Does "I skate to where the puk is going. Not where it has been" ring a bell?
In order to keep growing and not become irrelevant apple has to find new industries to relolucionalize. Cars, robotics. Cool stuff don't you agree?
No, I don't agree. What the hell has Google revolutionized? Nothing, because they are an advertising company.
And cars, seriously? Do have ANY idea the regulatory difficulties in changing the basic way that automobiles work? You can go and DESIGN whatever you want. But that doesn't mean you can drive that vehicle on a public road. The same way that you can BUY an F1 vehicle, but you sure has hell can't drive it to the grocery store.
And what robotics? To do what, fold my clothes?
Seriously, Apple already makes a small but diverse series of products. And most of those products -- some would say all -- are best in class. Last quarter, they sold more iPhones and more iPads than ever before. Their revenues last quarter were the 4th highest EVER by ANYONE in ANY industry. And the only 3 above them were all oil companies. They have the highest market cap in the world. They are clearly working on some new things, or at least some tweaks on old things.
So, I have to ask this question: Why do you think they need to change? They are arguably the most successful company in the world -- not just tech company, any company. Their brand recognition is off the charts, everything having to do with the company is off the charts. Why the hell would anyone want them to start doing stuff with cars or something? That's not their business. Let Ford or Ferrari or BMW do that. You know, auto companies?
I am a fan of apple.. I got a macbook and iphones since the original one. I love to see them succeed but when people defy logic it annoys and irritates me.
to your points. Yes cars, seriously. Almost everyone agrees that regulatory hurdles will drag implementation of the technology (that already exists) further down the road. Almost everyone agrees that we will see a 90%-100% driverless car within 10 years from now. Your example with the F1 car is irrelevant. These cars will drive on the road infrastructure that already exist. Its the technology that google (and others) is building that will allow this. And I bet they would love to lease it to all car manufacturers when the time comes.
and robotics. from what I read Google plans to revolutionalize factories. So instead of thousand chinese workers assembling phones at Foxtron, there will be robot factories - possibly in the US- assembling them 24/7. And I get those robots wont be jumping from any buildings either.
I totally agree with you on your 2nd to last paragraph about apples success.
On your last paragraph you say "Why the hell would anyone want them to start doing stuff with cars or something? That's not their business.".. well it wasnt their business making phones prior to 2007 and now look what happened. I think you must wrote this without thinking. I dont think you believe that Apple should not venture into other markets. I think they are obliged to. Hell yes I would love to see them make tesla like cars. If not Apple with their powerful resources and the zillions in the bank then who?
The driverless cars thing won't happen, except possibly freeways or motorways. It can't work on country roads because civilian GPS isn't accurate enough to know exactly where the car is, nor would any car sensors be able to follow curves in the road or pass temporary obstructions. Simularly in cities the cars have to stop at roadworks, know the one way system, know the daily traffic law changes to legal lane usage, and be uptodate on road closures, diversions and changes to one way systems. They will never be able to judge temporary obstructions either.
The only way driverless cars can work is dedicated lanes guaranteed to have only driverless cars, guaranteed to not have obstructions and roadworks not to change rules ( ie one way streets) and the cars will only be driverless in those lanes. Which is pointless.
The driverless cars thing won't happen, except possibly freeways or motorways. It can't work on country roads because civilian GPS isn't accurate enough to know exactly where the car is, nor would any car sensors be able to follow curves in the road or pass temporary obstructions. Simularly in cities the cars have to stop at roadworks, know the one way system, know the daily traffic law changes to legal lane usage, and be uptodate on road closures, diversions and changes to one way systems. They will never be able to judge temporary obstructions either.
The only way driverless cars can work is dedicated lanes guaranteed to have only driverless cars, guaranteed to not have obstructions and roadworks not to change rules ( ie one way streets) and the cars will only be driverless in those lanes. Which is pointless.
I bet there where a lot of people in the 1950s that said people would never land on the moon..
The driverless cars thing won't happen, except possibly freeways or motorways. It can't work on country roads because civilian GPS isn't accurate enough to know exactly where the car is, nor would any car sensors be able to follow curves in the road or pass temporary obstructions. Simularly in cities the cars have to stop at roadworks, know the one way system, know the daily traffic law changes to legal lane usage, and be uptodate on road closures, diversions and changes to one way systems. They will never be able to judge temporary obstructions either.
The only way driverless cars can work is dedicated lanes guaranteed to have only driverless cars, guaranteed to not have obstructions and roadworks not to change rules ( ie one way streets) and the cars will only be driverless in those lanes. Which is pointless.
i dont see any dedicated lanes or any other problems
I bet there where a lot of people in the 1950s that said people would never land on the moon..
And there were people in 1970 who thought the war on cancer would be won in 5 years, that we would have colonies on Mars by now, and that all flight would be supersonic. Unless you have actual refutations of my points that's a logical fallacy. Every argument about a particular progress in technology depends on its own merits not on anecdotes with regard to previous pessimism or optimism about past predictions of the future.
i dont see any dedicated lanes or any other problems
You are not answering my points. A video in a controlled environment is not rush hour in London with 4 streets closed off due to a protest, ten roadworks, and changes to the one way system.
You are not answering my points. A video in a controlled environment is not rush hour in London with 4 streets closed off due to a protest, ten roadworks, and changes to the one way system.
the video perfectly answers you points.. what controlled environment? there are dozens of videos on youtube with driverless cars on all sorts of conditions and google has stated that they have done millions of miles in them in US roads of all sorts... and this perfectly answers your points..
its just a matter of regulatory approval that yes will take time and a matter of perfecting the technology.. telsa is also experimenting with autonomous cars (they call it auto pilot) and they say it is a matter of a few years before we see 90% driverless cars on the road. And to my point this all started with me saying that Apple should go and disrupt other markets. And I surely think the car industry is one of them. And even 90% driverless cars is a revolution and a huge change to society.
the video perfectly answers you points.. what controlled environment? there are dozens of videos on youtube with driverless cars on all sorts of conditions and google has stated that they have done millions of miles in them in US roads of all sorts... and this perfectly answers your points..
its just a matter of regulatory approval that yes will take time and a matter of perfecting the technology.. telsa is also experimenting with autonomous cars (they call it auto pilot) and they say it is a matter of a few years before we see 90% driverless cars on the road. And to my point this all started with me saying that Apple should go and disrupt other markets. And I surely think the car industry is one of them. And even 90% driverless cars is a revolution and a huge change to society.
Here is what happened to me in the last year.
1) driving in London. Policeman waves cars over, I am in front and stop, they put down a barrier and errect temporary lights to make the two lane street a one lane street. Explain how the google car would handle this.
2) driving country roads in Ireland, travelling at 50mph I see a sign which has been pretty much turned to face the ditch, in a fraction of a second though I recognise enough colour and shape to assume Men At Work, slow down around the next corner and see a local worker holding a sign ( not lights) for stop and no other barriers. I stop. Cars go by, he gets a message on his phone, turns the sign green, I move onto the right ( i.e. The wrong) side of the road until another guy waves me back a few miles on.
There is no way google will get this right in all cases and since getting it wrong kills people it won't happen.
I'm confused. Why would a person have to decide if it was a new product category? Like a phone with a bigger screen is still a phone, it's not a new product, but a watch, TV, glasses, car, gaming system whatever is a new product line. A payment option is not a product category, but if it generates revenue who cares what they call it.
How is a payments system not a new product category? Products aren't just hardware.
1) driving in London. Policeman waves cars over, I am in front and stop, they put down a barrier and errect temporary lights to make the two lane street a one lane street. Explain how the google car would handle this.
2) driving country roads in Ireland, travelling at 50mph I see a sign which has been pretty much turned to face the ditch, in a fraction of a second though I recognise enough colour and shape to assume Men At Work, slow down around the next corner and see a local worker holding a sign ( not lights) for stop and no other barriers. I stop. Cars go by, he gets a message on his phone, turns the sign green, I move onto the right ( i.e. The wrong) side of the road until another guy waves me back a few miles on.
There is no way google will get this right in all cases and since getting it wrong kills people it won't happen.
Not sure if you've heard, but cars with drivers kill a lot of people too.
There are solutions to the problems you've stated, and no doubt Google is looking to make the system as robust as possible, with a manual drive contingency when there are enough flags of doubt raised by the system.
Brakes fail, we don't ban brakes. Drivers fail, we don't ban drivers. When driverless reaches a point where advantages outweigh disadvantages and enough doubts have been satisfied, it'll be allowed.
I love to see them succeed but when people defy logic it annoys and irritates me.
Me too. Hence this post.
Almost everyone agrees that regulatory hurdles will drag implementation of the technology (that already exists) further down the road. Almost everyone agrees that we will see a 90%-100% driverless car within 10 years from now.
No. It is even unlikely that even the military, which really needs driverless cars will have them in 10 years.
Its the technology that google (and others) is building that will allow this. And I bet they would love to lease it to all car manufacturers when the time comes.
It's nice that Google is funding the DARPA grand challenge winner but the innovation award belongs elsewhere. Like DARPA.
and robotics. from what I read Google plans to revolutionalize factories. So instead of thousand chinese workers assembling phones at Foxtron, there will be robot factories - possibly in the US- assembling them 24/7. And I get those robots wont be jumping from any buildings either.
Something NeXT was doing in the 80s.
Apple is innovative when driving toward their goals and they are very focused on their objectives.
MS has done more UI and touch research than Apple. They employ some of the biggest guns in multitouch research at MS Research.
Which company was more innovative in multitouch? Apple or MS?
Same for many of Googles initiatives. Instead of just papers they want publicity but how many of them pan out?
He has posted many other times without the "I'm a fan, but". Clearly he can make his point without it, but in that one instance chose to include it. It doesn't invalidate anything.
This "gotcha" criticism of yours is very repetitive and tedious and, to me, far more indicative of not being able to make a constructive point than a few words of irrelevant personal context.
Not sure if you've heard, but cars with drivers kill a lot of people too.
There are solutions to the problems you've stated, and no doubt Google is looking to make the system as robust as possible, with a manual drive contingency when there are enough flags of doubt raised by the system.
That's not a driverless car, is it? 'Manual drive contingency' already exists; some cars pretty much drive themselves on motorways with cruise control, lane detection etc. but you still need a driver.
Imagine being in three lanes of stationary traffic with cars all over the place. An ambulance is tying to cut through the traffic. Cars are reversing, mounting pavements to create room.
When a driverless car is capable of quickly and safely handling this situation, then it might be approaching usability.
MS has done more UI and touch research than Apple.
You know this ... how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Same for many of Googles initiatives. Instead of just papers they want publicity but how many of them pan out?
By their own admission, many Apple initiatives also don't work out. The difference between them and Google is secrecy. Just because a company chooses to be open doesn't make them a seeker of PR. And you do not have any idea which companies have brought more initiatives to successful products, which by the way is the sole measure of innovation.
Comments
In order to keep growing and not become irrelevant apple has to find new industries to relolucionalize. Cars, robotics. Cool stuff don't you agree?
I am a fan of apple.. I got a macbook and iphones since the original one. I love to see them succeed but when people defy logic it annoys and irritates me.
to your points. Yes cars, seriously. Almost everyone agrees that regulatory hurdles will drag implementation of the technology (that already exists) further down the road. Almost everyone agrees that we will see a 90%-100% driverless car within 10 years from now. Your example with the F1 car is irrelevant. These cars will drive on the road infrastructure that already exist. Its the technology that google (and others) is building that will allow this. And I bet they would love to lease it to all car manufacturers when the time comes.
and robotics. from what I read Google plans to revolutionalize factories. So instead of thousand chinese workers assembling phones at Foxtron, there will be robot factories - possibly in the US- assembling them 24/7. And I get those robots wont be jumping from any buildings either.
I totally agree with you on your 2nd to last paragraph about apples success.
On your last paragraph you say "Why the hell would anyone want them to start doing stuff with cars or something? That's not their business.".. well it wasnt their business making phones prior to 2007 and now look what happened. I think you must wrote this without thinking. I dont think you believe that Apple should not venture into other markets. I think they are obliged to. Hell yes I would love to see them make tesla like cars. If not Apple with their powerful resources and the zillions in the bank then who?
The only way driverless cars can work is dedicated lanes guaranteed to have only driverless cars, guaranteed to not have obstructions and roadworks not to change rules ( ie one way streets) and the cars will only be driverless in those lanes. Which is pointless.
The driverless cars thing won't happen, except possibly freeways or motorways. It can't work on country roads because civilian GPS isn't accurate enough to know exactly where the car is, nor would any car sensors be able to follow curves in the road or pass temporary obstructions. Simularly in cities the cars have to stop at roadworks, know the one way system, know the daily traffic law changes to legal lane usage, and be uptodate on road closures, diversions and changes to one way systems. They will never be able to judge temporary obstructions either.
The only way driverless cars can work is dedicated lanes guaranteed to have only driverless cars, guaranteed to not have obstructions and roadworks not to change rules ( ie one way streets) and the cars will only be driverless in those lanes. Which is pointless.
I bet there where a lot of people in the 1950s that said people would never land on the moon..
The driverless cars thing won't happen, except possibly freeways or motorways. It can't work on country roads because civilian GPS isn't accurate enough to know exactly where the car is, nor would any car sensors be able to follow curves in the road or pass temporary obstructions. Simularly in cities the cars have to stop at roadworks, know the one way system, know the daily traffic law changes to legal lane usage, and be uptodate on road closures, diversions and changes to one way systems. They will never be able to judge temporary obstructions either.
The only way driverless cars can work is dedicated lanes guaranteed to have only driverless cars, guaranteed to not have obstructions and roadworks not to change rules ( ie one way streets) and the cars will only be driverless in those lanes. Which is pointless.
i dont see any dedicated lanes or any other problems
And there were people in 1970 who thought the war on cancer would be won in 5 years, that we would have colonies on Mars by now, and that all flight would be supersonic. Unless you have actual refutations of my points that's a logical fallacy. Every argument about a particular progress in technology depends on its own merits not on anecdotes with regard to previous pessimism or optimism about past predictions of the future.
You are not answering my points. A video in a controlled environment is not rush hour in London with 4 streets closed off due to a protest, ten roadworks, and changes to the one way system.
You are not answering my points. A video in a controlled environment is not rush hour in London with 4 streets closed off due to a protest, ten roadworks, and changes to the one way system.
the video perfectly answers you points.. what controlled environment? there are dozens of videos on youtube with driverless cars on all sorts of conditions and google has stated that they have done millions of miles in them in US roads of all sorts... and this perfectly answers your points..
its just a matter of regulatory approval that yes will take time and a matter of perfecting the technology.. telsa is also experimenting with autonomous cars (they call it auto pilot) and they say it is a matter of a few years before we see 90% driverless cars on the road. And to my point this all started with me saying that Apple should go and disrupt other markets. And I surely think the car industry is one of them. And even 90% driverless cars is a revolution and a huge change to society.
Here is what happened to me in the last year.
1) driving in London. Policeman waves cars over, I am in front and stop, they put down a barrier and errect temporary lights to make the two lane street a one lane street. Explain how the google car would handle this.
2) driving country roads in Ireland, travelling at 50mph I see a sign which has been pretty much turned to face the ditch, in a fraction of a second though I recognise enough colour and shape to assume Men At Work, slow down around the next corner and see a local worker holding a sign ( not lights) for stop and no other barriers. I stop. Cars go by, he gets a message on his phone, turns the sign green, I move onto the right ( i.e. The wrong) side of the road until another guy waves me back a few miles on.
There is no way google will get this right in all cases and since getting it wrong kills people it won't happen.
There are solutions to the problems you've stated, and no doubt Google is looking to make the system as robust as possible, with a manual drive contingency when there are enough flags of doubt raised by the system.
Brakes fail, we don't ban brakes. Drivers fail, we don't ban drivers. When driverless reaches a point where advantages outweigh disadvantages and enough doubts have been satisfied, it'll be allowed.
Me too. Hence this post.
No. It is even unlikely that even the military, which really needs driverless cars will have them in 10 years.
It's nice that Google is funding the DARPA grand challenge winner but the innovation award belongs elsewhere. Like DARPA.
Something NeXT was doing in the 80s.
Apple is innovative when driving toward their goals and they are very focused on their objectives.
MS has done more UI and touch research than Apple. They employ some of the biggest guns in multitouch research at MS Research.
Which company was more innovative in multitouch? Apple or MS?
Same for many of Googles initiatives. Instead of just papers they want publicity but how many of them pan out?
If you can’t say more than this, don’t say anything at all.
Those 'but' stories are always great...
My wife told me she loves me and I'm the best thing that ever happened to her BUT she left me for the mailman.
If you can’t say more than this, don’t say anything at all.
He did say more than that?; you cut it from the quote.
If he can’t make his point without a conditional, he can’t make his point.
This "gotcha" criticism of yours is very repetitive and tedious and, to me, far more indicative of not being able to make a constructive point than a few words of irrelevant personal context.
That's not a driverless car, is it? 'Manual drive contingency' already exists; some cars pretty much drive themselves on motorways with cruise control, lane detection etc. but you still need a driver.
Imagine being in three lanes of stationary traffic with cars all over the place. An ambulance is tying to cut through the traffic. Cars are reversing, mounting pavements to create room.
When a driverless car is capable of quickly and safely handling this situation, then it might be approaching usability.
Just think of the variables!
MS has done more UI and touch research than Apple.
You know this ... how?
Same for many of Googles initiatives. Instead of just papers they want publicity but how many of them pan out?
By their own admission, many Apple initiatives also don't work out. The difference between them and Google is secrecy. Just because a company chooses to be open doesn't make them a seeker of PR. And you do not have any idea which companies have brought more initiatives to successful products, which by the way is the sole measure of innovation.