Apple cancels California DMV permit for self-driving car testing
The California Department of Motor Vehicles has canceled Apple's permit for testing self-driving vehicles on roads at the company's request, in a move that could spell the end of the project.
An Apple self-driving test rig
Apple, like many other tech giants, have been testing self-driving vehicle systems for a number of years. However, a development at the California DMV has put the future of the project in doubt.
Apple had a permit for testing autonomous vehicles on roads with a safety driver until April 30, 2025. According to MacReports, Apple contacted the DMV to cancel its Autonomous Vehicles Program Manufacturer's Testing Permit.
The DMV then contacted Apple by letter on September 25, confirming Apple's request to cancel the permit, and that it would end by September 27, 2024.
Without the permit, Apple is no longer able to carry out self-driving vehicle testing on public roads.
Apple had first received its permit in 2017, with it expanding the fleet and team of drivers over time. While it had previously employed over 200 drivers for the project, as of May 2024, it had 68 registered vehicles and just 15 registered drivers.
Though the canceled permit does leave the door open for Apple to resume activity in the future, it seems that the project is dead for the moment.
In February, a report found employees considered Apple's Project Titan project was a "Titanic disaster" and a failure. Another report in March said that the challenge of a full self-driving vehicle system was insurmountable, even for Apple.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Opening Line: "California DMV cancels Apple's Permit"
2) You really don't see how a tech company could make a vehicle like a Tesla or Rivian?
cancelling it’s an extra $5 per month. This will be quickly followed by “see thru as a service” for $8 per month for your Vision Pro. Apple R&D “we never stop not innovating”. (You can subscribe to the Apple Not Innovating Substack for $7per month.)
Apple actually MADE a music player. That was REALITY. Doing research or prepping for something that never comes to be a real product is not reality. It's a gamble, if anything. But here's the biggest rebuttal to what you wrote. The iPod was more than a concept brought to reality. It was a perfect fit for Apple, being a small electronic device that attached as a PERIPHERAL to... Drum roll please... A Mac computer. Yes, indeed. The iPod was originally a Mac-only music player! But I realize some people are too young to remember that or so old they may have forgotten. So that takes a strong strike at your Point #1.
As to your Point #2, you didn't comprehend what I wrote. It's not about who could use their billions to make a car. Friend, it's about what product is a GOOD FIT for your company and its existing products. And no, it's not like Apple was going to jettison the Mac, iPad, iPhone and everything else in order to invest everything in becoming the next big American car company. As I said, it would have been too much diversification for Apple. It's not a problem for Tesla as that company is 100% dedicated to making cars. That's why Tesla doesn't make rockets. SpaceX, a totally different company, does that. The same holds true for traditional car makers. But by your logic, Marlboro should give car making a try because, well, if you've got the money, go for it! No, friend. It's a matter of what is a good fit for your company in light of what you're all about. So that's the rebuttal to your Point #2.
Apple patented a lot of create automotive tech, and maybe they can reap financial rewards from that in the future. But they aren't a dedicated car company, and to be that, you would need to focus so much of your company on it that the other untreated products you sell (like the Mac) would suffer. And do you really want that? I'm guessing the answer is no as per the fact you are posting passionately in this forum and have 2,824 points to your name here too.
Apple doing years of R&D and then deciding it wasn't worth the effort does not mean they couldn't have done it or that modern automobiles aren't chock full of computers. You can just look at the lately slew of CyberTruck issues to see what shitty programming can lead to.
If Marlboro wanted to make something else they could, and they have. This is fucking common in industry. Look at Textron, Rolls Royce, Mitsubuishi, Toshiba, VW — just a few examples off the top of my head. You can also look at Apple over 50 years, and that's before you consider that an automobile as a general category isn't very difficult which is why Tesla was even able to exist in the first place and why there are countless small companies still in existence. What is difficult is the SW of modern cars which and seeking out an Apple-level of profit form an already saturated market. So what seems like a more reasonable scenario: Apple couldn't figure out how to make 4 wheels roll on the ground or that they couldn't get the profit margin high enough to make it a worthwhile endeavor? Probably why they also never made an actual TV and dumped their home networking products.
What I have noticed sinking large, entrenched companies is too many execs within the company having your mentality of simply staying in a particular lane without seeing the bigger picture. Personally, I'm glad companies like Apple are willing to look at the bigger picture to design their own chips and do R&D to see if new product segments are good solutions for them. It's sad to see companies like Xerox or Blockbuster decay because they lacked vision and the ability to adapt.
PS: It's weird AF to claim that research isn't real. 🤦♂️
However... what makes NO sense to me is the last part of the sub-headline, "...could spell the end of the project." COULD??? Where is the "could" when Apple has formally shut down the whole project and disbanded the team? And if entering the EV business was eventually deemed to be too difficult and (more likely) not sufficiently profitable currently, that will only get worse now that all major global automakers, led by the Chinese, have entered the EV fray. (If you haven't looked at the best of the Chinese EVs, do a search and prepare to be stunned by how far ahead they are vs. other companies, including Tesla.)
I think the real question for Apple is how well CarPlay will survive as automakers see $$$ in being able to control and monetize consumer data generated within the car. I was really hoping that GM's abandonment of CarPlay and Android Auto would flop, but it doesn't seem to have dinged sales, even after it was revealed that GM's system was secretly gathering detailed data on driving habits--speeding, hard braking, hard turns, etc. -- and selling that off to insurance companies who raised rates on drivers. I would expect other car companies are looking at GM's experience now and thinking, "Why not us?" Personally, the lack of CarPlay compatibility is an immediate dealbreaker--I wouldn't even look at a car that didn't have CarPlay.
One of the best burns is that Trump is publicly slating them calling autonomous vehicles "concerning" after Musk campaigned with him over the weekend.
@Xed:
“Never argue with a fool, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
– Mark Twain
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
“Silence is the best response to a fool.”
– Imam Ali
Just sayin'
As to real world Apple spin-off companies, the best known one is CLARIS. But even though it still exists today, it's still very much a one-trick Pony, surviving off FileMaker Pro, which really isn't that widely used today. It's in no way ground breaking or earth shattering, and I can say that as a FileMaker Pro user who has purchased many versions over the years.
But all this chit chat is moot in terms of Apple putting a final nail in the coffin of their automotive project. Except for the revenue their patents will generate, none of it really matters now. Okay, well, maybe if they can make CarPlay better, that would excite me a bit, but the down side is that requires new hardware to be installed by the auto makers, which means a new car. And unlike an iPhone, we don't change out cars that often. If you're super frugal and have a great car, you may have it 15 years. Heck, my Dad still has his father's 1966 Ford pickup, and yes, it still runs (although sucks gas like there's no tomorrow).
Probably more seriously, the car market is very difficult. There are many competitors and low margins: Apple could conceivably compete with these but the market is also heavily regulated (it’s the opposite of a green field) and uncertain. The market for EVs (and it’s far too late to enter the internal combustion market) is subject to volatile government regulation (which year do other fuels get banned from sales = it just keeps changing), user doubt (range anxiety) and dumping from China (at least in the UK, the new government still thinks that’s a good thing). However good your product, these things will cause big variations in the sale of very expensive products.