You can't have one without the other. Name the car company who's going to let Apple install the brains and self-drive capabilities into its car? None, car companies wouldn't allow this.
Maybe not for Apple, but this has been the case for modern automobile companies until Tesla came along. Don't you remember QNX, which Apple has "coincidentally" hired its inventor and founder to work for them.
As HermeyTheElf points out, there's a huge amount of money to be made here. Let's also consider that that Apple can't make CarPlay work without the automotive companies being directly involved and agreeing to reengineer their systems to work with CarPlay.
One thing I didn't see mentioned in HermeyTheElf's comment regarding the revenue to be gained is how this would also help with the "halo effect" to sell other Apple products. Imagine needing only the Apple Watch to unlock and start your car.
If Apple can get their package out by 2018 then some 2019 vehicle brands would include "Apple Car". This is much quicker to market than physical vehicles.
I agree with @ireland. No way Apple will make a software only solution. There is too much interaction between the hardware components like the steering, brakes, motor, even the interior components such as the heat, cooling, safety features, etc. Every auto is different which is why all manufactures are working on their own systems. One size definitely does not fit all in this situation. The only course for Apple in this space is making the entire vehicle. CarPlay is just an intermediary step like Moto Roker was prior to the iPhone.
Lockheed Engineer/Whistleblower- Driverless vehicles are not being properly designed or tested
NHTSA should shut down all auto piloted and self-driving cars until proper exception handling testing is conducted.
While I support this technology it has to be done right. I believe we
are nowhere close to that at this time and putting people's lives at
risk. NHTSA should shut down all auto-piloted and self-driving cars
until proper exception handling testing is done. Especially when the
companies who make them come from Commercial IT. This is because those
companies, the Google’s, the Tesla’s, the Uber’s have little actual best
practice experience in designing large and complex systems. Especially
when massive exception handling is needed. The perturbations of
environmental and automobile system error conditions are
immense. Commercial IT is not even remotely capable of doing this
relying on themselves and their incredibly poor practices. Thinking that
one can make a cool app or website is NOT like what is being done here.
To work through the requirements and scenario perturbations, design
integrated systems to deal with it and test this takes folks with
experience in doing that. And they need the proper tools. Most of this
is non-existent in Commercial IT. Far more engineering, code and testing
should be going in to these systems than that of the “happy” or normal
path. The places to find these folks, methods and tools would be NASA,
DoD and the airlines industry. Couple them with people with automobile
system and traffic engineering and you would be on the way to something
that will work. Using real people, cars and the public to gather most of
the exception or accident data is reckless, will result in needless
deaths and take decades for information to be gathered. There are far
safer and faster ways to do this. The public is being used as Guinea
Pigs based on a massive sense of false confidence. They are being used
to help create exception handling or accident scenarios becasue these
companies are to ignorant, inexperienced or cheap to do it right. The
first company who gets this and has the patience to do it right will win
out. The others will eventually face so much litigation and potentially
criminal charges and will have wasted so much time in ignoring this
path they will no longer be players in the space.
1) Using text based scope docs that do not build into a full system
view. Use Cases and Stories are extremely poor ways to illicit and
explain scope. What is needed is Diagrams. These facilitate visual flow
where exception handling points would exist. This step is the most
important. If you cannot see all of the combinations you cannot design
or test for them.
2) Using BAs for scope and QA for testing. DoD uses a systems
engineer for both. That way there is continuity. To make sure they don't
have a fox in the hen house QC is also performed. (BTW testing is QC.
Auditing and improving process is QA. Commercial IT can't even get the
titles right). This will result in missing and incomplete scope and
testing.
3) There is very little system design going on. Too much serial
discovery Agile going on. Little object oriented or UML design going on.
Most of it is web based. Much of this comes Agilists who ignore what
they can know up front and use of Use Cases and Stories and not
diagrams. Most of Commercial IT's design process is not based on a full
systems design approach. They build one step a ta time purposefully
ignoring systems. For complex systems especially with massive exception
handling this alone would keep the product from either every working
correctly or the project ever finishing.
4) They lack proper tools that facilitate scope decomposition
through design, code and testing. Something like DOORs. Commercial IT
rarely has separate tools let alone an integrated one. Most won't even
use a proper RTVM in Excel. This will result in missing and incomplete
scope and testing.
5) They rarely have chief architects that look across the whole
system. They have the same stove piped little kingdoms I just mentioned
above for software. This will result is missing and incomplete scope and
testing.
6) Full system testing is rarely done. Especially when there are
third party interfaces. Simulators are rarely built to replace those
parties if they are not connected in the test environment. Exception
handling testing is rarely done.
8) Software configuration management - Commercial IT rarely creates
a product wide integrated SWCM system. They have dozens or even
hundreds of little teams who have their own CM. And they use tools that
relay on best practice use. Something that doesn't exist. Having Jira
and Git isn't nearly enough. There is a reason IBMs Clearcase is not
free. This will result in the wrong software versions being used. Which
will lead to defects. It will also lead to laying patches on top of
patches which will result in defects.
9) There is no Earned Value Management (EVM) or proper estimation
tools or productivity data. (Like rework, defect density and proper root
cause data). This means they will have major schedule and budget
issues. (Given the deep pockets of Google, Uber and Tesla this one might
not matter)
(A clear example. The gentleman in charge of Uber autopilot here in
Pittsburgh, the hub city, has 8 years Twitter experience. I am telling
you these guys are in way over their heads. Raffi Krikorian look him up
on LinkedIn. Based on what I see he is not remotely qualified. When Elon
Musk took the first set of code for Space X to NASA it was rejected
because they didn't come close to handling exceptions. Additionally
Elon's stubbornness about using the term "autopilot" is shortsighted and
reckless. Elon has gone from amazing to his own worse enemy.)
In addition to being a systems engineer, engineering manager and
program manager at Lockheed Martin on NORAD, the Aegis Weapon System and
Aircraft Simulation programs I was a whistle-blower who stopped
Lockheed and Northrop from doing things they should not have post 9/11 -
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=4468728
"Here’s how Tesla describe the improvement in Autopilot features:
“Enhanced Autopilot adds these new capabilities to the Tesla
Autopilot driving experience. Your Tesla will match speed to traffic
conditions, keep within a lane, automatically change lanes without
requiring driver input, transition from one freeway to another, exit the
freeway when your destination is near, self-park when near a parking
spot and be summoned to and from your garage.”
This software should NOT be on the road. It should not be called
"Autopilot". Drivers should not be Guinea pigs and misled into a false
sense of confidence. It is just now getting to be able to maintain
lanes, keep up with traffic and transition from one freeway to another?
If it cannot do this now it is nowhere near ready to be on the road.
This means that massive amounts of primary or happy path engineering is
not done let alone the even larger work needed for exception handling or
accident scenarios that augment the associated happy path. And they say
they will have full autonomy in a year??? There is NO WAY that is
possible - let alone 5 more years. NHTSA etc have GOT to make a list of
detailed scenarios these cars have to prove they can handle and the
variation of them. Possibly thousands of scenarios.
Update 12/3/2016
It appears that comma.ai has released a driver's aid solution that
only costs $999. It appears to get around NHTSA rules by offering the
code for free and it's open source. There is no way a group of talented
hackers can make a safe system in such a short time period. And then
charge so little to recoup the money spent of the effort. These folks
who do not have nearly the engineering experience or domain experience
to do this just gave folks with even less experience the code. This
reckless approach will result in catastrophe. And that catastrophe is
going to make it harder for the Tesla etc to move forward in the space.
Apple would be smart to initially use their expertise, innovation and technology to work in the HOV, limited access and mass transit arena of transportation. Opportunities are limitless, considering the government, institutional, overland cargo shipment, mass movement and ride share trends going forward. The liabilities will be somewhat limited, their corporate needs are advanced on campus, and in a limited access environment, technology, regulation and the civilian comfort level can be advanced while introducing an Apple sensitivity/sensibility into the mix. It is a strategy to circumvent the media presence and familiarity with the present players.
That's how I think this will likely see mass appeal first. HOV lanes are already somewhat isolated. Sometimes with lines, other times with actual barriers. Then you have about 75–80% of all freight in this country still being shipped by truck over great distances. At first—and for many years—the driver is a pilot for an autonomous vehicle (first diesel, then hybrid, then electric) that will accompany these trucks in case of an emergency but mostly for the last mile. To prevent them from, say, jumping into their cab systems will be put in place to make sure the driver is in the seat and attentive. Eventually this will be autonomous from highway start point to highway end point with drivers doing the 'last mile." Tesla has really pushed this technology ahead faster than I expected it would, but we still need more testing for the sake of statistical analysis and for the older generation to die out as many still think they are better drivers than a computer could ever be.
I'm not following your reasoning. How are you deducing this from the AI article? The way interpret the article is they are working on machine learning and autonomous software for vehicles, not a physical vehicle such as an Apple Car.
You can't have one without the other. Name the car company who's going to let Apple install the brains and self-drive capabilities into its car? None, car companies wouldn't allow this. Name the company Apple would do this for? They wouldn't. Rest assured if they are working on operating system and autonomy for a car they are certainly working on the car itself. They literally have many hundreds of car engineers involved on this product, and most Apple VP's are into cars in a big way and several I've Jony Ive's design team are car designers from lambo and Porsche etc. The conclusion is intuitive as much as it is obvious. There's a bonfire of smoke here. Apple are vertical. Green angle. Engineers. Etc.
Wasn't there a report recently that Apple had Apple had let go a bunch of their car engineers when they reset Project Titan's strategy to focus on Software & Autonomous Systems?
This is the best analysis I've seen so far on Project Titan:
I'm not following your reasoning. How are you deducing this from the AI article? The way interpret the article is they are working on machine learning and autonomous software for vehicles, not a physical vehicle such as an Apple Car.
You can't have one without the other. Name the car company who's going to let Apple install the brains and self-drive capabilities into its car? None, car companies wouldn't allow this. Name the company Apple would do this for? They wouldn't. Rest assured if they are working on operating system and autonomy for a car they are certainly working on the car itself. They literally have many hundreds of car engineers involved on this product, and most Apple VP's are into cars in a big way and several I've Jony Ive's design team are car designers from lambo and Porsche etc. The conclusion is intuitive as much as it is obvious. There's a bonfire of smoke here. Apple are vertical. Green angle. Engineers. Etc.
I should preface by saying I'm not an expert in the motor vehicle industry, nor do I have intimate knowledge about Apple's car plans. Let's investigate how much revenue Apple would generate by selling autonomous driving packages (software and hardware).
Over half the motor vehicles sold around the world are produced by the top ten motor vehicle manufacturers. I would assume the majority of these top ten manufacturers are currently working on autonomous driving packages, and do not need Apple's solution.
Let's say 40% of all motor vehicle manufacturers could potentially be Apple autonomous customers. According to Wiki about 90 million vehicles were sold in 2014. 40% of 90 is 36 million. Maybe one-third of these vehicles would be Apple autonomous. If Apple sells the autonomous package for $7000 per vehicle multiplied by 11.88 million vehicles, then they would achieve $83 billion in revenue. This is still a very healthy business with much better margins than building a car. It's also quicker to ramp than vehicle production.
There is a chance Tesla's vehicles will be fully autonomous and include AR HUDs within the next year. If Apple can get their package out by 2018 then some 2019 vehicle brands would include "Apple Car". This is much quicker to market than building and showcasing physical vehicles.
You never read my comment did you? Car companies would let Apple have that control and Apple wouldn't want to work with them all even if they did. Your pricing convo is a waste of energy.
I'm not following your reasoning. How are you deducing this from the AI article? The way interpret the article is they are working on machine learning and autonomous software for vehicles, not a physical vehicle such as an Apple Car.
You can't have one without the other. Name the car company who's going to let Apple install the brains and self-drive capabilities into its car? None, car companies wouldn't allow this. Name the company Apple would do this for? They wouldn't. Rest assured if they are working on operating system and autonomy for a car they are certainly working on the car itself. They literally have many hundreds of car engineers involved on this product, and most Apple VP's are into cars in a big way and several I've Jony Ive's design team are car designers from lambo and Porsche etc. The conclusion is intuitive as much as it is obvious. There's a bonfire of smoke here. Apple are vertical. Green angle. Engineers. Etc.
Wasn't there a report recently that Apple had Apple had let go a bunch of their car engineers when they reset Project Titan's strategy to focus on Software & Autonomous Systems?
This is the best analysis I've seen so far on Project Titan:
Christ don't link to that clown. Have ever listened to his tedious podcast? He's tries to sound wise but he just rambles incessantly. It's like being caught in a podcast prison. He's successfully convinced himself he knows what he's talking about. He has a very limited quantity of perspective. They apparently got rid of dozens, they have over 1,000 on the project. It's just someone reading into sensationalist tech journalism. Producing any product this big will have bumps along the way. That's the nature of product development.
Each of us have successfully convinced ourselves we know about which we talk. We are all Bozos on this bus. But, stimulating talk sometimes hits on solutions or on common agreement on a likely way forward. That can be enjoyable and expanding. I stipulate my membership in the clown community. Honk Honk!
"You never read my comment did you? Car companies would let Apple have that control and Apple wouldn't want to work with them all even if they did. Your pricing convo is a waste of energy. "
1. I'm not including the top ten because those manufacturers probably have the resources to flush-out autonomous and AR packages. The others probably don't, except for Tesla. This spells opportunity.
2. And even though I'm discounting "the majors", some say Google is working with Ford and Fiat. Why can't Apple compete?
3. Apple already works with many car manufacturers via CarPlay. Why wouldn't they work with others on autonomous and AR?
4. In the future the majority of autonomous ride services will be much cheaper for the average consumer compared to a consumer purchasing a vehicle. The Apple Watch, etc. could be the key to not only opening the vehicle door, but also seat, temperature, tint, suspension, charging, etc. adjustments. Passengers will also be interested in having CarPlay reflect their profiles. The point is, secure consumer profiles/settings will be further integrated into vehicles' systems via Apple. Manufacturers implementing the full Apple package such as autonomous software and sensors seems like the logical next step.
5. And if they build a car then I can't wait to travel from A to B in a bed car, or a foosball table car, or a PlayStation Car, etc, because why travel on a boring seat?
1. I'm not including the top ten because those manufacturers probably have the resources to flush-out autonomous and AR packages. The others probably don't, except for Tesla. This spells opportunity.
Why would Apple want to associate with bottom tier POS car manufactures where the doors are likely to fall off?
1. I'm not including the top ten because those manufacturers probably have the resources to flush-out autonomous and AR packages. The others probably don't, except for Tesla. This spells opportunity.
Why would Apple want to associate with bottom tier POS car manufactures where the doors are likely to fall off?
Which major manufacturers have doors that "are likely to fall off"?
1. I'm not including the top ten because those manufacturers probably have the resources to flush-out autonomous and AR packages. The others probably don't, except for Tesla. This spells opportunity.
Why would Apple want to associate with bottom tier POS car manufactures where the doors are likely to fall off?
I guess that is partially true. The biggest POS I ever owned was a Porsche.
Lockheed Engineer/Whistleblower- Driverless vehicles are not being properly designed or tested
NHTSA should shut down all auto piloted and self-driving cars until proper exception handling testing is conducted.
I understand your concern... from a traditional coding point of view, these are very valid concerns. However, have you seen how Tesla handles the AI coding of their 'autopilot'? Do you know they have over two billion miles of downloaded driver experience data that they compare their code against. Have you seen the Nvidia supercomputer/servers that performs the analysis. I'm not saying I'm totally comfortable either, but seeing the backbone of this tech is extraordinary and IMO alleviates some what the concern of the valid points you mention. IMO This is why Apple is suggesting that manufacturers (read Tesla) should open source this baseline data.
I'm not following your reasoning. How are you deducing this from the AI article? The way interpret the article is they are working on machine learning and autonomous software for vehicles, not a physical vehicle such as an Apple Car.
You can't have one without the other. Name the car company who's going to let Apple install the brains and self-drive capabilities into its car? None, car companies wouldn't allow this. Name the company Apple would do this for? They wouldn't. Rest assured if they are working on operating system and autonomy for a car they are certainly working on the car itself. They literally have many hundreds of car engineers involved on this product, and most Apple VP's are into cars in a big way and several I've Jony Ive's design team are car designers from lambo and Porsche etc. The conclusion is intuitive as much as it is obvious. There's a bonfire of smoke here. Apple are vertical. Green angle. Engineers. Etc.
Wasn't there a report recently that Apple had Apple had let go a bunch of their car engineers when they reset Project Titan's strategy to focus on Software & Autonomous Systems?
This is the best analysis I've seen so far on Project Titan:
Christ don't link to that clown. Have ever listened to his tedious podcast? He's tries to sound wise but he just rambles incessantly. It's like being caught in a podcast prison. He's successfully convinced himself he knows what he's talking about. He has a very limited quantity of perspective. They apparently got rid of dozens, they have over 1,000 on the project. It's just someone reading into sensationalist tech journalism. Producing any product this big will have bumps along the way. That's the nature of product development.
If you think he's bad, then I suggest you NOT listen to Leo Laporte. He's 100X worse
"You never read my comment did you? Car companies would let Apple have that control and Apple wouldn't want to work with them all even if they did. Your pricing convo is a waste of energy. "
1. I'm not including the top ten because those manufacturers probably have the resources to flush-out autonomous and AR packages. The others probably don't, except for Tesla. This spells opportunity.
2. And even though I'm discounting "the majors", some say Google is working with Ford and Fiat. Why can't Apple compete?
3. Apple already works with many car manufacturers via CarPlay. Why wouldn't they work with others on autonomous and AR?
4. In the future the majority of autonomous ride services will be much cheaper for the average consumer compared to a consumer purchasing a vehicle. The Apple Watch, etc. could be the key to not only opening the vehicle door, but also seat, temperature, tint, suspension, charging, etc. adjustments. Passengers will also be interested in having CarPlay reflect their profiles. The point is, secure consumer profiles/settings will be further integrated into vehicles' systems via Apple. Manufacturers implementing the full Apple package such as autonomous software and sensors seems like the logical next step.
5. And if they build a car then I can't wait to travel from A to B in a bed car, or a foosball table car, or a PlayStation Car, etc, because why travel on a boring seat?
Regarding #3: Can you think of an case where Apple went one-on-one against Google in a software-only project and won? I can't. Frankly, Apple isn't very good on software-only projects (and it's Google's forte). I would be very surprised if Apple goes this "package for car makers to use" route and I would be even more surprised if they succeed at it. Time will tell.
There are many companies who are working on autonomous vehicles, other than the vehicle manufacturers. Bosch, Delphi, Mobileye, and Nvidia are four well known ones. I think it is possible that Apple is leaning toward providing a solution for existing carmakers, rather than going into manufacturing their own cars.
"You never read my comment did you? Car companies would let Apple have that control and Apple wouldn't want to work with them all even if they did. Your pricing convo is a waste of energy. "
1. I'm not including the top ten because those manufacturers probably have the resources to flush-out autonomous and AR packages. The others probably don't, except for Tesla. This spells opportunity.
2. And even though I'm discounting "the majors", some say Google is working with Ford and Fiat. Why can't Apple compete?
3. Apple already works with many car manufacturers via CarPlay. Why wouldn't they work with others on autonomous and AR?
4. In the future the majority of autonomous ride services will be much cheaper for the average consumer compared to a consumer purchasing a vehicle. The Apple Watch, etc. could be the key to not only opening the vehicle door, but also seat, temperature, tint, suspension, charging, etc. adjustments. Passengers will also be interested in having CarPlay reflect their profiles. The point is, secure consumer profiles/settings will be further integrated into vehicles' systems via Apple. Manufacturers implementing the full Apple package such as autonomous software and sensors seems like the logical next step.
5. And if they build a car then I can't wait to travel from A to B in a bed car, or a foosball table car, or a PlayStation Car, etc, because why travel on a boring seat?
Regarding #3: Can you think of an case where Apple went one-on-one against Google in a software-only project and won? I can't. Frankly, Apple isn't very good on software-only projects (and it's Google's forte). I would be very surprised if Apple goes this "package for car makers to use" route and I would be even more surprised if they succeed at it. Time will tell.
Define SW-only. I'd say the iTunes Store nee iTunes Music Store show Apple as besting Google. Apple's development tools and App Store are also better. Sure, they require specific HW to run the apps, but Xcode, their languages, frameworks, APIs, and store ecosystem seem to be much better.
1. I'm not including the top ten because those manufacturers probably have the resources to flush-out autonomous and AR packages. The others probably don't, except for Tesla. This spells opportunity.
Why would Apple want to associate with bottom tier POS car manufactures where the doors are likely to fall off?
Which major manufacturers have doors that "are likely to fall off"?
I don't know. Just a figure of speech. There are some really shitty cars out there. Right now I'm driving a POS Kia as a rental in the Caribbean. You can actually remove the ignition key while the car is still in Drive. Freaked me out when I was getting out and the car started rolling backward. Also the door feels like it barely latched. I could probably push it open without using the handle.
"You never read my comment did you? Car companies would let Apple have that control and Apple wouldn't want to work with them all even if they did. Your pricing convo is a waste of energy. "
1. I'm not including the top ten because those manufacturers probably have the resources to flush-out autonomous and AR packages. The others probably don't, except for Tesla. This spells opportunity.
2. And even though I'm discounting "the majors", some say Google is working with Ford and Fiat. Why can't Apple compete?
3. Apple already works with many car manufacturers via CarPlay. Why wouldn't they work with others on autonomous and AR?
4. In the future the majority of autonomous ride services will be much cheaper for the average consumer compared to a consumer purchasing a vehicle. The Apple Watch, etc. could be the key to not only opening the vehicle door, but also seat, temperature, tint, suspension, charging, etc. adjustments. Passengers will also be interested in having CarPlay reflect their profiles. The point is, secure consumer profiles/settings will be further integrated into vehicles' systems via Apple. Manufacturers implementing the full Apple package such as autonomous software and sensors seems like the logical next step.
5. And if they build a car then I can't wait to travel from A to B in a bed car, or a foosball table car, or a PlayStation Car, etc, because why travel on a boring seat?
Regarding #3: Can you think of an case where Apple went one-on-one against Google in a software-only project and won? I can't. Frankly, Apple isn't very good on software-only projects (and it's Google's forte). I would be very surprised if Apple goes this "package for car makers to use" route and I would be even more surprised if they succeed at it. Time will tell.
Why would it be software only? Tesla is incorporating Nvidia’s Drive PX systems into their cars. Why can't Apple offer something similar? Apple can also supply other hardware and software solutions like screens similar to iPad quality, VR projectors or reflectors, etc. Maybe Apple is developing something like a foldable iPad that fits into a pocket when folded. When unfolded the device can be plugged into a cradle, and can be used as the vehicle's main infotainment system. There are a lot of possibilities besides selling software.
And even if they don't offer a complete package they still have successfully offered software on other platforms. For example, Apple Music is able to run on Android, iTunes is able to run on Windows, iCloud mail, notes, spreadsheets, etc. can be accessed by many browsers, etc.
1. I'm not including the top ten because those manufacturers probably have the resources to flush-out autonomous and AR packages. The others probably don't, except for Tesla. This spells opportunity.
Why would Apple want to associate with bottom tier POS car manufactures where the doors are likely to fall off?
Which major manufacturers have doors that "are likely to fall off"?
I don't know. Just a figure of speech. There are some really shitty cars out there. Right now I'm driving a POS Kia as a rental in the Caribbean. You can actually remove the ignition key while the car is still in Drive. Freaked me out when I was getting out and the car started rolling backward.
I don't know about the quality of that Kia model, but I've owned a Hyundai, also from South Korea, that I thought was great, especially for the price. I've also owned a used sports car from a high-end manufacturer that the key could be removed after turning on; this was the result of a worn out key—nothing more, nothing less.
Speaking of Hyundai, they finally decided to follow the other major automobile companies by creating a subsidiary called Genesis that will sell higher-end vehicles.
Comments
As HermeyTheElf points out, there's a huge amount of money to be made here. Let's also consider that that Apple can't make CarPlay work without the automotive companies being directly involved and agreeing to reengineer their systems to work with CarPlay.
One thing I didn't see mentioned in HermeyTheElf's comment regarding the revenue to be gained is how this would also help with the "halo effect" to sell other Apple products. Imagine needing only the Apple Watch to unlock and start your car.
NHTSA should shut down all auto piloted and self-driving cars until proper exception handling testing is conducted.
While I support this technology it has to be done right. I believe we are nowhere close to that at this time and putting people's lives at risk. NHTSA should shut down all auto-piloted and self-driving cars until proper exception handling testing is done. Especially when the companies who make them come from Commercial IT. This is because those companies, the Google’s, the Tesla’s, the Uber’s have little actual best practice experience in designing large and complex systems. Especially when massive exception handling is needed. The perturbations of environmental and automobile system error conditions are immense. Commercial IT is not even remotely capable of doing this relying on themselves and their incredibly poor practices. Thinking that one can make a cool app or website is NOT like what is being done here. To work through the requirements and scenario perturbations, design integrated systems to deal with it and test this takes folks with experience in doing that. And they need the proper tools. Most of this is non-existent in Commercial IT. Far more engineering, code and testing should be going in to these systems than that of the “happy” or normal path. The places to find these folks, methods and tools would be NASA, DoD and the airlines industry. Couple them with people with automobile system and traffic engineering and you would be on the way to something that will work. Using real people, cars and the public to gather most of the exception or accident data is reckless, will result in needless deaths and take decades for information to be gathered. There are far safer and faster ways to do this. The public is being used as Guinea Pigs based on a massive sense of false confidence. They are being used to help create exception handling or accident scenarios becasue these companies are to ignorant, inexperienced or cheap to do it right. The first company who gets this and has the patience to do it right will win out. The others will eventually face so much litigation and potentially criminal charges and will have wasted so much time in ignoring this path they will no longer be players in the space.This is the best analysis I've seen so far on Project Titan:
https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2016/11/17/skating-to-the-apple-car-puck
1. I'm not including the top ten because those manufacturers probably have the resources to flush-out autonomous and AR packages. The others probably don't, except for Tesla. This spells opportunity.
2. And even though I'm discounting "the majors", some say Google is working with Ford and Fiat. Why can't Apple compete?
3. Apple already works with many car manufacturers via CarPlay. Why wouldn't they work with others on autonomous and AR?
4. In the future the majority of autonomous ride services will be much cheaper for the average consumer compared to a consumer purchasing a vehicle. The Apple Watch, etc. could be the key to not only opening the vehicle door, but also seat, temperature, tint, suspension, charging, etc. adjustments. Passengers will also be interested in having CarPlay reflect their profiles. The point is, secure consumer profiles/settings will be further integrated into vehicles' systems via Apple. Manufacturers implementing the full Apple package such as autonomous software and sensors seems like the logical next step.
5. And if they build a car then I can't wait to travel from A to B in a bed car, or a foosball table car, or a PlayStation Car, etc, because why travel on a boring seat?
Speaking of Hyundai, they finally decided to follow the other major automobile companies by creating a subsidiary called Genesis that will sell higher-end vehicles.