Did I miss something? Is there anything to suggest this isn't an advanced mapping / photography system possibly connected to Apple's vision of augmented reality for example? Why is the assumption its a self driving car project?
There's other details that indicate it's about automated vehicles:
"Prior to the letter, Kenner doesn’t show up in media reports or
corporate information on Apple. Based on a LinkedIn profile, he was
global director of Ford’s Automotive Safety Office, starting in 2011.
Though the profile also indicates he still holds that job, Ford
confirmed that Kenner left the company in April 2015. Apple’s PR team
didn’t respond to multiple emails and a phone call seeking to verify
when he joined the Cupertino, California, company and his
responsibilities there.
If you’re a massive tech company with remarkably deep pockets and
want to get an automotive program off the ground, Kenner is a fine
choice. He began his auto career in 1978 as an engineer for General
Motors, where he worked for 14 years. From there, he spent 12 years as
an engineering director for Chrysler, before joining Ford as a chief
engineer in 2004, moving up the ladder through a variety of management
positions before taking his vehicle safety role in 2011."
Apple is also working on AR though. You'll be able to have an AR experience with the Specs while the Cart drives you around.
Did I miss something? Is there anything to suggest this isn't an advanced mapping / photography system possibly connected to Apple's vision of augmented reality for example? Why is the assumption its a self driving car project?
Apple is also working on AR though. You'll be able to have an AR experience with the Specs while the Cart drives you around.
Thanks for clarification. On the last part, I find a few G&T's do that for me anyway.
Did I miss something? Is there anything to suggest this isn't an advanced mapping / photography system possibly connected to Apple's vision of augmented reality for example? Why is the assumption its a self driving car project?
Apple is also working on AR though. You'll be able to have an AR experience with the Specs while the Cart drives you around.
Thanks for clarification. On the last part, I find a few G&T's do that for me anyway.
Love a good G&T 🤓
Have Similar feelings with the folks who are skeptical that Apple has abandoned the physical car part of the program entirely. Certainly they simply realized the software & autonomous tech end of things was an order of magnitude more difficult than the design & manufacturing of an electric car and proceeded to focus on the former.
Open Source: Darwin WebKit Swift ResearchKit Bonjour
It's certainly not Apple's business model to write SW for other vendors, but it does happen. I'd bet Apple's SW is on more non-Apple HW than there are examples of Windows building HW that runs one of their OSes.
That is a list of software that supports Apple services and hardware (iTunes, Move to iOS) or that they have abandoned on non-Apple platforms (Safari). That list is good evidence that Apple never does software for other OSes except where it brings directs revenue other Apple lines of business. I will wager that we won't see non-Apple cars piloted by Apple software.
Apple has no need to be first to market. The market for cars is enormous. People replace their cars regularly. Apple could bring a new car to market 5 years after the first commercial autonomous car and it would sink or swim on its own merits. Yes, the price of AAPL would likely suffer if Apple is silent about their plans as other firms bring their products to market, but Apple has never been obsessed with share price. In fact, since the Apple I and the Mac, when is the last time Apple was first to market with a new product category? What product do they sell today that isn't "just" an improvement on a product that someone else was selling well before the Apple version arrived?
Open Source: Darwin WebKit Swift ResearchKit Bonjour
It's certainly not Apple's business model to write SW for other vendors, but it does happen. I'd bet Apple's SW is on more non-Apple HW than there are examples of Windows building HW that runs one of their OSes.
That is a list of software that supports Apple services and hardware (iTunes, Move to iOS) or that they have abandoned on non-Apple platforms (Safari). That list is good evidence that Apple never does software for other OSes except where it brings directs revenue other Apple lines of business. I will wager that we won't see non-Apple cars piloted by Apple software.
Of course it's all designed to benefit Apple, but that's not the point of the original statement. The point is Apple does have a long history of building SW for systems that they don't control. Safari for Windows being defunct doesn't change the fact that it existed.
Even now, there's an argument to be made that Apple Pay and CarPlay fit into that category since it takes the financial institutions and automotive companies, respectively, to agree to rework their backend to allow these Apple services to work.
Then you still have ResearchKit, Swift, and WebKit which Apple can't control what other vendors do with it or what HW it's allowed to run on. WebKit's license even allowed Google to fork it. Then you have Apple using a gobs of open source SW for their various OSes. All of this shows that Apple isn't some "closed door policy" company that many make it out to be because they currently build their OSes to be more idealized and unified with their HW.
Apple is said to be using off-the-shelf hardware and electronics on their vehicles rather than anything Apple has designed for testing which suggests that they're working on the software side rather than building a car at this point.
No, it suggests the software is more important than hardware when it comes to self-driving. There's no way in hell they have abandoned their car project. Car companies wouldn't let Apple take over their car in that way and Apple are the most vertical company their is with the best hardware team in the world, several of whom are ex-car designers and most of whom have a passion for cars and they hired hundreds and hundreds of car engineers, not for shits and giggles. In time that Bloomberg story is proven inaccurate. Apple like people outside Apple, and especially the press, believing this story.
While we can all dispute the importance of hardware vs.software I think that if Apple were factually in the process of building an "Apple car" they would of obvious necessity (and government requirement) be testing their software with THEIR automotive hardware.
Unnecessary at this stage. Hardware and software teams are separated until a merging makes sense. At this stage they are testing out their software with some custom built Apple hardware, a third party car and easily available sensors and cameras from other vendors. No need to reinvent the wheel at this point. Hardware teams for Apple car would be making and testing chassis, brakes, electric motors & drivetrains, making seating, interiors and testing all kinds of materials and designs. Add to that a red herring drop on the press's lap and they're on the road.
Yes. That is true. they are separate. Did you know what they are really building? Clue... Why are they using aerial mapping technology? Why they are very secretive wherein electric cars are now the new normal? Why use a very vast lot?
Open Source: Darwin WebKit Swift ResearchKit Bonjour
It's certainly not Apple's business model to write SW for other vendors, but it does happen. I'd bet Apple's SW is on more non-Apple HW than there are examples of Windows building HW that runs one of their OSes.
That is a list of software that supports Apple services and hardware (iTunes, Move to iOS) or that they have abandoned on non-Apple platforms (Safari). That list is good evidence that Apple never does software for other OSes except where it brings directs revenue other Apple lines of business. I will wager that we won't see non-Apple cars piloted by Apple software.
Of course it's all designed to benefit Apple, but that's not the point of the original statement. The point is Apple does have a long history of building SW for systems that they don't control. Safari for Windows being defunct doesn't change the fact that it existed.
Even now, there's an argument to be made that Apple Pay and CarPlay fit into that category since it takes the financial institutions and automotive companies, respectively, to agree to rework their backend to allow these Apple services to work.
Then you still have ResearchKit, Swift, and WebKit which Apple can't control what other vendors do with it or what HW it's allowed to run on. WebKit's license even allowed Google to fork it. Then you have Apple using a gobs of open source SW for their various OSes. All of this shows that Apple isn't some "closed door policy" company that many make it out to be because they currently build their OSes to be more idealized and unified with their HW.
But what part of that supports the narrative that Apple might be just making autonomous car software (rather than hardware to support Apple hardware)?
ApplePay makes Apple devices more appealing. CarPlay makes Apple devices more appealing. Safari for Windows and WebKit undercut the dominant browser at the time that was hurting Mac viability. Swift would suffer if it were strictly Apple only. ResearchKit helps sell Apple hardware (and makes the company feel good). If it were iOS only it would be bad PR and adoption would be more limited.
Is there any example we're Apple spent massive dollars on a software only solution that they licensed out? Yes, in theory they could, but there is nothing in Apple's history to suggest it.
Open Source: Darwin WebKit Swift ResearchKit Bonjour
It's certainly not Apple's business model to write SW for other vendors, but it does happen. I'd bet Apple's SW is on more non-Apple HW than there are examples of Windows building HW that runs one of their OSes.
That is a list of software that supports Apple services and hardware (iTunes, Move to iOS) or that they have abandoned on non-Apple platforms (Safari). That list is good evidence that Apple never does software for other OSes except where it brings directs revenue other Apple lines of business. I will wager that we won't see non-Apple cars piloted by Apple software.
Of course it's all designed to benefit Apple, but that's not the point of the original statement. The point is Apple does have a long history of building SW for systems that they don't control. Safari for Windows being defunct doesn't change the fact that it existed.
Even now, there's an argument to be made that Apple Pay and CarPlay fit into that category since it takes the financial institutions and automotive companies, respectively, to agree to rework their backend to allow these Apple services to work.
Then you still have ResearchKit, Swift, and WebKit which Apple can't control what other vendors do with it or what HW it's allowed to run on. WebKit's license even allowed Google to fork it. Then you have Apple using a gobs of open source SW for their various OSes. All of this shows that Apple isn't some "closed door policy" company that many make it out to be because they currently build their OSes to be more idealized and unified with their HW.
But what part of that supports the narrative that Apple might be just making autonomous car software (rather than hardware to support Apple hardware)?
ApplePay makes Apple devices more appealing. CarPlay makes Apple devices more appealing. Safari for Windows and WebKit undercut the dominant browser at the time that was hurting Mac viability. Swift would suffer if it were strictly Apple only. ResearchKit helps sell Apple hardware (and makes the company feel good). If it were iOS only it would be bad PR and adoption would be more limited.
You answered your own question with your examples.
Your comments about how this or that was done to benefit Apple… WELL, OF COURSE IT WAS! Why would you think
Is there any example we're Apple spent massive dollars on a software only solution that they licensed out? Yes, in theory they could, but there is nothing in Apple's history to suggest it.
As previously shown, there is a history of this, and the most obvious one—Mac clones—you decided to leave out of your reply. Even if we only use active licensing today we still have all the ones I mentioned, plus at least one free HW license for the mDP port that was then adopted by VESA and then used by Intel for Thunderbolt after being denied use of USB-A by the USB-IF.
In my previous post I forget to mention HomeKit and MFi licensing programs which had Apple invest a lot of money in creating a platform that other vendors can use.
All of these things lead to Apple trying to make more money so why do you think that Apple investing in a system that would make their products work better with a car is out of the question over Apple instead only designing the entire car right down to Jony Ive lug nuts when we've seen Apple create platforms that others can use to help make Apple's products more attractive, and therefore help increase profits and product lock-in? If you think CarPlay is the pinnacle of that technology then you have much simpler tastes than me.
Comments
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/04/28/apple-lobbies-california-dmv-to-keep-self-driving-car-plans-out-of-public-eye
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2016/12/08/apples-robo-car-letter-reveals-30-year-detroit-veteran-on-its-stealth-auto-team/
"Prior to the letter, Kenner doesn’t show up in media reports or corporate information on Apple. Based on a LinkedIn profile, he was global director of Ford’s Automotive Safety Office, starting in 2011. Though the profile also indicates he still holds that job, Ford confirmed that Kenner left the company in April 2015. Apple’s PR team didn’t respond to multiple emails and a phone call seeking to verify when he joined the Cupertino, California, company and his responsibilities there.
If you’re a massive tech company with remarkably deep pockets and want to get an automotive program off the ground, Kenner is a fine choice. He began his auto career in 1978 as an engineer for General Motors, where he worked for 14 years. From there, he spent 12 years as an engineering director for Chrysler, before joining Ford as a chief engineer in 2004, moving up the ladder through a variety of management positions before taking his vehicle safety role in 2011."
Apple is also working on AR though. You'll be able to have an AR experience with the Specs while the Cart drives you around.
Have Similar feelings with the folks who are skeptical that Apple has abandoned the physical car part of the program entirely. Certainly they simply realized the software & autonomous tech end of things was an order of magnitude more difficult than the design & manufacturing of an electric car and proceeded to focus on the former.
Even now, there's an argument to be made that Apple Pay and CarPlay fit into that category since it takes the financial institutions and automotive companies, respectively, to agree to rework their backend to allow these Apple services to work.
Then you still have ResearchKit, Swift, and WebKit which Apple can't control what other vendors do with it or what HW it's allowed to run on. WebKit's license even allowed Google to fork it. Then you have Apple using a gobs of open source SW for their various OSes. All of this shows that Apple isn't some "closed door policy" company that many make it out to be because they currently build their OSes to be more idealized and unified with their HW.
ApplePay makes Apple devices more appealing.
CarPlay makes Apple devices more appealing.
Safari for Windows and WebKit undercut the dominant browser at the time that was hurting Mac viability.
Swift would suffer if it were strictly Apple only.
ResearchKit helps sell Apple hardware (and makes the company feel good). If it were iOS only it would be bad PR and adoption would be more limited.
Is there any example we're Apple spent massive dollars on a software only solution that they licensed out? Yes, in theory they could, but there is nothing in Apple's history to suggest it.
Your comments about how this or that was done to benefit Apple… WELL, OF COURSE IT WAS! Why would you think
As previously shown, there is a history of this, and the most obvious one—Mac clones—you decided to leave out of your reply. Even if we only use active licensing today we still have all the ones I mentioned, plus at least one free HW license for the mDP port that was then adopted by VESA and then used by Intel for Thunderbolt after being denied use of USB-A by the USB-IF.
In my previous post I forget to mention HomeKit and MFi licensing programs which had Apple invest a lot of money in creating a platform that other vendors can use.
All of these things lead to Apple trying to make more money so why do you think that Apple investing in a system that would make their products work better with a car is out of the question over Apple instead only designing the entire car right down to Jony Ive lug nuts when we've seen Apple create platforms that others can use to help make Apple's products more attractive, and therefore help increase profits and product lock-in? If you think CarPlay is the pinnacle of that technology then you have much simpler tastes than me.