Deceptive Advertising

sagan_student said:

rogifan_new said:

Just another example of how automakers don’t need Apple to be able to build autonomous and self driving vehicles. If Apple really wants to play in this space they’re going to need to build their own vehicle, and maybe it’s not something sold directly to consumers. Maybe Apple becomes its own ride sharing service.

The idea of the ride sharing service just screams Apple to me. By the time this happens, Apple could have committed lines of production and control the lifespan of these vehicles; essentially they could then provide a transportation experience that only Apple can provide.

Question - Couldn't Apple just join this consortium? I don't think this would affect them negatively, if this were the case.

As I've been saying all along, autonomous vehicles might not be the next big thing.  

The car of the future is already here.  It's called a Smartphone.  Think about it.  If you were to clear the slate, look at the modern world and ask yourself, how would I design a transportation system given existing and soon-to-come technologies, like autonomous driving, real-time availability scheduling. Route optimization, etc, no way you'd conclude there should be a car, or two, in every garage.  You'd create a technology/software infrastructure to allow individuals to call up the transportation they need (car, truck, van, etc) on-demand.  And it would show up wherever they are, or wherever they are going to be, when it's needed.  You'd be able to schedule transportation in advance, like the airport shuttles of yesteryear that you'd schedule a week in advance. Über pretty much killed that business, I expect.  

Or schedule recurring transportation, such as to take the kids to soccer practice and back.  In this case the transportation technology system might suggest a shared van service, that knows the schedules for local after school sports practice and offers up and constructs pick-up and drop-off routes based upon participation; a regular route to gather up the kids and deliver them.  Accommodation for security will be considered when children are being transported without accompanying parents, such as real-time tracking and a constant open line of communication, both audio and video streaming from the vehicle to parent's smartphones. 

The specific vehicle that arrives can be determined by number of passengers, whether you'll be transporting something large or just yourself, etc.  The notion of owning, maintaining, accommodating parking requirements of, insuring, etc, a personal vehicle, for many people, has already begun to feel like 'the old paridigm.'  

To create this infrastructure, you need route optimization software, that incorporates the real-time whereabouts of all vehicles in a local fleet. You need scheduling software.  You need to deal with remaining charge/range of each vehicle out in service to know when a vehicle can accommodate an additional requested or scheduled route without running out of juice.  You need to accommodate stand-by, where the vehicle drops someone off at a location and is requested to stand-by for an indeterminate time while the person goes into a store or bank to run an errand.  In short, you need a very sophisticated set of interacting technologies to accommodate smooth operation of a transportation network that provides near immediate responsiveness to a population's constantly fluctuating needs.

If I were Tim Cook, this is exactly the way I'd envision the future, and this is what I'd set out to create.  It's not so much about constructing vehicles yourself, but about getting sign-in from all vehicle manufacturers such that their vehicles can work within the envisioned transportation network.  And that means that people who do own vehicles could lend them into their local autonomous transportation fleet in order to earn money (this has already been suggested by Musk and makes sense for a maker of vehicles to accommodate, as it helps him sell more Teslas direct to consumers).  It means that new rental fleets will simply be staged in large metro areas, with one or more depots that the vehicles come back to for recharging, maintenance, cleaning, etc.  And that means that there's a path forward for the rental companies, because they already have staging areas for their existing fleets.  The big picture can be accommodated during a transition phase from the world we have today to a world where almost all transportation is shared and autonomous.  

Extend this to trucking, inter-city bussing, etc, and the whole thing becomes a future that Apple could play a major role in developing.  Without ever producing, on their own, a single vehicle.

Also key to this is that everything Apple needs to do to revolutionize transportation does not require Apple to do any work on autonomous driving, nor does Apple need to build a single vehicle model.  Nope, Apple will want to own the end user interaction used to summon and schedule transportation, and it'll want to own the route optimization algorithms and server side scheduling and dispatch.  And take a cut of every ride.  

There will need to be some tech in each car to pick up the user interaction that began on a rider's smartphone or Watch, once the car arrives to pick up the rider.  The car will need a voice interface to interact with the rider.  The car will need to constantly ping its whereabouts to the dispatch and scheduling servers, along with its charge level, so that the dispatch system can determine its next pick up and determine when it needs to exit the active fleet and return to a nearby depot for recharging or maintenance.  The car will need to contain sensors, like internal cameras, to monitor for left-behind packages, spilled coffee, etc, and report appropriately to riders or to dispatch.  The car will need streaming audio/video capabilities to stream to parents when children are riding without adult accompaniment.  All of this can be designed as a set of interfaces that automakers can implement in order to be compatible with Apple's dispatch and routing servers, and the vehicles might also be required to utilize Apple's mapping infrastructure.  

Once verified as able to serve a ride request, the car is handed details on the location of the rider, and the rider's destination, and it can then utilize its own autonomous driving capabilities to serve the request.  And all of this can integrate both driverless and human driven vehicles into the same service.  So as vehicles are developed that are licensed for autonomous operation, these can be added to an existing Uber-like fleet of human driven vehicles, both serving together to form a centrally requested and directed/dispatched swarm serving a metrolitan area.  Eventually, the human driven vehicles would all be replaced with autonomous vehicles, and the future will have arrived.  

randominternetperson said:

wizard69 said:

daven said:

I guess Foxcon won't be building a factory in Wisconsin after all.

No I think this is an example of Apple getting a little STUPID in their old age.   To sight a similar patent in you patent filing just seems to be inviting a lawsuit.   Apple basically said hey this is where the idea came from.

Right, because Apple is one monolithic mind.  Every word in every patent filing is reviewed by every executive and represents the unanimous opinion of the Apple hive mind.  Alternatively, this could have been a mistake by the patent attorneys working for Apple at that particular time.  Nah, it must be that Apple hive mind thing.  It's getting old and senile.  Dare I say, Apple is doomed, as a logical consequence? 

It suggests neither.  Related patents are always called out as prior art in patent filings.  The fact Apple was aware of WARF's work strengthens Apple's case of non-infringement, because it implies Apple had reviewed the prior art and would have made efforts in development of its own methods to avoid infringement.  Could it have inadvertently infringed regardless?  Sure.  But it wouldn't have infringed knowingly if aware of the prior art.  Also, a court's/jury's decisions on complex IP infringement can be a very subjective thing, depending upon the particular expertise, or lack thereof, on the part of those making the deliberation.  A judge might know patent law, but might not know all that's needed to make a valid determination regarding the specific art under review.  Apple is appealing, in the end they might have to pay, these things happen in the course of developing technology products.  Life will go on.

Mike Wuerthele said:

tmay said:

Two stories, this one and Foxconn's decision to build a display production facility in Michigan.

The third story needs to be "Are CVD machines capable of producing microLED's?".

Not as directly as they are for OLED, but they are involved in the production. The kicker is, though, why would Apple buy the equipment, and not the manufacturer itself?

Apple buys IP, not manufacturers.  That would be my guess as to why Apple would go this route, as they long have done. 

StrangeDays said:

lkrupp said:

StrangeDays said:

lkrupp said:

bloggerblog said:

Yet another reason why California should secede. Washington's bullying tactics and outdated laws coupled with the IRS's shortsighted tax laws are counter productive California's innovative culture.

Get a grip on yourself.

Going by their policy history, and business & cultural climate, I'd rather have California rule that Virginia/DC rule. 

There is no viable path what-so-ever for California to secede from the Union. Read the damn Constitution. It does not provide for secession of a state from the Union, only joining the Union. There is also no currently viable path for the Electoral College to be replaced with direct election of the President either. Again, read the Constitution on what it takes to amend it.

You seem to be confused, I never suggested otherwise. Or you're having an episode. I just commented to the affirmative of why I like CA's way of doing things (policy) better than the typical bozos in DC. CA is driving so much of this nation's output, from technology to entertainment to environment to civil rights...as a state their policies seem to be working well for the betterment of their citizens. CA-based tech and entertainment as basically our ambassadors to the entire world.

StrangeDays said:

lkrupp said:

StrangeDays said:

lkrupp said:

bloggerblog said:

Yet another reason why California should secede. Washington's bullying tactics and outdated laws coupled with the IRS's shortsighted tax laws are counter productive California's innovative culture.

Get a grip on yourself.

Going by their policy history, and business & cultural climate, I'd rather have California rule that Virginia/DC rule. 

There is no viable path what-so-ever for California to secede from the Union. Read the damn Constitution. It does not provide for secession of a state from the Union, only joining the Union. There is also no currently viable path for the Electoral College to be replaced with direct election of the President either. Again, read the Constitution on what it takes to amend it.

You seem to be confused, I never suggested otherwise. Or you're having an episode. I just commented to the affirmative of why I like CA's way of doing things (policy) better than the typical bozos in DC. CA is driving so much of this nation's output, from technology to entertainment to environment to civil rights...as a state their policies seem to be working well for the betterment of their citizens. CA-based tech and entertainment as basically our ambassadors to the entire world.

Has CA created the business culture responsible for companies like Apple?  Is there a verifiable cause and effect relationship regarding this?  If so, I'd love to have that detailed, showing precisely the differences that exist in CA relative to other states.  MA has a high-tech hub too, maybe CA could be contrasted with that state to explicitly draw out its business climate advantages.  But from what I can see, I'd pin any advantage CA might have in attracting entrpenuers, who are by nature very mobile elements, versus MA, on CA's superior weather and natural beauty.  That's not something its government leaders could viably lay claim to creating.