The company reportedly abandoned efforts to create a branded car in late 2016,
I've never believed this for a minute. Apple doesn't make a self-driving car platform without making a car. It's very simple. They are doing both concurrently. A car of the future without this optionally engaged feature is dead in the water. And you don't perfect one without the other. For Apple, one would require just as much work as the other, and both are paramount for selling a vehicle—which they very obviously are aiming to do.
You know with so many cars moving to drive by wire and many of them using standard components from a number of manufactures, Apple could just develop the system they does the driving without the need to do the car itself. In this case the can partner with the companies who make the drive and control systems and just bolt on the solution into any car. Imagine it being like a radio that you plug in and it take control of the car. It is a different way of looking at the problem. The big issue for self driving car is becoming the insurance issue, who have to carry the insurance, the owner for the system or the manufacture. Do not think for moment these cars will not get in accident , as long as human are driving along side a self driving car you will have accidents. The challenge will be who is assigned the blame.
Great idea!!
and in a few months Tesla/General Electric or whoever is the next Microsoft/Google/Fitbit will knock it off and give it away for FREE!
I can see it being called Apple Drive and being activated by saying, "Engage." They could even do a Star Trek tie in.
And wind up killing hundreds of fiancées as they phone their friends about their engagements…
This will go down in history as Timmy's Folley.
Titan will be seen as a big failure for coming out so long after Tesla. And a big waste of time and resources.
Just like Steve Jobs Foley with iPhone. Releasing so long after Motorola and Nokia. What was he thinking?!?!
If Apple releases their own car do you think their competitors will stick with CarPlay?
If Apple partners with an established manufacturer who will be to blame for accidents. That is the same model that MS uses with PC manufacturers. Lower quality due to losser integration. If Apple was already making GPU, I think they would have a chance. I wouldn't Trust my life to Siri so a self driving car by Apple is pretty scary.
Well if a self driving car from Apple is a scary thought than shouldn't a self driving software platform from Apple be just as scary? IMO Apple's hardware chops are better than their software chops. Especially the kind of software needed for self driving vehicles. CarPlay is nothing like that.
An accompanying photo of the cockpit shows a Logitech steering wheel and pedal system jerry-rigged to fit in front of what is presumably a Lexus RX540h's drive controls.
Note that the human driver is literally "a backseat driver"! The steering wheel is attached to the headrest of the front passenger seat. How is the human driver seeing properly to control the vehicle? My guess is an AR headset that is taking a feed from the cameras mounted around the car.
To be fair, it said two drivers and I see a front steering wheel as well. So they may be the backup driver during a million miles of testing.
FWIW it will be impossible for even Apple to hide any actual car they might be building. If there is one in the skunk-works meant to be sold to US consumers in the next two -three years we would already know it. Far too much real-world testing is required before they could receive government approval to sell it. Systems testing, crash testing, safety systems, etc.
Might Apple eventually decide to build one? Yeah they could, but it won't appear out of nowhere. We'll all know it's on the way far ahead of time. Between the EPA, NHTSA, and a few other agencies that require Apple to receive certification before a car can hit the road we'll know.
I can see it being called Apple Drive and being activated by saying, "Engage." They could even do a Star Trek tie in.
And wind up killing hundreds of fiancées as they phone their friends about their engagements…
This will go down in history as Timmy's Folley.
Titan will be seen as a big failure for coming out so long after Tesla. And a big waste of time and resources.
Yeah one of these years, the doom will come for Apple. Any decade now, mark my words.
You do realize that iphone was late to the party, right? And that tesla isn't king of the word or even profitable from what i've seen posted. really, in the long game, a difference of a handful of years is no difference. tesla is not in enough of a first-mover position to moat itself from competition. hardly, actually.
also, using "Timmy" as an insult makes your post come across childish.
The company reportedly abandoned efforts to create a branded car in late 2016,
I've never believed this for a minute. Apple doesn't make a self-driving car platform without making a car. It's very simple. They are doing both concurrently. A car of the future without this optionally engaged feature is dead in the water. And you don't perfect one without the other. For Apple, one would require just as much work as the other, and both are paramount for selling a vehicle—which they very obviously are aiming to do.
You know with so many cars moving to drive by wire and many of them using standard components from a number of manufactures, Apple could just develop the system they does the driving without the need to do the car itself. In this case the can partner with the companies who make the drive and control systems and just bolt on the solution into any car. Imagine it being like a radio that you plug in and it take control of the car. It is a different way of looking at the problem. The big issue for self driving car is becoming the insurance issue, who have to carry the insurance, the owner for the system or the manufacture. Do not think for moment these cars will not get in accident , as long as human are driving along side a self driving car you will have accidents. The challenge will be who is assigned the blame.
Great idea!!
and in a few months Tesla/General Electric or whoever is the next Microsoft/Google/Fitbit will knock it off and give it away for FREE!
The company reportedly abandoned efforts to create a branded car in late 2016,
I've never believed this for a minute. Apple doesn't make a self-driving car platform without making a car. They are doing both concurrently. Einstein used to say that he wouldn't believe a theory that was claimed to be true unless there was a logical reason for it to be the case. There's no logic in Apple, of all companies focusing on a self-drive car platform without an own branded car to go with it. And you don't perfect one while waiting to begin work on the other. It's a leak to buy them time in the eyes of outsiders. Just as how they call a meeting with a few select darlings to inform them they are beginning work on a new Mac Pro—to me, it means they decided on the new design a year ago and have by now ironed out most of the kinks. Nothing much else makes a lot of sense.
A car of the future without this optionally engaged feature is dead in the water. And you don't perfect one without the other. For Apple, one would require just as much work as the other, and both are paramount for selling a vehicle—which they very obviously are aiming to do given the thousand-strong hires in this direction and the rumour of a few dozen fires, which probably means shuffles.
You make great points but I'm still a bit skeptical Apple is actually developing their own car. They could very well be partnering with an auto manufacturer and just be doing the development on a self-driving platform. Not that Apple isn't capable, but developing a vehicle, manufacturing, opening dealerships and service centers, etc is one massive undertaking.
“PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
Because a self driving, autonomous car is comparable to a cell phone. No.
Computer engineering challenges are computer engineering challenges, yes. Putting a mainframe computer in your pocket -- not an easy task.
Let me ask you -- at what point does Apple convince you/critics that it knows what it's doing? How many decades? Clearly 40 years of computer hardware and software engineering isn't good enough for you. Just what is it that you believe the engineers that Musk (who started his career as a web guy) hired possess that cannot also exist with Apple engineers?
The company reportedly abandoned efforts to create a branded car in late 2016,
I've never believed this for a minute. Apple doesn't make a self-driving car platform without making a car. They are doing both concurrently. Einstein used to say that he wouldn't believe a theory that was claimed to be true unless there was a logical reason for it to be the case. There's no logic in Apple, of all companies focusing on a self-drive car platform without an own branded car to go with it. And you don't perfect one while waiting to begin work on the other. It's a leak to buy them time in the eyes of outsiders. Just as how they call a meeting with a few select darlings to inform them they are beginning work on a new Mac Pro—to me, it means they decided on the new design a year ago and have by now ironed out most of the kinks. Nothing much else makes a lot of sense.
A car of the future without this optionally engaged feature is dead in the water. And you don't perfect one without the other. For Apple, one would require just as much work as the other, and both are paramount for selling a vehicle—which they very obviously are aiming to do given the thousand-strong hires in this direction and the rumour of a few dozen fires, which probably means shuffles.
You make great points but I'm still a bit skeptical Apple is actually developing their own car. They could very well be partnering with an auto manufacturer and just be doing the development on a self-driving platform. Not that Apple isn't capable, but developing a vehicle, manufacturing, opening dealerships and service centers, etc is one massive undertaking.
“PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
Because a self driving, autonomous car is comparable to a cell phone. No.
Computer engineering challenges are computer engineering challenges, yes. Putting a mainframe computer in your pocket -- not an easy task.
Let me ask you -- at what point does Apple convince you/critics that it knows what it's doing? How many decades? Clearly 40 years of computer hardware and software engineering isn't good enough for you. Just what is it that you believe the engineers that Musk (who started his career as a web guy) hired possess that cannot also exist with Apple engineers?
So biazzare.
I just think that using that "PC guys are not gonna just walk in" quote is stupid. Just like when Apple released the Pencil and everyone threw around the "if you see a stylus they blew it" quote from Jobs. No I don't think Apple is just going to walk in and revolutionize the auto industry. And I don't think the software needed to power a self driving vehicle can be compared to an operating system for a cell phone. Completely different beast.
This will go down in history as Timmy's Folley. Titan will be seen as a big failure for coming out so long after Tesla. And a big waste of time and resources.
The idea of going into car manufacture (or even just a software platform for vehicles) is the biggest leap the company has ever taken in any direction, but I don't think it's impossible for them to pull off. My question would just be why they're doing it if they're doing it. The answer seems fairly obvious: they're stuck in their little marxist Californian bubble where traffic is the worst on the planet save for China and India and they don't know what the rest of the world is like (similar to Tesla–whose batteries disagree with cold–and Google–who thinks that weather = sunny and therefore self-driving software doesn't need to handle torrential rain or snow). They're stuck inside vehicles they've begun to hate for large portions of their days and have turned grumbling to each other about the tiniest problems therewith into wanting to fix said problems in their jobs.
It's a valid way to come up with a product, of course. They've done it in the past with all manner of computing tech. The problem, of course, is that there's a fine line between making one model of one vehicle that only appeals to 5% of the market and, well… The Homer.
ireland said: How's your half-empty glass? Fully empty yet?
Fully empty sounds too much like optimism. Real pessimists prefer to poke a hole in the bottom of the glass and simultaneously let a drop of water fall into it for every one that falls out.
ireland said: How's your half-empty glass? Fully empty yet?
Fully empty sounds too much like optimism. Real pessimists prefer to poke a hole in the bottom of the glass and simultaneously let a drop of water fall into it for every one that falls out.
Or they insist there was never any water in it to begin with.
The company reportedly abandoned efforts to create a branded car in late 2016,
I've never believed this for a minute. Apple doesn't make a self-driving car platform without making a car. They are doing both concurrently. Einstein used to say that he wouldn't believe a theory that was claimed to be true unless there was a logical reason for it to be the case. There's no logic in Apple, of all companies focusing on a self-drive car platform without an own branded car to go with it. And you don't perfect one while waiting to begin work on the other. It's a leak to buy them time in the eyes of outsiders. Just as how they call a meeting with a few select darlings to inform them they are beginning work on a new Mac Pro—to me, it means they decided on the new design a year ago and have by now ironed out most of the kinks. Nothing much else makes a lot of sense.
A car of the future without this optionally engaged feature is dead in the water. And you don't perfect one without the other. For Apple, one would require just as much work as the other, and both are paramount for selling a vehicle—which they very obviously are aiming to do given the thousand-strong hires in this direction and the rumour of a few dozen fires, which probably means shuffles.
You make great points but I'm still a bit skeptical Apple is actually developing their own car. They could very well be partnering with an auto manufacturer and just be doing the development on a self-driving platform. Not that Apple isn't capable, but developing a vehicle, manufacturing, opening dealerships and service centers, etc is one massive undertaking.
Go big or go home. Fear is not a good excuse to not do it all yourself. If Elon can build an electric car company from not existing into what it is today and we know by now the future of all cars is clearly electric and cars are becoming smart and Apple wants to build one I don't see why they can't build a great one. They have some of the best designers and engineers on the planet and they are perhaps 'the' company most associated with attention to detail and customer service today. Not to mention that more than a few of Ive's design team are former car designers from companies such as Lambo and Porsche and others. And we know most of Apple's execs are into cars. Not just owners of nice cars because they can afford them, but really into them. Including Jony Ive and his best friend, now co-worker. If you can't see the smoke with all the fire around the past few years then no one can convince you.
The company reportedly abandoned efforts to create a branded car in late 2016,
I've never believed this for a minute. Apple doesn't make a self-driving car platform without making a car. They are doing both concurrently. Einstein used to say that he wouldn't believe a theory that was claimed to be true unless there was a logical reason for it to be the case. There's no logic in Apple, of all companies focusing on a self-drive car platform without an own branded car to go with it. And you don't perfect one while waiting to begin work on the other. It's a leak to buy them time in the eyes of outsiders. Just as how they call a meeting with a few select darlings to inform them they are beginning work on a new Mac Pro—to me, it means they decided on the new design a year ago and have by now ironed out most of the kinks. Nothing much else makes a lot of sense.
A car of the future without this optionally engaged feature is dead in the water. And you don't perfect one without the other. For Apple, one would require just as much work as the other, and both are paramount for selling a vehicle—which they very obviously are aiming to do given the thousand-strong hires in this direction and the rumour of a few dozen fires, which probably means shuffles.
You make great points but I'm still a bit skeptical Apple is actually developing their own car. They could very well be partnering with an auto manufacturer and just be doing the development on a self-driving platform. Not that Apple isn't capable, but developing a vehicle, manufacturing, opening dealerships and service centers, etc is one massive undertaking.
“PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
Because a self driving, autonomous car is comparable to a cell phone. No.
The company reportedly abandoned efforts to create a branded car in late 2016,
I've never believed this for a minute. Apple doesn't make a self-driving car platform without making a car. They are doing both concurrently. Einstein used to say that he wouldn't believe a theory that was claimed to be true unless there was a logical reason for it to be the case. There's no logic in Apple, of all companies focusing on a self-drive car platform without an own branded car to go with it. And you don't perfect one while waiting to begin work on the other. It's a leak to buy them time in the eyes of outsiders. Just as how they call a meeting with a few select darlings to inform them they are beginning work on a new Mac Pro—to me, it means they decided on the new design a year ago and have by now ironed out most of the kinks. Nothing much else makes a lot of sense.
A car of the future without this optionally engaged feature is dead in the water. And you don't perfect one without the other. For Apple, one would require just as much work as the other, and both are paramount for selling a vehicle—which they very obviously are aiming to do given the thousand-strong hires in this direction and the rumour of a few dozen fires, which probably means shuffles.
You make great points but I'm still a bit skeptical Apple is actually developing their own car. They could very well be partnering with an auto manufacturer and just be doing the development on a self-driving platform. Not that Apple isn't capable, but developing a vehicle, manufacturing, opening dealerships and service centers, etc is one massive undertaking.
“PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
Because a self driving, autonomous car is comparable to a cell phone. No.
Computer engineering challenges are computer engineering challenges, yes. Putting a mainframe computer in your pocket -- not an easy task.
Let me ask you -- at what point does Apple convince you/critics that it knows what it's doing? How many decades? Clearly 40 years of computer hardware and software engineering isn't good enough for you. Just what is it that you believe the engineers that Musk (who started his career as a web guy) hired possess that cannot also exist with Apple engineers?
So biazzare.
I just think that using that "PC guys are not gonna just walk in" quote is stupid. Just like when Apple released the Pencil and everyone threw around the "if you see a stylus they blew it" quote from Jobs. No I don't think Apple is just going to walk in and revolutionize the auto industry. And I don't think the software needed to power a self driving vehicle can be compared to an operating system for a cell phone. Completely different beast.
Of COURSE they're different beasts, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the stylus quote. That's not the point.
The skepticism toward Apple being even capable of finding a way into the industry at all (much less revolutionizing it) echoes many similarities to the exact same type of thinking when they were developing the iPhone by those who couldn't see past the current state of things in the existing industry, as with Palm's CEO in this case. So in that regard, yes a car is comparable to a cell phone. Do you need me to draw you a diagram?
The company reportedly abandoned efforts to create a branded car in late 2016,
I've never believed this for a minute. Apple doesn't make a self-driving car platform without making a car. It's very simple. They are doing both concurrently. A car of the future without this optionally engaged feature is dead in the water. And you don't perfect one without the other. For Apple, one would require just as much work as they other and both are crucial to selling a vehicle—which they very obviously are aiming to do.
(That is, the end-point is to have no interface at all. In a fully-autonomous, 'Level 5' car, with no steering wheel or manual controls at all, the only human-computer interface is when you say "take me home now". But most people in the autonomous driving field think that's at least 5 years away and more probably 10, or more. In the mean time we have a transitional phase, as you go from lots of warnings to one and you ask what fundamentally that warning should be, and as you sit in a car where you need to be in the driving seat and steering, mostly, or ready to steer, but the car might stop you, or drive itself.
Something that drives itself until it doesn't can easily become dangerous. So, my struggle to turn off the HUD on my borrowed car might become something rather more urgent. This could, incidentally, be the best car opportunity for Apple. A car that you just tell to go home and forget about is Google's sweet spot, without much scope for Apple to add any unique insight as to how the experience should work.
Conversely, a car that you still need to drive, somehow, but in radically new ways, seems like a fruitful place for thinking about how interfaces work, and that's Apple.) Benedict Evans - Cars as feature-phones
Worth a read
I disagree, I see the end-point something akin to the cars in Minority Report. Strictly Autonomous in commuting situations on highways etc. but able to drive freely off the "main routes" when required. If you live in an area where you only do commuting on set-routes then the solution is already there: public transport. If you live in the highlands of Scotland like I do, there is no chance (in the next 10-20years imho) a computer can navigate A-B safely, let alone successfully.
Comments
Might Apple eventually decide to build one? Yeah they could, but it won't appear out of nowhere. We'll all know it's on the way far ahead of time. Between the EPA, NHTSA, and a few other agencies that require Apple to receive certification before a car can hit the road we'll know.
You do realize that iphone was late to the party, right? And that tesla isn't king of the word or even profitable from what i've seen posted. really, in the long game, a difference of a handful of years is no difference. tesla is not in enough of a first-mover position to moat itself from competition. hardly, actually.
also, using "Timmy" as an insult makes your post come across childish.
Let me ask you -- at what point does Apple convince you/critics that it knows what it's doing? How many decades? Clearly 40 years of computer hardware and software engineering isn't good enough for you. Just what is it that you believe the engineers that Musk (who started his career as a web guy) hired possess that cannot also exist with Apple engineers?
So biazzare.
It's a valid way to come up with a product, of course. They've done it in the past with all manner of computing tech. The problem, of course, is that there's a fine line between making one model of one vehicle that only appeals to 5% of the market and, well… The Homer.
I thought Timmy's "Folley" was dividends.
Or share buy-backs.
Or AirPods.
Or Apple Watch.
Or iPhone 6 Plus.
Or Apple Music.
Or his environmental stand.
Or his political stand.
Or the MacPro.
Or the MBP with Touchbar.
Or Healthkit, CareKit and ResourceKit.
Or CarPlay.
Or the Apple Pencil.
Or the lack of two-in-ones.
Or the lack of a touch-based Mac.
Or tvOS and Apple TV 4.
Or...
You're missing the extremely obvious actual comparison I was drawing (hint — it wasn't about product similarities).
The skepticism toward Apple being even capable of finding a way into the industry at all (much less revolutionizing it) echoes many similarities to the exact same type of thinking when they were developing the iPhone by those who couldn't see past the current state of things in the existing industry, as with Palm's CEO in this case. So in that regard, yes a car is comparable to a cell phone. Do you need me to draw you a diagram?