holyone

LoneStar88 said:

I thought it was a good speech, apparently uncolored by any political bias. Tim is continuing to show that Steve chose the best possible steward of Apple's legacy and philosophy.

I think Apple's continuing rising statistics are the best possible gauge of the enduring relevancy and validity of the purpose with which Steve endowed it.

Apple's latest product and services offerings revealed at this year's WWDC also give me good hope for Apple's continued prosperity.

Every time Tim speaks like this it feels to me as though he's using his position at Apple to fight some deep personal, humanitarian great oppression of .... Who ever, and this is always lumped together as values shared by SJ, and resoned as why Steve chose him to run Apple so he can turn it into a platform for his personal crusade.

 Don't get me wrong I'm all for Apple and their environmental efforts, but it always sounds to me like that's not all Tim is talking about, when Steve talked about bettering  the world he was trying to do so thru great technology which from any other company would be luxurious objects  inaccessible to the masses, my concern with Tim's Apple besides it bieng an innovations company not ran by an innovative person is this,

 Steve was a difficult person to work with, this is well known, but he was godly talented and attracted similarly talented people who could never be able to be in the same room let alone work together, but because they all cared deeply about what they were there to do ( the product ) that Apple was a collection of maybe not the nicest of people, like the CEO, but like him, were the greatest at what they were there for ( the product ), I mean how the hell could a person like Ive ever work with such a too passionate, over controlling, foul mouthed mad man that was Steve ?

 Tim seems to have amassed a collection of yes man who first have to some how align with his personal views on things that have nothing to do with a technology company, It seems to me that he intends to use Apple as some kind humanitarian bat to wrong what ever he deems to be the great wrongs he's experienced in his life, or he sees in the political world, but this should have nothing to do with Apple.

 Look I'm not saying Apple should not be active in pursuing the ( good of all ) but that isn't a universally agreeable thing, but the world is made of many different opinions and points of views and this diversity is inherent and good and the highest calling of leadership is to foster tolerance amount different people coming from different backgrounds for the sake of the work (the product) and co-operation, this man is acting as though Apple is his, and he gets to change what it's soul and inner core is, if a very talented person looking for work and could really do great things at Apple but voted for Trump does anyone think that they'd consider Apple ?, if this was Steve it would be very well his prerogative he not only founded Apple but also saved it too. People always think that Steve choose Tim because he was the best but he didnt. Steve never expected to die when he did, does any one believe that if Steve instead just retired when he died that he'd still would have left the company to Tim ? and does anyone think that Tim would be involving Apple in things outside its work if Steve was watching ?

 When Steve started to accepted that he wouldn't live for long he had to make quick desicions for the future of Apple and do the best with what he had available to him, it wasn't an un forced-choice, in his position what would anyone do ? Bring some one totally new (Sully) ?, or Phill, ? Crag ? , Tim was the best available but certainly not the most suitable IMHO.

Appleish said:

The universe took the wrong Steve.

Woah not cool not cool at all I take GREAT exception to you're unkind post, I'm a Jobs fan but you're statement is going too far, it's sad how unknown or appreciated Woz is, it pains me how history only remembers the lead singer and forget the drummer in the back without whom there would be no song, In case you don't know but it was Woz's brilliance that built the first computer that Apple sold without which there is no Apple, you may disagree with the man, but let's not forget who this man is and that he sits at the round table, a sit he's fully earned, respect due, please, before mouths start running  

radarthekat said:

I've posted my vision a number of times here, and why I think it requires a huge company like Apple to bring it to fruition.  If only Woz had real vision, or would stifle himself on topics he's given little thought to.

Anyway, here it is again...

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.  

Though you raise great and wondrous points but this idea that people won't want to own cars in the futer is incomprehensible to me and is romanticizing the fun parts whilst ignoring the seriouse logistical problem that'll likely stop that notion in its tracks. Firstly there's this notion that autonomous cars will reduced traffic this is unlikely if you really think about what causes traffic, it's not that people are just terrible drivers and do stupid things on the road and creating congestion it's that every one leaves for work at the same time and return at the same time, if you work from nine to five you will need transportation every morning at about 08:00 to 08:30 depending on how far you live from where you work and againe at 18:00 and guess what so will 5 million other people who work from nine to five this means there will need to be five milion cars to drive all those people to work and bring them back and whilst those 5 million who are the highest capacity this sysystem is suposed to be at the most minimum able to satify are at work there will be millions of cars siting idly wating for peake demand to become needed again issentially changing noting. I just don't get it am I missing something ?  

I don't mean to sound naive or careless, I live in a different country where this would be an odd discussion but, how is this even a problem, I get the point about identity, but aren't restrooms divided on mechanical lines ? As in you go to the bath room that matches you're equipment, in part boys stand and girls sit, no ?, I mean if I was a guy trapped in a girls body not being able to wiz standing up would bother me more than not being allowed in with the fellers no ?

Why are we being subjected to this hogwash, its just taking space where real news should be, why on Earth would any official Apple presentation be Power Point ? From that picture that's not even the latest Windows version,