sog35 wrote: »
Where are all the people who said Apple wasn't building a car but just a dashboard.
come on. admit you were wrong.
sflagel wrote: »
What sucks is the attitude of people who get sucked into believing they need a new car every 4 years.
Shipping is a feature.
Yes. It looks like we are heading to a semi-autonomous Siri operated car, very much like the iconic Kitt car.
cornchip wrote: »
I love driving. I'm not exactly all for self driving cars, and who knows if Apple's stab at the automobile will self-driving (I doubt it), but as I was dropping off one of my cars at the repair shop tonight, a cop pulled up behind us, and on the way home, it dawned on me. The greatest benefit self-driving cars will provide to society as I now see it, is not safety, is not efficiency, is not convenience, no, it's none of that. The greatest benefit will be that cops will have to find SOMETHING ELSE TO DO, other than pull people over for traffic violations. You know what I say? Bring it. Go fight real crime, piggies.
The main issue is that you still have to drive/operate them.
It seems trivial, but just ask those mothers that have to leave work early to pick up their kids from school.
That I agree with. Autonomous driving would be a god-send. I do not understand why it is so difficult, at least on motorways: all we'd need is cars that are equipped with cameras and sensors (already exist) that send these to a data centre in real-time to inform the Sat Navs in other cars on the same route of changing conditions. Heck, you can even use human inputs like Wayz does. The main requirement that does not already exist today, is that the government installs electronic tags, reflectors, whatever, on the motorways to provide machine readable delineations. Give how expensive it is to build a motorway, the additional costs of providing slightly better lines than paint cant be a deal-breaker.
So I wonder, why is the government not working with the car manufacturers?
Who drives from LA to NY?
Besides: Apple always wants you to charge their products overnight. It is one of their tricks so that you develop a "caring" relationship for your product. Low battery life is a feature, not a shortcoming. It means you are constantly worrying about "feeding" your beloved phone; and in the process, you develop a subconscious "love" for it.
sflagel wrote: »
That I agree with. Autonomous driving would be a god-send. I do not understand why it is so difficult, at least on motorways: all we'd need is cars that are equipped with cameras and sensors (already exist) that send these to a data centre in real-time to inform other cars on the same route (already exists: SatNavs) of changing conditions such as an accident. Heck, you can even use human interaction like Wayz does. The main requirement is that the government installs electronic tags, reflectors, whatever, on the motorways to provide machine readable delineations. Give how expensive it is to build a motorway, the additional costs of providing slightly better lines than paint cant be a deal-breaker.
So I wonder, why is the government not working with the car manufacturers?
Good point. But surely, motorways are close to 100% covered? That would have to be a given. But again, how expensive can it be to build this out, and it can be financed via a monthly usage charge to use autonomous driving.?
blastdoor wrote: »
If one must drive a car, then there are plenty of good cars that people love that are already on the market. It's not like the smartphone market in 2007.
The problem with cars is that driving sucks for reasons that are external to the hardware itself. That is, there's the annoyance of dealing with traffic and the opportunity cost of your time, particularly for commuters. If you really want to make automobile transportation a better experience then you need to eliminate the need to drive.
One way to do that is with self-driving cars. Another way to do that is through services like Uber. Another is through traditional taxi services. Of those three, Uber is the best, but it's still not what I'd call a "great" transportation service experience.
I've been thinking that Apple's approach to cars would be to offer transportation as a service (like Uber), but with greater vertical integration (including designing their own cars) allowing for greater control over the experience. I had assumed this would necessitate self-driving cars but I guess that's not really true -- Apple could directly employ human drivers. Maybe that's what they'll do, at least for a while.
Mark my words, though -- Apple will not be selling cars to end-users in the way they sell Macs to end users. This is going to be a transportation service that you can access through your iPhone or Apple Watch.
mstone wrote: »
If they are making a car, which I think is still uncertain, which categories of auto will they likely start out with?
According to Edmunds, they have 21 different categories.
Oh no, not again...
"Apple has no experience," [GM's Bob] Lutz said. "There's no reason to assume Apple will do a better job than General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen, Toyota or Hyundai. I think this is going to be a gigantic money pit."
Shades of Ed Colligan of Palm, 2006: "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in."
Time to short GM stock for 2019.
Edit: this was said about electric cars. Notice Lutz didn't mention Telsa or BMW when he rattled off GM and other car companies that make electric cars.
Lutz is a climate skeptic, pushed for the Volt, and unhappy with Washington regulating vehicle development instead of "giving the customer what they want". He speaks for the past automotive industry, not the future.
That's an automotive industry ripe for a disruption from Silicon Valley, which is one of the reason;s that Elon Musk decided to build Tesla, Google is pushing self driving cars, and Uber is changing urban transportation. Now Tesla may not be making any money yet, but for many years, neither was GM; most of their profits were from financing, at least before GM's untimely bankruptcy.
Apple has a steep climb to build an automobile, and make money at it, and maybe they won't be successful. But imagine that they will; what would that be like. Certainly not like the current automotive industry.
sflagel wrote: »
The reason that cops in the US conduct so much traffic and speeding checks and stop you (rather than just taking a picture when speeding) is to condition the population to be constantly in fear of the police. It is a means of psychological subjugation.
cali wrote: »
(Not saying THIS report is true but) I called this last week.
Apple will most likely not offer an autonomous car day one. That's nuts. It's a lot safer to offer an electric vehicle with hundreds of sensors and compile all this data on a server back at the lab to better understand driving, mapping, roads, elevation and accidents etc.
I'd say after 2-10 years they'll have enough data to develop a near flawless vehicle. I'd say 2 years later at the LEAST. Then there's all the old farts in congress who would have to allow new laws and the outdated road tech currently in use(traffic lights, construction/light up/road signs, lanes) that may or may need updating.
quinney wrote: »
I do get that: Tesla needed to raise capital and their debt to equity ratio was too high to borrow more. So, with
their stock price sky high, they decided to sell 2.7 million shares to the public. What better time to do it? They raised over $640 million. Note that the offering was underwritten by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank Securities, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo Securities. The offering was oversubscribed, so the original plan to sell 2.1 million shares was changed to 2.7 million. The dilution of shares was about 2%, so one might have expected the stock to decline. Instead, the price has gone from $242 at the offering on August 15 to $264 today.
So, after the offering:
Tesla has hundreds of millions of dollars to continue their expansion
Tesla's debt to equity ratio has been reduced
Tesla's stock price has appreciated
Several of the world's largest investment banks have continued their commitment to helping Tesla succeed
Trying to spin this as negative is just trolling.
I agree GM has the most to lose to disruption. (Blackberry of the auto industry?)
And the self-driving car will add to the disruption. Make no mistake; more autonomous-like vehicles are coming, like it or not; many governments are pushing for legislation to make it all happen in the name of safety.
Nope. They are designing a car to sell to people. If services like Uber want to use them, Apple will be fine with it. But individuals who choose to buy a car from Apple will be able to do so. Nothing in Apple's history suggests they would deploy a business model that you suggest. They make products that they feel do great things and that people want.
Selling cars directly to individuals is an incredibly complex and expensive thing to do, particularly if you want to do it at the scale of existing players. Apple would need to build a large number of show rooms and repair facilities in the countries where they sell their car. Apple can afford to do that, of course, but making it profitable is the key, and Apple isn't entering this business to lose money. If you think people are going to order these cars off the Internet without a test drive you're nuts. People would expect a retail experience for their car that is on par with the retail experience they get with their other apple products and with other cars. Delivering that retail experience is possible, but very expensive -- probably not worth it.
Apple's history is one of innovation and adaptation -- of Thinking Different. Just because they've never done something before, that doesn't mean they won't do it in the future. Apple evaluates ideas based on their merit, not on whether they've ever done it before.
Ya. Because Americans are so concerned about privacy..... /s
The personal products are the iPhone and the Apple Watch. Transportation is a service that is attached to those products.
You're thinking too small here. The problem of transportation is much bigger than just improving the OS in cars. The worst aspects of cars today are all the extra costs, work, and responsibilities that go with car ownership. You have to pay to store them, maintain them, and driving them is generally more of a pain than fun. If you have an open road and just want to enjoy driving there already exist many cars that are fun to drive. But if your focus is transportation rather than fahrvergnugen, the existing approach to ground transportation sucks, and it's a much bigger problem than the OS in your infotainment system.
I'm guessing that Apple is thinking much bigger than you realize. They're out to change ground transportation, not just sell another car with an easier to use infotainment system.