes.
Also whisper quiet machine is more valuable than the ability to cram outdated PCI cards into a sockets. Lots of iMacs in places where Mac Pros used to be required.
The latest Mac Pro is upgradable, from 4 to 12 cores, RAM and video capabilities as well. Oh were you talking about third party upgrades later down the road after purchase? Yeah, no. Serious professional uses of machines don't generally screw around and dick with upgrading. They just buy new machines. They also tend to prefer longer term, stable workflows. The upgrade every second mindset is for the low level guys who didn't buy what they needed out of the gate. Or gamers, and they are a non-professional niche.
When new Mac Pros are updated it will be in sync with how major professional users purchase machines. For example, movie studios purchase hundreds of Macs at a time, some purchase them in the thousands. Lots of employees and processes to adapt to new tech, and much more important to how Mac Pros are developed than the never-satisfied baby wants of forum 'enthusiasts'.
I'd kind of like to see either a rack mountable Mac Pro or one that only takes up the desktop space equivalent of maybe 3-4 Mac minis stacked up, with easily changed out, front facing components. Accessibility and the ability to modify and customize components are what pros need and the current Mac Pro is total form over function. It could be made simple and beautiful, but it's still a piece of equipment that must perform.
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¡).
There's 10,000 Seven Eleven's in North America, not to count all the other gas stations, restaurants, fast food establishments, any of which are primed for EV charging stations.
Um, you do understand that this helps Tesla sell more cars, not hinders it. One the main reasons people who can afford and want a Tesla are still holding back is because gas stations are so commonplace right now. When that increases then interest in Tesla also increases.
Tesla could as easily end up as Saturn, which never made any money and was heavily subsidized by GM.
1) What did Saturn ever do to revolutionize the automobile's underlying technologies? Again, whether Tesla as a company grows into a juggernaut that can buy, say, GM, or whether they are eventually sold to, say, Ford, it makes no difference when your argument is that Tesla is a "ridiculous" and "pointless" company that has "done nothing" for the automotive industry.
2) It's a weird argument when your claim that Tesla sucks is because a) they have debt, and 2) they aren't the biggest. Perhaps you should stop looking at every company like its Apple, and maybe do a little research to see that the Big 3 in the US and Japan have had massive debts, been on the brink of bankruptcy, and many have taken bailouts. Additionally, you should look at what automobile brands have the largest mindshare that sell considerably fewer units than Tesla.
Tesla needs to prove that it can make money in the automotive business.
By that measure Amazon needs to prove it can make money in the internet retail business or we should all assume they will close their doors any day now.
The difference is that Amazon can stop building out and show a profit any quarter that they want, but Amazon is also facing competition.
Do you rally believe that Tesla has a huge advantage in the Industry? I'm not seeing it long term, and yeah, for the record, Tesla designs are already getting stale.
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.
Tesla is popular in the U.S., so we naturally tend to dismiss the rest of the world, even the big three, as competition. Tesla is winning on battery production and that a huge edge, but it's not a moat.
I think that Mansfield looked at the project, and is is culling out the low margin parts of that; building an actual car.
so what are the high margin parts or what's left of the team if he culls the employees that were involved in the actual building of a car?
Autonomous vehicles = unproven market. That's one reason for Apple to reign it in. What reason is there to believe that consumers will want to use autonomous vehicles on a regular basis? I think everyone knows that they'll be slower and more prone to errors than a human driver. The AI just isn't going to be sophisticated enough within the next 5 years. Maybe in 20.
Instead of designing and producing a full-fledged self-driving car, the company has shifted focus to work on backbone autonomous vehicle technology, the report said.
...
Underscoring Apple's new direction, the company earlier this year hired founder and former CEO of QNX Dan Dodge. Acquired by BlackBerry in 2010, QNX specializes in embedded operating systems, particularly those applied to in-car infotainment solutions. ...
This makes sense, Apple is good at OSes, communication (protocols) and the dedicated chips to implement it all. So the QNX hiring fits nicely in this picture. Apple isn't good at AI, and car tech in general, especially because other groups are already (trying) to define the field. So it's best to let others do that.
Instead of designing and producing a full-fledged self-driving car, the company has shifted focus to work on backbone autonomous vehicle technology, the report said.
...
Underscoring Apple's new direction, the company earlier this year hired founder and former CEO of QNX Dan Dodge. Acquired by BlackBerry in 2010, QNX specializes in embedded operating systems, particularly those applied to in-car infotainment solutions. ...
This makes sense, Apple is good at OSes, communication (protocols) and the dedicated chips to implement it all. So the QNX hiring fits nicely in this picture. Apple isn't good at AI, and car tech in general, especially because other groups are already (trying) to define the field. So it's best to let others do that.
Exactly. If you read my comment (#68) you'll see that everything Apple needs to do to revolutionize transportation does not require Apple to do any work on autonomous driving, nor does Apple need to build a single vehicle model. Nope, Apple will want to own the end user interaction used to summon and schedule transportation, and it'll want to own the route optimization algorithms and server side scheduling and dispatch. And take a cut of every ride.
There will need to be some tech in each car to pick up the user interaction that began on a rider's smartphone or Watch, once the car arrives to pick up the rider. The car will need a voice interface to interact with the rider. The car will need to constantly ping its whereabouts to the dispatch and scheduling servers, along with its charge level, so that the dispatch system can determine its next pick up and determine when it needs to exit the active fleet and return to a nearby depot for recharging or maintenance. The car will need to contain sensors, like internal cameras, to monitor for left-behind packages, spilled coffee, etc, and report appropriately to riders or to dispatch. The car will need streaming audio/video capabilities to stream to parents when children are riding without adult accompaniment. All of this can be designed as a set of interfaces that automakers can implement in order to be compatible with Apple's dispatch and routing servers, and the vehicles might also be required to utilize Apple's mapping infrastructure.
Once verified as able to serve a ride request, the car is handed details on the location of the rider, and the rider's destination, and it can then utilize its own autonomous driving capabilities to serve the request. And all of this can integrate both driverless and human driven vehicles into the same service. So as vehicles are developed that are licensed for autonomous operation, these can be added to an existing Uber-like fleet of human driven vehicles, both serving together to form a centrally requested and directed/dispatched swarm serving a metrolitan area. Eventually, the human driven vehicles would all be replaced with autonomous vehicles, and the future will have arrived.
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?
Because you need someone who knows the current state-of-the-art in Lidar/Radar/IR engine, transmission and braking sensors and activators for the software to control. Simulation can only get you so far. You eventually need the software to actually interface with specific hardware, test it, certify it, then have the car manufacturer integrate it and put a body on it.
At what point did it become fact that Apple was building cars to compete with Tesla? over time the mass media has pushed the story in that direction because of their caveman thinking and headline selling ways. If Apples intention from the start was to develop software for vehicles, what did you think they were gonna test it on, a bicycle? they had to build cars for proof of concept.
Or, without building a complete car from scratch, they can use other cars as test mules for new gear, like what Bosch did to make Tesla more "radar heavy":
Comments
I think that Mansfield looked at the project, and is is culling out the low margin parts of that; building an actual car.
Apple can so much more than what's out there. Just look at CarPlay, HomeKit and AppleTV for example.
“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent [car]. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
PS: In the 1st 8 months on the market Apple is the #2 watch company in the world in revenue in profit, behind the massive Rolex SA that makes aninnumerable number of brands. How do think that will change in the next year?
100's of thousands of potential sites that will be electrified. It's a temporary advantage for Tesla, but the real issue is, Tesla will have to start competing on price with everyone else; as Tesla's designs go stale over time, and they will, and existing premium builders enter the market, and they are, Tesla could as easily end up as Saturn, which never made any money and was heavily subsidized by GM.
Tesla make's batteries and that's a huge advantage now, much it won't last indefinitely.
1) What did Saturn ever do to revolutionize the automobile's underlying technologies? Again, whether Tesla as a company grows into a juggernaut that can buy, say, GM, or whether they are eventually sold to, say, Ford, it makes no difference when your argument is that Tesla is a "ridiculous" and "pointless" company that has "done nothing" for the automotive industry.
2) It's a weird argument when your claim that Tesla sucks is because a) they have debt, and 2) they aren't the biggest. Perhaps you should stop looking at every company like its Apple, and maybe do a little research to see that the Big 3 in the US and Japan have had massive debts, been on the brink of bankruptcy, and many have taken bailouts. Additionally, you should look at what automobile brands have the largest mindshare that sell considerably fewer units than Tesla.
What a garbage post. You have no clue what Apple is working on or what they've discovered, nor their vision. "Way ahead" is utterly irrelevant when there really is no clear leader or mainstream product. People also said the same shit whenever Apple had entered any market. Everyone was "way ahead" in MP3 players, smartphones, tablets, streaming music, smart watches, etc. There was "no way" Apple would ever "catch up"- and they were actually successful, established, competitive products already in the market in the hands of millions of people, while Apple had nothing. What a short-sighted post. Apple has the skills and the resources to invest in and be successful in any industry they enter. Discounting them because of what X, Y, and Z are doing is just childish. I can't believe, that in 2016, and witnessing Apple's history, you could confidently say "there's nothing Apple can offer". Incredible.
I would did also note that Saturn was a very different and unique branding for GM, which was subsidized and eventually failed in the market. I only speak "ill" of Tesla in that Tesla has a monumental task of turning a profit.
How does that relate to the story? Auto manufacturers have huge levels of assets, a barrier to entry that Tesla, Apple, and others have to penetrate, and most are used to operating on low margins for cars, or put better, they prefer to sell SUV's, Pickups and upscale models. At the time of GM's bankruptcy, there was some 40% of overcapacity in the industry. Tesla needs to prove that it can make money in the automotive business.
Do you rally believe that Tesla has a huge advantage in the Industry? I'm not seeing it long term, and yeah, for the record, Tesla designs are already getting stale.
Apple isn't good at AI, and car tech in general, especially because other groups are already (trying) to define the field. So it's best to let others do that.
There will need to be some tech in each car to pick up the user interaction that began on a rider's smartphone or Watch, once the car arrives to pick up the rider. The car will need a voice interface to interact with the rider. The car will need to constantly ping its whereabouts to the dispatch and scheduling servers, along with its charge level, so that the dispatch system can determine its next pick up and determine when it needs to exit the active fleet and return to a nearby depot for recharging or maintenance. The car will need to contain sensors, like internal cameras, to monitor for left-behind packages, spilled coffee, etc, and report appropriately to riders or to dispatch. The car will need streaming audio/video capabilities to stream to parents when children are riding without adult accompaniment. All of this can be designed as a set of interfaces that automakers can implement in order to be compatible with Apple's dispatch and routing servers, and the vehicles might also be required to utilize Apple's mapping infrastructure.
Once verified as able to serve a ride request, the car is handed details on the location of the rider, and the rider's destination, and it can then utilize its own autonomous driving capabilities to serve the request. And all of this can integrate both driverless and human driven vehicles into the same service. So as vehicles are developed that are licensed for autonomous operation, these can be added to an existing Uber-like fleet of human driven vehicles, both serving together to form a centrally requested and directed/dispatched swarm serving a metrolitan area. Eventually, the human driven vehicles would all be replaced with autonomous vehicles, and the future will have arrived.
It's all just "a small matter of engineering".