I disagree that a gasoline car needs to share 75% of components with EVs. Not necessarily. Traditional car makers like to make hybrids because they don't want to start with a clean sheet. EVs & combustion vehicles may have wheels and a chassis in common. The rest can be radically different.
I think the reason traditional car makers have not made EVs is because EV are very different and a very big and expensive undertaking. I believe that feature phone makers also thought hard about making smart phones but...
Traditional car makers make hybrids because of ever tightening emission rules in the US and especially the EU. That's why they also have a vested interest in alternative sources of energy, be it hydrogen, biofuels or electricity.
It's interesting that as of yesterday, both Tesla AND Toyota are now freely sharing their patents with all comers in an attempt to gain market share for their visions of an electric car future (Tesla) and a hydrogen car future (Toyota). They're both looking toward a rapid buildout of the infrastructure and economy to support divergent directions. This is good for everyone and as long as Washington stays the hell out of it we'll see which way wins fairly.
Apple can get into pretty much any business it wants. Patents can be bought, ignored or licensed as we all know too well. There's nothing significantly hard about the Automobile industry. Nothing a few tens of billion dollars won't fix anyway.
Finance 101.... Capital is unlimited.... Yes, anyone can get into any business, anytime. But the world is not such as we learn in school.
Apple can BUY into the business if they find someone willing to sell....
You are confusing cause and effect: not every industry Apple enters is transformed; Apple only enters industries that it can transform. There are numerous examples of industries they did not enter/did not transform. Cars will be one.
My prediction is that fully autonomous self-driving cars will never be as widespread and successful as most people think or hope. The main obstacle will be human nature and institutions. The same forces that prevent fully autonomous planes, ships, and trains, for which the tech already exists, will hold back fully autonomous cars.
Apple can get into pretty much any business it wants. Patents can be bought, ignored or licensed as we all know too well. There's nothing significantly hard about the Automobile industry. Nothing a few tens of billion dollars won't fix anyway.
Finance 101.... Capital is unlimited.... Yes, anyone can get into any business, anytime. But the world is not such as we learn in school.
Apple can BUY into the business if they find someone willing to sell....
You are confusing cause and effect: not every industry Apple enters is transformed; Apple only enters industries that it can transform. There are numerous examples of industries they did not enter/did not transform. Cars will be one.
Honestly, nobody knows how to make self-driving cars. Only arrogant ignorant can tell you could develope that technology. It will not work in extreme situations as it cannot predict mulltidimensional problem. Technique of driving (and I am performance instructor) requires predictive decisions like on chess board that includes instincts and local cultural behaviors. That cannot be computed at all. the only way to make self-driving car is to replace all human driven cars with them and simplify rules of traffic.
If this was possible then tell me why we do not have commercial aircrafts to apply this technology fully and stop having pilots onboard?
Also self-driving is completely differnt dimennsion than electric and I see some jerks confusing this. In fact you could make self-driving combustioon engine cars the same as elecrtric - nothing has to do with other.
It is not about showing sensors into one car and computing routs of other cars, but about predicting what bunjch of other cars may do.... based on who drives them (and do not assume that everybody thinks or sees the same - it is plain wrong assumption).
I want to see first lawsuits on Google cars when they screw them self up while driving into complex traffic situation and encounter complex emergency that no sensors can pick up.
It is not about showing sensors into one car and computing routs of other cars, but about predicting what bunjch of other cars may do.... based on who drives them (and do not assume that everybody thinks or sees the same - it is plain wrong assumption).
I want to see first lawsuits on Google cars when they screw them self up while driving into complex traffic situation and encounter complex emergency that no sensors can pick up.
Volvo already stated they will take liability on any accidents of the self-driving cars they will launch in 2017.
It's interesting that as of yesterday, both Tesla AND Toyota are now freely sharing their patents with all comers in an attempt to gain market share for their visions of an electric car future (Tesla) and a hydrogen car future (Toyota). They're both looking toward a rapid buildout of the infrastructure and economy to support divergent directions. This is good for everyone and as long as Washington stays the hell out of it we'll see which way wins fairly.
If Washington stays out of the buildout of either an electric or hydrogen infrastructure, I will guarantee you that both technologies will be a non-starter. Tesla exists today because of huge government loans and grants. Building out an electric or hydrogen infrastructure to support those energy supplies for automotive use will require enormous sums of money. All to try and replace oil/gasoline as the primary automotive energy source, which has declined in price tremendously over the past year. Good luck with all of that.
All of that said, the original article is about self-driving cars, which has nothing to do with the way the car is powered. All the major car companies have IC cars with some level of autonomy in testing now.
I was not aware that Toyota was so far ahead in self-driving cars.
Time will tell.
Lots of companies are quite far ahead, including Mercedes-Benz and BMW. (The BMW i3 already operates in some reasonable situations in self-driving mode.)
Completely agree, while these tech companies may have an edge on the building the "brains" of a self-driving-car; the actual car these brains will go into will be mostly the same as any other car; and cars are HARD to build in mass; millions if not billions of pounds of material needs to be moved, pressed, formed, assembled, shipped, etc... While Apple may be able to do this, I wouldn't bet on it.
What would be better is for these tech companies to build the self-driving car "module(s)" and become a supplier to another manufacturer that builds the actual car.
Only multi billion dollar conglomerates can do the job and yet somehow there a literally hundreds of bespoke auto manufacturers already building their own cars and they don't have 1% of the resources Apple does. This report sounds like auto industry fud.
These "bespoke auto manufacturers" build dozens if not hundreds of cars every year! Usually highly expensive and hand built. That is a far cry from pumping out one MILLION 3 TON machines a year while passing all federal safety regulations all at an affordable price.
Comments
https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonfogelson/2015/01/05/toyota-to-share-hydrogen-fuel-cell-patents/
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/08/toyota-making-5600-hydrogen-fuel-cell-patents-free-use-industry-companies/
Apple can BUY into the business if they find someone willing to sell....
You are confusing cause and effect: not every industry Apple enters is transformed; Apple only enters industries that it can transform. There are numerous examples of industries they did not enter/did not transform. Cars will be one.
http://www.asymco.com/2016/01/04/significant-contribution/
All of that said, the original article is about self-driving cars, which has nothing to do with the way the car is powered. All the major car companies have IC cars with some level of autonomy in testing now.