I don't see how a self driving vehicle could ever interact safely with the idiot drivers already on the roads. A lost cause.
One goal of self-driving vehicles would be to take all idiot drivers off the roads so nobody has to interact with them as well as elderly, distracted, inexperienced drivers.
There was an Apple software engineer killed in a self-driving Tesla in 2018:
The cost of even a single person dying as a result of a product mistake must weigh heavily on the people making self-driving vehicles.
It's a worthy cause, transport would be vastly improved, safer, cheaper and more efficient with self-driving vehicles making the majority of journeys and they will be very useful for elderly and disabled people. They just need to be implemented exceptionally well, anything less will cost lives, even if proportionally fewer than human drivers.
It's a worthy cause, transport would be vastly improved, safer, cheaper and more efficient with self-driving vehicles making the majority of journeys and they will be very useful for elderly and disabled people. They just need to be implemented exceptionally well, anything less will cost lives, even if proportionally fewer than human drivers.
I agree. But another big benefit is it would, in theory, eliminate the bane of every driver — the traffic cop! Especially those who hide and then jump out to nab you.
If you have a fully autonomous vehicle, it makes sense it would obey the law better than any human driver. Although, the question then becomes who would then be responsible if a rogue cop still wanted to issue a citation just because he personally doesn't like fully autonomous cars, or for some other emotionally triggered reason?
While one could argue the owner is responsible in the event of a citation given to them (or to their fully autonomous driver?), technically speaking the owner wasn't driving, and what if the violation was a result of a glitch outside the owner's control?
Regardless, fewer ridiculous citations would be perhaps one of the more significant improvements to society as a whole, in addition to the benefits mentioned by Marvin.
Finally! And I hope I never hear about that ridiculous "Apple Car" again. It never made any sense for a computer and mobile phone maker to get into the car space. It's a completely different sort of thing altogether, and that would have made the company "too diverse." I think it would have harmed Apple in the end, so good riddance. No doubt they'll glean money off all the patents they filed in the years to come. That's enough.
1) That's the same argument I heard when Apple started making MP3 players, and then again when it was rumored they were making a cellphone.
2) You really don't see how a tech company could make a vehicle like a Tesla or Rivian?
Friend, what in THE world are you talking about? Seriously.
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.
By your logic, you don't allow for the idea that Apple would have spun off Project Titan into a separate corporation when the development was finished? Titan would simply license the patents from Apple. This is not a complex undertaking, nor is it unheard of in the industrial age. GE, for instance, has spun off into three companies involved in aerospace, healthcare, and appliances. Bosch has divisions in pharmaceuticals, automotive, and appliances. Corporate diversity protects a company in case of downturns in any one industry or product line.
Spinning off means potentially losing needed talent to the spun off division. I bet Apple said a quick ‘no thanks’ to that.
Building and selling cars is no where near as profitable as Apple’s existing businesses. Why dilute your business with a much lower margin division, especially one in a highly competitive arena that will necessitate a ton of focus from your best talent?
And a business that will subvert your CarPlay initiative as one other commenter here pointed out; other car companies are far less likely to want to incorporate CarPlay if Apple is a competitor.
Nope, better to leverage future CarPlay editions to maybe build out a universal ride sharing dispatch service. Any car manufacturer with CarPlay, whether ICE with human driver or EV with human driver or full autonomy could, via some future CarPlay system, opt into Apple’s ride sharing dispatch system to allow consumers with Apple devices to request rides.
The future CarPlay system needs only a few bits of info from each car to make this work.. Current location, current availability to serve a ride, extent of availability to serve a ride (is the car scheduled to be a taxi for the next, say, hour required to serve the requested ride?), current fuel or charge status (does the car have fuel or charge sufficient to serve a requested ride), and will the vehicle have remaining fuel or charge after the ride to at least make it to a fueling or charging station. Apple could take a tiny percentage of the fare and have a great business. It might also interject itself into some in-car advertisements or otherwise interact with the rider during each ride, either via CarPlay or directly via the ride-haling app. Nice little business that has zero liability in the event of a crash or injury; those risks are assumed and born by the individual vehicle owners and/or the car manufacturers who make autonomous systems used to pilot the cars.
Comments
There was an Apple software engineer killed in a self-driving Tesla in 2018:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/8/24124744/tesla-autopilot-lawsuit-settlement-huang-death
The cost of even a single person dying as a result of a product mistake must weigh heavily on the people making self-driving vehicles.
It's a worthy cause, transport would be vastly improved, safer, cheaper and more efficient with self-driving vehicles making the majority of journeys and they will be very useful for elderly and disabled people. They just need to be implemented exceptionally well, anything less will cost lives, even if proportionally fewer than human drivers.
If you have a fully autonomous vehicle, it makes sense it would obey the law better than any human driver. Although, the question then becomes who would then be responsible if a rogue cop still wanted to issue a citation just because he personally doesn't like fully autonomous cars, or for some other emotionally triggered reason?
While one could argue the owner is responsible in the event of a citation given to them (or to their fully autonomous driver?), technically speaking the owner wasn't driving, and what if the violation was a result of a glitch outside the owner's control?
Regardless, fewer ridiculous citations would be perhaps one of the more significant improvements to society as a whole, in addition to the benefits mentioned by Marvin.