Apple's self-driving tech said to be aimed at ridehailing as hiring resumes

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware
Apple's long-term goal with its self-driving project is likely the ridesharing/ridehailing market, and the associated team is said to be hiring again despite last year's layoffs and reorganization, according to a report.

Apple could conceivably market a self-driving platform to ridehailing companies like Didi Chuxing.
Apple could conceivably market a self-driving platform to ridehailing companies like Didi Chuxing.


The team is still feeling the impact from last year, and "suffering from some confusion of purpose," Business Insider said, citing a source who has allegedly seen Apple's technology and that of several other self-driving car platforms. The new recruitment efforts are said to be focused on people with experience in autonomous car software.

The company was at one point believed to be working on a self-designed vehicle under the "Project Titan" moniker, but is now thought to be concentrating on a platform instead.

The company's "PAIL" (Palo Alto to Infinite Loop) shuttle -- exposed earlier this week -- is still just an intermediary step, the source suggested. One of Google's earliest efforts in real-world testing of self-driving systems was a shuttle at the Googleplex campus in Mountain View.

At this stage, Apple has no interest in becoming its own ridehailing service like Uber or Lyft, the source said.

"Even if they have this [autonomous vehicle] specialty, and they get to a mature point on it, they don't have the operations expertise. It's the same thing that Waymo is facing," the person remarked.

That could further fuel speculation around Apple's close ties with Chinese ridehailing service Didi Chuxing. Apple made a $1 billion investment last year, and Didi recently opened a self-driving car lab in Mountain View, not far from Apple's headquarters. Outfitting Didi vehicles would create an instant market for any self-driving platform.

In terms of progress, Apple's technology is where Google "was three years ago," the source claimed. Since then Google has spun off its self-driving work into a separate company, Waymo, which is already running a test ridehailing service in Phoenix. That service should eventually turn into a commercial operation.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    This really makes much more sense. Car ownership is expected to decline in the coming years and we've already seen this decline in certain groups.  Obviously, there will still be people that need cars.  For me owning a car feels like more of a necessitated burden.  It all comes down to costs to the consumer.  Once the cost of ride hailing comes down to the point where it's close to the cost of car payment+insurance+maintenance, it's an easy decision.  With UberPool/LyftLine, it's already at that point in many urban centers.  
    repressthis
  • Reply 2 of 20
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,581member
    I have a problem with a China-owned company (even if they have an office in the US) having access to US customer data. How would Apple ensure data privacy in this collaboration?
    edited August 2017 repressthisanantksundaram
  • Reply 3 of 20
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,817member
    Well of course it's ride-hailing, just as every car-maker realizes by now. The days of a car in every driveway are already passing.

    Millennials as a group have less interest in driving, are more likely to do their socializing on-line rather than visiting friends homes or going to bars/restaurants/clubs, prefer to shop on-line rather than traveling to a B&M, and and so in general have fewer reasons to drive to begin with. When the need does arise they're more likely to share transportation with another friend in their group, maybe chip in on the gas, when they go out rather than driving themselves.  Even possessing a driver's license is less likely than in previous generations. For many of them them car ownership isn't seen as a necessity or even a want anymore. 

    Because of the changing dynamics GM, Ford, Mazda, Fiat-Chrysler, Google, Mercedes, Nissan and likely Apple along with several other car-makers and transportation companies are all looking at the same future football field to play on, one skewed more towards sharing as long as folks can get from A to B when those less-frequent needs to go out and about arise. 
    edited August 2017 fotoformat
  • Reply 4 of 20
    I have a problem with a China-owned company (even if they have an office in the US) having access to US customer data. How would Apple ensure data privacy in this collaboration?

    Is there any expectation that Didi Chuxing has plans to operate in the US?  That wasn't my assumption.
  • Reply 5 of 20
    gatorguy said:
    Well of course it's ride-hailing, just as every car-maker realizes by now. The days of a car in every driveway are already passing.

    Millennials as a group have less interest in driving, are more likely to do their socializing on-line rather than visiting friends homes or going to bars, prefer to shop on-line rather than traveling to a B&M, and and so in general have fewer reasons to drive to begin with. When the need does arise they're more likely to share transportation with another friend in their group, maybe chip in on the gas, when they do go out rather than driving themselves.  Even possessing a driver's license is less likely than in previous generations. For many of them them car ownership isn't seen as a necessity or even a want anymore. 

    Because of the changing dynamics GM, Ford, Mazda, Fiat-Chrysler, Google, Mercedes, Nissan and likely Apple along with several other car-makers and transportation companies are all looking at the same future football field to play on, one skewed more towards sharing as long as folks can get from A to B when those less-frequent needs to go out and about arise. 

    Well said.  Car ownership won't disappear for a long, long time, but it's probably plateaued in the US (on a per capita basis).  I live out in the suburbs and there are more houses with 4 cars (or more typically SUVs, minivans, and trucks) than there are with just 1.  The median could easily be 3.  In 10 years, I expect there will still be plenty of cars here but every driveway won't be full with an extra vehicle parked on the street.
  • Reply 6 of 20
    In terms of progress, Apple's technology is where Google "was three years ago," the source claimed.
    Android fanboys will collectively scream in delight after hearing their favorite trope used once again.
  • Reply 7 of 20
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,499member
    gatorguy said:
    Well of course it's ride-hailing, just as every car-maker realizes by now. The days of a car in every driveway are already passing.

    Millennials as a group have less interest in driving, are more likely to do their socializing on-line rather than visiting friends homes or going to bars, prefer to shop on-line rather than traveling to a B&M, and and so in general have fewer reasons to drive to begin with. When the need does arise they're more likely to share transportation with another friend in their group, maybe chip in on the gas, when they do go out rather than driving themselves.  Even possessing a driver's license is less likely than in previous generations. For many of them them car ownership isn't seen as a necessity or even a want anymore. 

    Because of the changing dynamics GM, Ford, Mazda, Fiat-Chrysler, Google, Mercedes, Nissan and likely Apple along with several other car-makers and transportation companies are all looking at the same future football field to play on, one skewed more towards sharing as long as folks can get from A to B when those less-frequent needs to go out and about arise. 

    Well said.  Car ownership won't disappear for a long, long time, but it's probably plateaued in the US (on a per capita basis).  I live out in the suburbs and there are more houses with 4 cars (or more typically SUVs, minivans, and trucks) than there are with just 1.  The median could easily be 3.  In 10 years, I expect there will still be plenty of cars here but every driveway won't be full with an extra vehicle parked on the street.
    I agree that car ownership has likely plateaued (or will soon) in the advanced economies for the general reasons noted.  But for those who make business decisions, they have to be more attuned to reality than the hype that "no one will own a car anymore" in 5-10 years - which you can easily read in the echo chamber of the media-blog-o-sphere.  For many core urban dwellers that work in said core, the economics are already there for ride-hailing services [BTW - almost no one "shares the ride" - it is not ride sharing - it is a paid taxi service managed via software & services].  

    However, for those who work outside of that core, and for all those in the suburbs, fringes, and rural, a car is still very useful (and economical when including time).  We don't need to rehash the arguments that in order for ride-hailing services to perform the job of today's personally owned cars, there would need to be as many of them as private cars.  Some habits shift over time, but as mass transit growth attempts have shown, it is in small increments.  There is also this thing called "freedom" (to easily go where you want) which was one of the driving forces of the automobile in the first place.  Want to jump in the car to go 2 hours away to the beach today - no problem - put your stuff in your car.

    Cars are going to be around for a long time, and new ones will need to be purchased.  The market is definitely going to change and some incumbents will be hurt.  Doesn't mean there isn't room for a new entrant that can do something better.  I wouldn't be placing all my bets on the ride-sharing future.
    mobirdrandominternetperson
  • Reply 8 of 20
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 3,752member
    None of these rumors ever suggest who would be using Apple’s “car platform”. Can someone name me one automaker who is looking to Apple for their autonomous/self driving vehicle needs?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple goes the ridesharing route but I still think it will be with vehicles they design.
  • Reply 9 of 20
    brucemc said:
    gatorguy said:
    Well of course it's ride-hailing, just as every car-maker realizes by now. The days of a car in every driveway are already passing.

    Millennials as a group have less interest in driving, are more likely to do their socializing on-line rather than visiting friends homes or going to bars, prefer to shop on-line rather than traveling to a B&M, and and so in general have fewer reasons to drive to begin with. When the need does arise they're more likely to share transportation with another friend in their group, maybe chip in on the gas, when they do go out rather than driving themselves.  Even possessing a driver's license is less likely than in previous generations. For many of them them car ownership isn't seen as a necessity or even a want anymore. 

    Because of the changing dynamics GM, Ford, Mazda, Fiat-Chrysler, Google, Mercedes, Nissan and likely Apple along with several other car-makers and transportation companies are all looking at the same future football field to play on, one skewed more towards sharing as long as folks can get from A to B when those less-frequent needs to go out and about arise. 

    Well said.  Car ownership won't disappear for a long, long time, but it's probably plateaued in the US (on a per capita basis).  I live out in the suburbs and there are more houses with 4 cars (or more typically SUVs, minivans, and trucks) than there are with just 1.  The median could easily be 3.  In 10 years, I expect there will still be plenty of cars here but every driveway won't be full with an extra vehicle parked on the street.
    I agree that car ownership has likely plateaued (or will soon) in the advanced economies for the general reasons noted.  But for those who make business decisions, they have to be more attuned to reality than the hype that "no one will own a car anymore" in 5-10 years - which you can easily read in the echo chamber of the media-blog-o-sphere.  For many core urban dwellers that work in said core, the economics are already there for ride-hailing services [BTW - almost no one "shares the ride" - it is not ride sharing - it is a paid taxi service managed via software & services].  

    However, for those who work outside of that core, and for all those in the suburbs, fringes, and rural, a car is still very useful (and economical when including time).  We don't need to rehash the arguments that in order for ride-hailing services to perform the job of today's personally owned cars, there would need to be as many of them as private cars.  Some habits shift over time, but as mass transit growth attempts have shown, it is in small increments.  There is also this thing called "freedom" (to easily go where you want) which was one of the driving forces of the automobile in the first place.  Want to jump in the car to go 2 hours away to the beach today - no problem - put your stuff in your car.

    Cars are going to be around for a long time, and new ones will need to be purchased.  The market is definitely going to change and some incumbents will be hurt.  Doesn't mean there isn't room for a new entrant that can do something better.  I wouldn't be placing all my bets on the ride-sharing future.
    Agreed. And countries like India and China have a very long way to go with per capita car ownership resembling anything even remotely close to the West. They will both go heavily electric -- India has already announced that it will not allow ICE cars to be sold after 2030.
  • Reply 10 of 20
    irelandireland Posts: 17,538member
    I call bullshit on this “source”. I call bullshit on “Business Insider” period.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 11 of 20
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,224member
    I own my own home. Rentals or leased condos probably make more sense on many levels. But I won't change until I'm too old and infirm to manage. There's just something about owning your own cave, not sleeping in someone else's. My car says reports of its death are greatly exaggerated.
  • Reply 12 of 20
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,499member
    There is lots of change coming to the transportation industry, that is certain - increase of EV sales, progress in autonomy, and every increasing ride-hailing/taxi services.  However, the "hype machine" is in overdrive, and governments all over the world are feeding into it with their proclamations that "no internal combustion engine vehicles will be sold by X date".  I get it - governments always like to 'show' that they are doing something, even when most times they are doing pretty much nothing (other than spending money while doing that).  

    However, they are statements without any knowledge of how to get from here (~99% of all vehicles sold ICE with a fully fleshed out fuel distribution system) to there (all EV with requisite charging stations that work in a comparable manner).  Sales of EV's in the USA in 2016 were up considerably over 2015, but still only accounted for .9% of sales.  This is with massive subsidies in most states.  Regardless of the merits of them, most would agree you cannot subsidize something into the mainstream.  When subsidies are removed, EV sales greatly slow down.  So, it is going to take some minor miracles to get to these dates of 2030-2040 to eliminate all ICE sales.

    This isn't a political statement or so motivated.  It is trying to pry away some of the hype and look at the facts as they now exist (not what some want or think will happen), and consider how the transportation industry will "really" evolve, and then consider how Apple might play in that.
  • Reply 13 of 20
    gatorguy said:
    Well of course it's ride-hailing, just as every car-maker realizes by now. The days of a car in every driveway are already passing.

    Millennials as a group have less interest in driving, are more likely to do their socializing on-line rather than visiting friends homes or going to bars/restaurants/clubs, prefer to shop on-line rather than traveling to a B&M, and and so in general have fewer reasons to drive to begin with. When the need does arise they're more likely to share transportation with another friend in their group, maybe chip in on the gas, when they go out rather than driving themselves.  Even possessing a driver's license is less likely than in previous generations. For many of them them car ownership isn't seen as a necessity or even a want anymore. 

    Because of the changing dynamics GM, Ford, Mazda, Fiat-Chrysler, Google, Mercedes, Nissan and likely Apple along with several other car-makers and transportation companies are all looking at the same future football field to play on, one skewed more towards sharing as long as folks can get from A to B when those less-frequent needs to go out and about arise. 
    Millennials make slackers look like overachievers.
  • Reply 14 of 20
    Yes, this does make sense and solve a lot of modern life problems in one hit: car price increasing, car parking space limitation, car fuel price increasing, traffic is worsening, car accident rate, etc. If there is a company that can make this work, and still profit in someway, as well as creating halo effect, it is Apple.
  • Reply 15 of 20
    For the average one car family the tipping point between ownership and "ride sharing" is about $700/month TCO.  Two car families are going to drop the second vehicle and get a self driving unit that will take bread winner to work then return home to serve the secondary driver until it's time to pick up the breadwinner 

    I'm legally blind and use Uber a lot (about$250/$300 per month). It's more convenient than public transportation, no concerns about finding a convenient parking space, etc.

    Talking with Uber drivers it seems their #1 passenger was formally a two car family, senior citizen or visually impaired. 

    I also see ride ride sharing replacing public transport. Generally speaking public transport requires about 90% subsidy to operate.  FARES ONLY ACCOUNT FOR 10% OF TOTAL REVENUE.  Municipalities could offer better service and save BIG TIME, by subsidizing Uber/Lyft at a 50% rate to provide public transport.  

    Keep in mind that 
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 16 of 20
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,273member
    Ride sharing/ hailing FTW! I've always said if Apple were to enter the car business, environmentalists as they are, they can't do it unless they can get up on stage and proudly say that they will help reduce traffic on the roads. Sharing reduces traffic. Owning more cars, does not.
  • Reply 17 of 20
    For the average one car family the tipping point between ownership and "ride sharing" is about $700/month TCO.  Two car families are going to drop the second vehicle and get a self driving unit that will take bread winner to work then return home to serve the secondary driver until it's time to pick up the breadwinner 

    I'm legally blind and use Uber a lot (about$250/$300 per month). It's more convenient than public transportation, no concerns about finding a convenient parking space, etc.

    Talking with Uber drivers it seems their #1 passenger was formally a two car family, senior citizen or visually impaired. 

    I also see ride ride sharing replacing public transport. Generally speaking public transport requires about 90% subsidy to operate.  FARES ONLY ACCOUNT FOR 10% OF TOTAL REVENUE.  Municipalities could offer better service and save BIG TIME, by subsidizing Uber/Lyft at a 50% rate to provide public transport.  

    Keep in mind that 
    Your calculations on subsidies ignore the fact that Uber/Lyft/cars are already indirectly subsidised because they drive on public roads. At least where I live, the tax on gas doesn't come close to covering the cost of roads because the government realises that investing in infrastructure - roads or subways - drives economic growth. If they start encouraging people out of subways and trams and into Ubers, they'll need more roads and that's not free. This isn't even taking into account pollution and traffic injuries/deaths, which hopefully will be partially solved by autonomous EVs in our lifetimes but not immediately.


  • Reply 18 of 20
    holyoneholyone Posts: 377member
    brucemc said:
    gatorguy said:
    Well of course it's ride-hailing, just as every car-maker realizes by now. The days of a car in every driveway are already passing.

    Millennials as a group have less interest in driving, are more likely to do their socializing on-line rather than visiting friends homes or going to bars, prefer to shop on-line rather than traveling to a B&M, and and so in general have fewer reasons to drive to begin with. When the need does arise they're more likely to share transportation with another friend in their group, maybe chip in on the gas, when they do go out rather than driving themselves.  Even possessing a driver's license is less likely than in previous generations. For many of them them car ownership isn't seen as a necessity or even a want anymore. 

    Because of the changing dynamics GM, Ford, Mazda, Fiat-Chrysler, Google, Mercedes, Nissan and likely Apple along with several other car-makers and transportation companies are all looking at the same future football field to play on, one skewed more towards sharing as long as folks can get from A to B when those less-frequent needs to go out and about arise. 

    Well said.  Car ownership won't disappear for a long, long time, but it's probably plateaued in the US (on a per capita basis).  I live out in the suburbs and there are more houses with 4 cars (or more typically SUVs, minivans, and trucks) than there are with just 1.  The median could easily be 3.  In 10 years, I expect there will still be plenty of cars here but every driveway won't be full with an extra vehicle parked on the street.
    I agree that car ownership has likely plateaued (or will soon) in the advanced economies for the general reasons noted.  But for those who make business decisions, they have to be more attuned to reality than the hype that "no one will own a car anymore" in 5-10 years - which you can easily read in the echo chamber of the media-blog-o-sphere.  For many core urban dwellers that work in said core, the economics are already there for ride-hailing services [BTW - almost no one "shares the ride" - it is not ride sharing - it is a paid taxi service managed via software & services].  

    However, for those who work outside of that core, and for all those in the suburbs, fringes, and rural, a car is still very useful (and economical when including time).  We don't need to rehash the arguments that in order for ride-hailing services to perform the job of today's personally owned cars, there would need to be as many of them as private cars.  Some habits shift over time, but as mass transit growth attempts have shown, it is in small increments.  There is also this thing called "freedom" (to easily go where you want) which was one of the driving forces of the automobile in the first place.  Want to jump in the car to go 2 hours away to the beach today - no problem - put your stuff in your car.

    Cars are going to be around for a long time, and new ones will need to be purchased.  The market is definitely going to change and some incumbents will be hurt.  Doesn't mean there isn't room for a new entrant that can do something better.  I wouldn't be placing all my bets on the ride-sharing future.
    True and well said, also not to mention that Apple has little play here if any. It's amazing how people keep making the same misguided argument when it comes to this hole self driving cars marlakey, 
    kevin kee said:
    Yes, this does make sense and solve a lot of modern life problems in one hit: car price increasing, car parking space limitation, car fuel price increasing, traffic is worsening, car accident rate, etc. If there is a company that can make this work, and still profit in someway, as well as creating halo effect, it is Apple.
    No it doesn't make any sence, Über and the likes largely sove the problem of teens who need a ride to the mall and don't want the third degree from their parents or for people who cant or shouldn't be driving. Yes car prices may be increasing but that's because they are getting better and better every year, like iPhones. Self driving cars won't sove parking space problems, when these self driving cars aren't need e.g night time when everyone's sleeping they'll need to be stored somewhere for safe keeping. Self driving cars won't change fuel prices either just move everyone to electricity which off cause means coal so... Nuts to that, and don't even dream about solar that would make the hole thing an economic nonstarter.

    I don't know wher people get this idea that self driving cars are going to reduce traffic and accidents, this will only be true in a meaningful way when every car on the road drives it self and communicates with every other car on the road regardless of brand, so this dream of a world where the are zero accident and traffic jams is still just that, a dream.

    To onother fanboy favorite, Apple car will be so awesome, out of all the companies working on this, Apple is by far the least suitable for self driving cars and ride hailing business. I've said this ample times yet :( , Apple is a user experience oriented company, everything they do well in one way or onother involves a mastery in user experience. An interaction where a user sits in the product and says " take me home" leves no room for Apple to introduce the Apple difference, the legendary intuitive user interface that makes the Apple experience, a car whose primary feature is that it can drive it self very well, is creepy softwear, it's cloud it's sever, and if we are honest that's more google than Apple. As to the ride hailing idea, Apple sells affodable premium axperiences, there is no worthwhile market for a Rolls Royce Uber
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 19 of 20
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    holyone said:
    brucemc said:
    gatorguy said:
    Well of course it's ride-hailing, just as every car-maker realizes by now. The days of a car in every driveway are already passing.

    Millennials as a group have less interest in driving, are more likely to do their socializing on-line rather than visiting friends homes or going to bars, prefer to shop on-line rather than traveling to a B&M, and and so in general have fewer reasons to drive to begin with. When the need does arise they're more likely to share transportation with another friend in their group, maybe chip in on the gas, when they do go out rather than driving themselves.  Even possessing a driver's license is less likely than in previous generations. For many of them them car ownership isn't seen as a necessity or even a want anymore. 

    Because of the changing dynamics GM, Ford, Mazda, Fiat-Chrysler, Google, Mercedes, Nissan and likely Apple along with several other car-makers and transportation companies are all looking at the same future football field to play on, one skewed more towards sharing as long as folks can get from A to B when those less-frequent needs to go out and about arise. 

    Well said.  Car ownership won't disappear for a long, long time, but it's probably plateaued in the US (on a per capita basis).  I live out in the suburbs and there are more houses with 4 cars (or more typically SUVs, minivans, and trucks) than there are with just 1.  The median could easily be 3.  In 10 years, I expect there will still be plenty of cars here but every driveway won't be full with an extra vehicle parked on the street.
    I agree that car ownership has likely plateaued (or will soon) in the advanced economies for the general reasons noted.  But for those who make business decisions, they have to be more attuned to reality than the hype that "no one will own a car anymore" in 5-10 years - which you can easily read in the echo chamber of the media-blog-o-sphere.  For many core urban dwellers that work in said core, the economics are already there for ride-hailing services [BTW - almost no one "shares the ride" - it is not ride sharing - it is a paid taxi service managed via software & services].  

    However, for those who work outside of that core, and for all those in the suburbs, fringes, and rural, a car is still very useful (and economical when including time).  We don't need to rehash the arguments that in order for ride-hailing services to perform the job of today's personally owned cars, there would need to be as many of them as private cars.  Some habits shift over time, but as mass transit growth attempts have shown, it is in small increments.  There is also this thing called "freedom" (to easily go where you want) which was one of the driving forces of the automobile in the first place.  Want to jump in the car to go 2 hours away to the beach today - no problem - put your stuff in your car.

    Cars are going to be around for a long time, and new ones will need to be purchased.  The market is definitely going to change and some incumbents will be hurt.  Doesn't mean there isn't room for a new entrant that can do something better.  I wouldn't be placing all my bets on the ride-sharing future.
    True and well said, also not to mention that Apple has little play here if any. It's amazing how people keep making the same misguided argument when it comes to this hole self driving cars marlakey, 
    kevin kee said:
    Yes, this does make sense and solve a lot of modern life problems in one hit: car price increasing, car parking space limitation, car fuel price increasing, traffic is worsening, car accident rate, etc. If there is a company that can make this work, and still profit in someway, as well as creating halo effect, it is Apple.
    No it doesn't make any sence, Über and the likes largely sove the problem of teens who need a ride to the mall and don't want the third degree from their parents or for people who cant or shouldn't be driving. Yes car prices may be increasing but that's because they are getting better and better every year, like iPhones. Self driving cars won't sove parking space problems, when these self driving cars aren't need e.g night time when everyone's sleeping they'll need to be stored somewhere for safe keeping. Self driving cars won't change fuel prices either just move everyone to electricity which off cause means coal so... Nuts to that, and don't even dream about solar that would make the hole thing an economic nonstarter.

    I don't know wher people get this idea that self driving cars are going to reduce traffic and accidents, this will only be true in a meaningful way when every car on the road drives it self and communicates with every other car on the road regardless of brand, so this dream of a world where the are zero accident and traffic jams is still just that, a dream.

    To onother fanboy favorite, Apple car will be so awesome, out of all the companies working on this, Apple is by far the least suitable for self driving cars and ride hailing business. I've said this ample times yet :( , Apple is a user experience oriented company, everything they do well in one way or onother involves a mastery in user experience. An interaction where a user sits in the product and says " take me home" leves no room for Apple to introduce the Apple difference, the legendary intuitive user interface that makes the Apple experience, a car whose primary feature is that it can drive it self very well, is creepy softwear, it's cloud it's sever, and if we are honest that's more google than Apple. As to the ride hailing idea, Apple sells affodable premium axperiences, there is no worthwhile market for a Rolls Royce Uber
    How is that more google when dealing with crap and widgets is the Android experience... Makes no sense. Take me home is just one part of the experience.
    People not finding they need to own a car will reduce the number of cars around.
Sign In or Register to comment.