SpamSandwich

nunzy said:

ceek74 said:

The equivalent of loose change in Apple's carseat.

15 Billion is nothing to Apple.  They are richer than any  company in the history of civilization. They probably spend more than 15 billion a year on Executive lunches.

urashid said:

lkrupp said:

Net neutrality is one of those “let’s get all emotional and angry about” issues. It’s like the analysts saying the iPhone X was a miserable flop. It’s fodder for the techie Chicken Littles of this world to wring their hands over. And if Apple were a broadband provider they would be singing a different tune I guaran-damn-tee it. So the FTC is going to monitor the bandwidth providers instead of the FCC. Big frick’n deal. All this “might”, “could”, “may” happen bull excrement being spread around is pathetic. Net neutrality is nothing more than government intrusion into and regulation of private enterprise. The state of broadband access in this country has already ground to a halt and net neutrality would only cause AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc to be further disincentivized to deploy and expand their networks. Google’s fiber project was a cruel joke, just like their barge in the middle of San Francisco bay. Elon Musk’s idea of hundreds of satellites to provide Internet access world would crumble under the weight of government price regulation. Reclassifying broadband as a regulated utility will spawn dozens of fees and taxes like those you see on your landline and electric bills, if you still have a landline that is.  

https://www.theringer.com/2017/7/21/16077992/google-fiber-struggles-7d2bb5399a12

I prefer my electricity service as a regulated utility.  Last time we experimented with private electricity companies in California, everything went bonkers and rates went to the moon.  Don't want that to happen with my internet service.

DavidAlGregory said:

mikethemartian said:

DavidAlGregory said:

Not happy about Apple getting into bed with Bankster #1, Government Sachs. I'll spare you the details, but the info is out there for anyone interested.

There are better outfits to deal with.

I would rather Apple set up a Bank as a separate but wholly owned subsidiary. They can then hire people who share the values of the company.

If Apple created their own bank they would have to deal with lots of regulators like FDIC, OCC and Fed Reserve.

Apple could create a stand alone company that operates independently after setting it up in the fashion they desire. Then IPO it with supershares that give themselves voting control. 
This means Apple is not the majority stockholder, yet controls the company which is a separate entity.

Supershares has long been used to exercise control after a founder or owner has divested most of the ownership. The Ford family did it when the took Ford public in the 1950s and any number of tech Billionaires have done it since.

By controlling but not owning the company, Apple avoids a lot of headaches.

gatorguy said:

SpamSandwich said:

melgross said:

ireland said:

melgross said:

MacPro said:

Rayz2016 said:

chasm said:

As far as I can tell, it has not in fact ever been confirmed that Apple was building its own car. Based on the available documentation I've seen (i.e. all the California paperwork that has been made public, unless I missed something), Apple has only ever been working on a system that, like CarPlay, was designed to be sold/licensed to car manufacturers for use in their own models. Of course I could be wrong, but would be interested to know where the source is for confirmation that Apple was building its own complete car for eventual sale to the public (excluding a car built for research/prototype/testing purposes).

Even if I am wrong about that, if there ever had been an Apple car and a Google car to choose from, that decision would take less than a second to make.

I dunno. 

I can see why car manufacturers would go with CarPlay: they want a connection to the iPhone. I’m just not sure how Apple would convince them to go with their autonomous drive system. Surely this is something that the manufacturers would want to control themselves, and not leave it to Apple or Google. 

I can see the logic in the approach chasm suggests.  Most car makers are not computer experts by a long way, let alone into AI, this goes far beyond 'your front left tire is flat' or 'you need a service'.  One thing for sure, whatever it is Apple is going to come out with will be followed very quickly with a Google knock off (marketed by Samsung maybe).

I can’t see it. Car manufacturers have been working with computers in their cars for a long time now, far longer than Apple has. They also have the proper real time operating systems needed, which, as far as we know, Apple doesn’t.

its not a matter of thinking that if Apple is doing it, it will automatically work, and be better. It might, and it might not. Apple is they neophyte here, not the auto makers.

Not to mention that we know several car makers such as Merc have working autonomous car prototypes, for a few years now.

...where will Apple fit into this? Selling it to other auto companies? I don’t see how. Anyone who writes that Apple is planning to do that is ignorant of the automobile industry. Apple will see some major problem in trying to convince companies to do that. They tried to get BMW to design and build a car together, do people think they will convince them, or others to buy their own nav system?

I don’t see Apple or Google being able to convince car companies to adopt their software for autonomy. Seems to me they’d be giving up far too much control of their experience and the potential liability could be devastating. 

Apple will have to market and sell their own vehicles or buy and modify someone else’s vehicles to offer their system (or service) to the public.

https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/en-us/news/2018/03/waymo-and-jaguar-land-rover-announce-long-term-partnership-beginning-self-driving-0
https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/02/waymo-honda-autonomous-delivery-vehicle/