charlesn

chasm said:

charlesn said:

since Tesla was already manufacturing what could be described as a very Apple-esque car. So yes, Apple gambled on a moon shot and lost. I'd rather they took the big swing than not. But even if Apple had succeeded, it still faced the issue of low margins in the auto business, which is counter to Apple's whole business strategy of high-margin products. 

My question: since full self-driving could be described as one giant AI puzzle, how much of the AI research done for Project Titan might be applicable in some way to the rest of Apple's product line? Or has all the research for Titan simply reached a dead end. 

1. Other than having a giant (and very distracting) iPad-like screen for its computer, how is a Tesla "Apple-like?" I've driven a Model 3 and it's probably the most UN-Apple-like car I can think of that is currently being produced.

2. Most of the research done for Project Titan is applicable to much of what Apple does. It's mostly the "design work" on the driverless car they had in mind that has regrettably gone to waste -- but you never know ...

Design-wise, Tesla--especially the original models--emphasized sleek, clean lines for both exterior and interior that are very much in keeping with the Apple aesthetic. And while YOU may not like the tablet interface, it allowed to Tesla to deliver a car--in another very Apple thing to do--with none of the typical dashboard buttons and knobs. Don't like accessing car controls through a screen? No problem. Tesla's killer voice control allows you to do most things using natural speech. There's no need, as with most auto voice control, to learn and say commands in a certain way. Again, very Apple in that "it just works." I've rented Teslas for a week or so several times and have really enjoyed driving them, Unfortunately, EVs are still impractical to own in Manhattan and much of NYC, since there's a dearth of public charging stations while garages with EV hook-ups are price-gouging if you want to add it to your monthly garage rent. 

I guess we'll start to see how much of Titan work is applicable, or not, when Apple puts some meat on the bones of its AI strategy at WWDC in June. 

At first I was surprised to read this news from Gurman. I would have thought Apple marketing would want an event. But on second thought, not so much. Apple doesn't do events for speed bumps, and that's the story for the MBAs and, in large part, for the iPads, too. So you're left with an event to talk about OLED screens, the XL iPad Air and a couple of new accessories. And it's not as if the existing screens in iPad Pros aren't terrific--they are. I'm sure the OLEDs will better them in ways typical of OLED tech, but this will be iterative improvement, not jaw-dropping advancement. Of course, Apple is a company that based its whole marketing campaign for iPhone's 15 Pro models on a piece of titanium trim, so I never question their ability to make an insignificant feature seem like so much more than it is. 

multimedia said:

I’m happy with my very expensive 16GB 2TB M1 iPad Pro from 2020. What’s the rush to upgrade?

That's the question facing all of Apple's product lines right now. The correct answer would be: new and compelling capabilities that require new hardware. I still think Apple was caught flat-footed with AI and I haven't found Tim Cook's comments to be particularly reassuring that they weren't. I'm more interested than ever in WWDC this year and anxious to hear about Apple's plans/strategy when it comes to AI. 

hmurchison said:

EV are just fine.  They're not going anywhere.    All the issues (aside from cold weather and that's easily fixable)  will be rectified with Solid State batteries which will produce either double the power for a given weight or today's power in half the weight which eliminates much of the weight issues of EV as well as thermal runaway. 

Apple is smart to get out of cars because it's not a core competency.    Apple barely does a good job repairing their computers and car repairs are another level of stress.  I think they should continue to embed their IP into the nervous system of a car and the user interaction with the driver.  That's what Apple excels at. 

Agree... not a core competency for Apple, nor are cars a high margin business while Apple's success rests entirely on high margins. As for continuing to embed their IP in cars, I think all eyes are on GM and what happens with their abandoning both CarPlay and Android Auto in favor of their own system developed with Google. IF this strategy isn't a deal breaker for buyers--and that's a big IF--it offers GM a new, ongoing and very lucrative revenue stream with each car sale. Personally, I wouldn't even look at a GM car when shopping at this point because it lacks CarPlay... but I don't know if I'm most buyers. We shall see. But if this works out for GM, you can expect other car companies to follow. I have no doubt that Google is knocking at their doors already. 

The Apple Vision Pro fitting process: "It begins with a retail worker scanning the user’s face, similar to the Face ID setup using a special app, determining the correct light seal, foam cushion, and band size needed for an optimal fit." 

But, yeah, tell me again how this airline is just gonna be handing out Vision Pros like dry-roasted cashews to its first class customers. I guess they'll have a lens lab onboard, too, so they can accommodate those who need corrective lenses. This is bullahite PR to cash in on those with money and no common sense.