Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI. You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation. Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology. Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance. Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry..
How many miles of data does Apple have from it’s street mapping endeavor? They could’ve also been training an AI model on the road. So Apple has the data as well.In fact, I would say Apple had more types of data in every time of situation, since their cars go up and down EVERY road.
Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI. You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation. Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology. Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance. Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry..
How many miles of data does Apple have from it’s street mapping endeavor? They could’ve also been training an AI model on the road. So Apple has the data as well.In fact, I would say Apple had more types of data in every time of situation, since their cars go up and down EVERY road.
Tesla vehicle road miles have to be at least two if not 3 or 4 orders of magnitude greater than that of Apple's mapping fleet. So, not even close. If you didn't watch Tesla's AI Day I suggest you should. It'll be an eye opener.
Considering how often I've read this team gets dissolved, I'm not sure the Apple Car will ever be a thing.
It's not even clear it ever was a thing! That's the nice thing about rumors - you start one and then simply start another one saying the parties to the first rumor changed their plans. Voila, you've gotten clicks/revenue on both.
Apple definitely wants to be in its customers' cars. But I always thought their ambitions lay solely in CarPlay with a future version of CarPlay reaching further into the car - e.g. providing self-driving capabilities, etc. Building your own cars is not only highly capital intensive, it's also not all that lucrative - at least not compared to the 30+% margins Apple gets from its iDevices and 70+% on its services. Were any of the rumors that Apple was approaching car manufacturers to build a car from them ever substantiated? I mean, I have no doubt Apple did talk to various manufacturers about such a partnership, but that could have just been to inform themselves what the margins, in fact, would be.
There is supposedly a "Project Titan" at Apple that relates to the car. But that could simply be a software team working on self-driving features of a future CarPlay, no?
YUP. All rumors. No idea if the company was looking into it as a manufacturer or just looking into the tech behind it all to have a seat at the table. All rumors. Nothing ever said by the company. The project could be entirely software based. And it really is a totally different biz. My feeling always was, if they were going to get into it it would be through a service. In large cities you could join for X-dollars a month, perhaps in three tiers and have access to self driving cars of different sizes/scales. That’s the only way this makes sense. They do not want to start selling cars directly to consumers.
The only other rumour as regular is Apple Ditching/not ditching or delaying iPhone Mini
I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off. News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly. But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can? Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?
Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI. You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation. Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology. Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance. Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.
It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car. I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI. But cool design is not enough. I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it. But it may be time to sunset this project. Just get me my Mac Studio. We’ll still love you Apple.
So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?
please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone.
Hey! The Blackberry reference stings! Here's what I imagine could have happened to Apple's so-called Titan team. Apple was doing cool things with batteries. Then Tesla had their Battery Day and Apple said, "Well, we're not going to deliver the Apple car with this battery." Apple was doing cool things with their AI software. Then Tesla had their AI Day and Apple said, "Well, we're not going to deliver the Apple car with this AI." It may have been just like the Google Android team that was developing a smart phone felt the morning of January 9, 2007 when Steve introduced the iPhone. Android team: "We're going to have to start over." I'm not saying that anything like that actually happened at Apple or at least happened in that way. But Tesla is a hard and fast moving target to chase down. Love him or hate him, Elon Musk is a powerful and visionary motivator, with extraordinary technical chops. This is one area where Steve's passing has left a gap that remains unfilled, and perhaps will never be again.
I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off. News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly. But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can? Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?
Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI. You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation. Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology. Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance. Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.
It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car. I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI. But cool design is not enough. I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it. But it may be time to sunset this project. Just get me my Mac Studio. We’ll still love you Apple.
So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?
please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone.
An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms.
They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.
The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.
How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions.
No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software.
RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"
...they were wrong.
Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.
So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
Considering how often I've read this team gets dissolved, I'm not sure the Apple Car will ever be a thing.
It's not even clear it ever was a thing! That's the nice thing about rumors - you start one and then simply start another one saying the parties to the first rumor changed their plans. Voila, you've gotten clicks/revenue on both.
Apple definitely wants to be in its customers' cars. But I always thought their ambitions lay solely in CarPlay with a future version of CarPlay reaching further into the car - e.g. providing self-driving capabilities, etc. Building your own cars is not only highly capital intensive, it's also not all that lucrative - at least not compared to the 30+% margins Apple gets from its iDevices and 70+% on its services. Were any of the rumors that Apple was approaching car manufacturers to build a car from them ever substantiated? I mean, I have no doubt Apple did talk to various manufacturers about such a partnership, but that could have just been to inform themselves what the margins, in fact, would be.
There is supposedly a "Project Titan" at Apple that relates to the car. But that could simply be a software team working on self-driving features of a future CarPlay, no?
No. In what way does CarPlay possibly extend to physically controlling an automobile? And in what case would a car manufacturer ever want to give access to a third party such control of their own vehicles? Likewise, why on Earth would Apple want to make software for hardware it doesn't control? NONE of this makes sense with what we know about Project Titan, regardless of its final outcome. They're not going to make the Rokr Car.
I don't think a physical car was ever a thing. I think it was a car OS.
“People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware” -Alan Kay
Alan said this (1982) before he joined Apple (1984).
Steve believed in this. During one interview he said that Apple was essentially a software company whose software ran best on their own proprietary hardware. This is why Apple eventually stopped letting third-party hardware manufacturers install the Apple's operating system.
Apple even tried a couple of stopgap measures along the way, like the short-lived Motorola ROKR.
It has taken them 15-20 years but they migrated both handheld and PC chips to their own proprietary silicon designs.
carOS will run on Apple hardware. It most certainly isn't going to run on some off-the-shelf Nvidia Tegra SoC.
Elon Musk said, Car making business is hard. It requires lot to get off the ground and continue going. But, besides all these rumors, jibber-jabber talk, I have a hope that Apple will figure out to make it happen.
A very import quote Elon said that's relevant here "building a machine is easy, building the MACHINE that builds the machine is hard". Apple can design the greatest vehicle ever known to man. But building the machine to mass produce that vehicle is a whole different story.
Elon Musk said, Car making business is hard. It requires lot to get off the ground and continue going. But, besides all these rumors, jibber-jabber talk, I have a hope that Apple will figure out to make it happen.
A very import quote Elon said that's relevant here "building a machine is easy, building the MACHINE that builds the machine is hard". Apple can design the greatest vehicle ever known to man. But building the machine to mass produce that vehicle is a whole different story.
Apple has pretty solid track record of building up other companies that can build machines to build fairly high complexity machines then make them complete for their business. Well that and they build machines that unbuild those machines to recover as much product as they can.
Do you think a slab of magic glass in beautifully anodised metal case just happens without being able to walk in to a meeting and tell people who build machines to build machines "how to suck eggs"?
I’m in no position to say whether they are or aren’t building whole car but anyone who says that apple would be happy to build the “brains”, “OS”, or otherwise clearly has no recollection of the Motorola rokr
JWSC said: Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI. You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation. Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology. Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance. Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.
Other car manufacturers have already caught up to Tesla in terms of quality/battery/charging/styling etc. As for the AI part, Tesla's driver assist tech is arguably a waste of time since the driver is supposed to be paying attention to what the car AI is doing, which isn't really that different from simply driving the car without AI.
Other car manufacturers have definitely NOT caught up to Tesla in terms of battery technology. They continue to lag in electric motor design, safety, and AI. Egregiously, the ICE manufacturers currently in transition have chosen to retrofit BEV technology in auto frames designed for ICE. Idiocy. Driven by cost saving bean counters no doubt.
I am very interested in what Lucid, Rivian, and the other new BEV entrants have to offer. But until they get through their own version of "production hell" it's all talk and no action. The ICE makers of old are still acting like dinosaurs. I've been watching them for four decades. It's the same-ol'-same-old.
Many of the new EVs are better than what Tesla produces. In particular Kia EV5 and EV6 and the VW ID4 are often rated higher than the Tesla 3 and Y. The Model X is an ugly joke. The Porsche Taycan is much more appealing than the Model S. Seen the "buzz" about the VW Buzz? Elon concentrates too much on making his cars "ludicrously" fast and smoking weed while illegally manipulating the stock price, rather than improving his cars appalling build quality.
Elon Musk said, Car making business is hard. It requires lot to get off the ground and continue going. But, besides all these rumors, jibber-jabber talk, I have a hope that Apple will figure out to make it happen.
A very import quote Elon said that's relevant here "building a machine is easy, building the MACHINE that builds the machine is hard". Apple can design the greatest vehicle ever known to man. But building the machine to mass produce that vehicle is a whole different story.
Apple doesn't build anything. They have manufacturing partners that build components, and others that assemble final products, and are quite good at those things as we've seen.
I’m in no position to say whether they are or aren’t building whole car but anyone who says that apple would be happy to build the “brains”, “OS”, or otherwise clearly has no recollection of the Motorola rokr
I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off. News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly. But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can? Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?
Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI. You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation. Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology. Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance. Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.
It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car. I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI. But cool design is not enough. I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it. But it may be time to sunset this project. Just get me my Mac Studio. We’ll still love you Apple.
So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?
please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone.
An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms.
They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.
The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.
How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions.
No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software.
RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"
...they were wrong.
Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.
So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
I suppose that is your very own shot at reality distortion coupled with not even bothering to fully read what I wrote.
I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars.
I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort.
Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps.
What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?
Why not actually finish reading what I actually said?
I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off. News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly. But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can? Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?
Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI. You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation. Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology. Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance. Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.
It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car. I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI. But cool design is not enough. I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it. But it may be time to sunset this project. Just get me my Mac Studio. We’ll still love you Apple.
So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?
please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone.
An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms.
They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.
The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.
How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions.
No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software.
RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"
...they were wrong.
They weren't totally wrong. The iPhone has always has pretty terrible battery life when compared to the phones that came before it. Standby time for devices used to be measured in weeks, now it's a matter of days.
I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off. News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly. But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can? Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?
Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI. You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation. Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology. Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance. Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.
It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car. I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI. But cool design is not enough. I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it. But it may be time to sunset this project. Just get me my Mac Studio. We’ll still love you Apple.
So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?
please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone.
An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms.
They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.
The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.
How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions.
No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software.
RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"
...they were wrong.
Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.
So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
I suppose that is your very own shot at reality distortion coupled with not even bothering to fully read what I wrote.
I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars.
I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort.
Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps.
What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?
Why not actually finish reading what I actually said?
Quite a disingenuous argument on your part, given that it is in fact the levels of integration that Apple brings to its various market niches that are also recognized disruptions. Your desire to separate out a hardware BOM without Apple's levels of integration is just more weak sauce in your argument.
I haven't a clue what Apple plans to bring to the Automotive market, but Apple evidently believes that it can bring some kind of innovation to the market. I am also certain that you will deny Apple's silicon innovations of late will not be disruptive if applied to the automotive market.
I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off. News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly. But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can? Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?
Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI. You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation. Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology. Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance. Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.
It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car. I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI. But cool design is not enough. I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it. But it may be time to sunset this project. Just get me my Mac Studio. We’ll still love you Apple.
So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?
please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone.
An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms.
They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.
The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.
How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions.
No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software.
RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"
...they were wrong.
Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.
So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
I suppose that is your very own shot at reality distortion coupled with not even bothering to fully read what I wrote.
I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars.
I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort.
Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps.
What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?
Why not actually finish reading what I actually said?
Quite a disingenuous argument on your part, given that it is in fact the levels of integration that Apple brings to its various market niches that are also recognized disruptions. Your desire to separate out a hardware BOM without Apple's levels of integration is just more weak sauce in your argument.
I haven't a clue what Apple plans to bring to the Automotive market, but Apple evidently believes that it can bring some kind of innovation to the market. I am also certain that you will deny Apple's silicon innovations of late will not be disruptive if applied to the automotive market.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
You seem to have lost track of what a was replying to.
I doubt very much that Apple intends to bring any disruption to this market.
I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off. News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly. But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can? Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?
Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI. You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation. Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology. Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance. Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.
It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car. I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI. But cool design is not enough. I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it. But it may be time to sunset this project. Just get me my Mac Studio. We’ll still love you Apple.
So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?
please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone.
An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms.
They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.
The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.
How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions.
No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software.
RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"
...they were wrong.
They weren't totally wrong. The iPhone has always has pretty terrible battery life when compared to the phones that came before it. Standby time for devices used to be measured in weeks, now it's a matter of days.
I agree with you in all other respects though.
...what a terrible tradeoff people had to make...but, perfection.
I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off. News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly. But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can? Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?
Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI. You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation. Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology. Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance. Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.
It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car. I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI. But cool design is not enough. I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it. But it may be time to sunset this project. Just get me my Mac Studio. We’ll still love you Apple.
So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?
please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone.
An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms.
They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.
The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.
How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions.
No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software.
RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"
...they were wrong.
Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.
So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
I suppose that is your very own shot at reality distortion coupled with not even bothering to fully read what I wrote.
I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars.
I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort.
Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps.
What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?
Why not actually finish reading what I actually said?
Quite a disingenuous argument on your part, given that it is in fact the levels of integration that Apple brings to its various market niches that are also recognized disruptions. Your desire to separate out a hardware BOM without Apple's levels of integration is just more weak sauce in your argument.
I haven't a clue what Apple plans to bring to the Automotive market, but Apple evidently believes that it can bring some kind of innovation to the market. I am also certain that you will deny Apple's silicon innovations of late will not be disruptive if applied to the automotive market.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
You seem to have lost track of what a was replying to.
I doubt very much that Apple intends to bring any disruption to this market.
It's more likely a case of revenue streams.
You once stated that you don't even own a car, yet here you are assuming that there are no more disruptions to be made. Meh.
How would Apple even be able to enter the automotive market without some sort of disruption? Do you think that Apple "fans" are going to line up and buy anything from Apple?
I’ve been skeptical all along that Apple could pull this off. News of Apple having talks with existing auto manufacturers got my hopes up slightly. But it bears asking repeatedly, what can Apple offer that no one else can? Are they working on some mind blowing new technology integration solution that takes human factors and UI to a new level?
Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI. You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation. Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology. Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance. Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry.
It would have been really cool to see the industrial design of an Apple car. I have no doubt that Apple could’ve done a better job than anyone else in design, ergonomics, and UI. But cool design is not enough. I’m glad Apple spent the time investigating the possibility of an Apple car. They probably learned a lot while doing it. But it may be time to sunset this project. Just get me my Mac Studio. We’ll still love you Apple.
So Apple should end their legacy at Mac Studio and shut down tomorrow?
please, Apple needs to keep pushing technology forward and they can do a lot with the Car. Your reply reminds me of the articles praising blackberry before the iPhone.
An iPhone wasn't actually all that different from a Blackberry at launch. At least in functional hardware terms.
They both had screens, keyboards, batteries, antenna etc. Everything necessary to get the work of a phone (and more) done.
The secret was in software and apps that added new functionality which actually turned it into less of a phone and more of a CE computer.
How can that transfer to a autonomous car setting where most of the computing work is not really going to be client facing? It's going to be mainly back end stuff (mobile data centre, 'sensing' capabilities, AI, communicating with road infrastructure etc) and where there will be a host of competitors moving fast and already deploying solutions.
No, iPhone was absolutely very different from a Blackberry at launch, despite both having, uh, screens. iPhone had a very powerful, yet power-efficient processor, thus was able to run a UNIX-based OS in the palm of your hand...and the world of software & power that represented. It was truly a computer in your pocket. Blackberry's CEOs famously doubted the iPhone was real when they first saw the unveiling, refusing to believe it was actually running real software.
RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"
...they were wrong.
Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.
So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
I suppose that is your very own shot at reality distortion coupled with not even bothering to fully read what I wrote.
I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars.
I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort.
Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps.
What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?
Why not actually finish reading what I actually said?
Quite a disingenuous argument on your part, given that it is in fact the levels of integration that Apple brings to its various market niches that are also recognized disruptions. Your desire to separate out a hardware BOM without Apple's levels of integration is just more weak sauce in your argument.
I haven't a clue what Apple plans to bring to the Automotive market, but Apple evidently believes that it can bring some kind of innovation to the market. I am also certain that you will deny Apple's silicon innovations of late will not be disruptive if applied to the automotive market.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
You seem to have lost track of what a was replying to.
I doubt very much that Apple intends to bring any disruption to this market.
It's more likely a case of revenue streams.
You once stated that you don't even own a car, yet here you are assuming that there are no more disruptions to be made. Meh.
How would Apple even be able to enter the automotive market without some sort of disruption? Do you think that Apple "fans" are going to line up and buy anything from Apple?
What does not owning a car have to do with anything?
I travel in them constantly. Is the difference between driving one and driving in one relevant in this context?
Apple could enter the market without disrupting it. Why are you connecting those two dots together?
There will be a plethora of companies offering similar solutions - just like there are now. Apple could easily end up being just another one.
Comments
How many miles of data does Apple have from it’s street mapping endeavor? They could’ve also been training an AI model on the road. So Apple has the data as well.In fact, I would say Apple had more types of data in every time of situation, since their cars go up and down EVERY road.
Here's what I imagine could have happened to Apple's so-called Titan team. Apple was doing cool things with batteries. Then Tesla had their Battery Day and Apple said, "Well, we're not going to deliver the Apple car with this battery." Apple was doing cool things with their AI software. Then Tesla had their AI Day and Apple said, "Well, we're not going to deliver the Apple car with this AI." It may have been just like the Google Android team that was developing a smart phone felt the morning of January 9, 2007 when Steve introduced the iPhone. Android team: "We're going to have to start over."
I'm not saying that anything like that actually happened at Apple or at least happened in that way. But Tesla is a hard and fast moving target to chase down. Love him or hate him, Elon Musk is a powerful and visionary motivator, with extraordinary technical chops. This is one area where Steve's passing has left a gap that remains unfilled, and perhaps will never be again.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/27/rim_thought_apple_was_lying_about_original_iphone_in_2007
RIM was allegedly "in denial" about the iPhone, claiming "it couldn't do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc"
...they were wrong.
Then there was the capacitive touch screen, and the *lack* of a keyboard.
So, no, despite both phones having...batteries & screens...they weren't that similar. That's why RIM imploded and doesn't exist anymore.
https://appleinsider.com/inside/apple-car
https://www.patentlyapple.com/autonomous-vehicle-technology/
Alan said this (1982) before he joined Apple (1984).
Steve believed in this. During one interview he said that Apple was essentially a software company whose software ran best on their own proprietary hardware. This is why Apple eventually stopped letting third-party hardware manufacturers install the Apple's operating system.
Apple even tried a couple of stopgap measures along the way, like the short-lived Motorola ROKR.
It has taken them 15-20 years but they migrated both handheld and PC chips to their own proprietary silicon designs.
carOS will run on Apple hardware. It most certainly isn't going to run on some off-the-shelf Nvidia Tegra SoC.
Do you think a slab of magic glass in beautifully anodised metal case just happens without being able to walk in to a meeting and tell people who build machines to build machines "how to suck eggs"?
I specifically set software aside from the comparison and said why client facing software (mostly apps) will not be a determining factor in cars.
I suppose your eyes had already glazed over by that time and you were furiously scribbling your retort.
Unix based or not, at launch the iPhone was an expensive (it had a virtually instant price drop) and very limited suite of first party apps.
What benefits would something like a capacitive touchscreen and gestures bring to the car market, where they are already implemented?
Why not actually finish reading what I actually said?
I agree with you in all other respects though.
I haven't a clue what Apple plans to bring to the Automotive market, but Apple evidently believes that it can bring some kind of innovation to the market. I am also certain that you will deny Apple's silicon innovations of late will not be disruptive if applied to the automotive market.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
I doubt very much that Apple intends to bring any disruption to this market.
It's more likely a case of revenue streams.
How would Apple even be able to enter the automotive market without some sort of disruption? Do you think that Apple "fans" are going to line up and buy anything from Apple?
I travel in them constantly. Is the difference between driving one and driving in one relevant in this context?
Apple could enter the market without disrupting it. Why are you connecting those two dots together?
There will be a plethora of companies offering similar solutions - just like there are now. Apple could easily end up being just another one.
That is the more reasonable view.