holyone

brucemc said:

randominternetperson said:

gatorguy said:

Well of course it's ride-hailing, just as every car-maker realizes by now. The days of a car in every driveway are already passing.

Millennials as a group have less interest in driving, are more likely to do their socializing on-line rather than visiting friends homes or going to bars, prefer to shop on-line rather than traveling to a B&M, and and so in general have fewer reasons to drive to begin with. When the need does arise they're more likely to share transportation with another friend in their group, maybe chip in on the gas, when they do go out rather than driving themselves.  Even possessing a driver's license is less likely than in previous generations. For many of them them car ownership isn't seen as a necessity or even a want anymore. 

Because of the changing dynamics GM, Ford, Mazda, Fiat-Chrysler, Google, Mercedes, Nissan and likely Apple along with several other car-makers and transportation companies are all looking at the same future football field to play on, one skewed more towards sharing as long as folks can get from A to B when those less-frequent needs to go out and about arise. 

Well said.  Car ownership won't disappear for a long, long time, but it's probably plateaued in the US (on a per capita basis).  I live out in the suburbs and there are more houses with 4 cars (or more typically SUVs, minivans, and trucks) than there are with just 1.  The median could easily be 3.  In 10 years, I expect there will still be plenty of cars here but every driveway won't be full with an extra vehicle parked on the street.

I agree that car ownership has likely plateaued (or will soon) in the advanced economies for the general reasons noted.  But for those who make business decisions, they have to be more attuned to reality than the hype that "no one will own a car anymore" in 5-10 years - which you can easily read in the echo chamber of the media-blog-o-sphere.  For many core urban dwellers that work in said core, the economics are already there for ride-hailing services [BTW - almost no one "shares the ride" - it is not ride sharing - it is a paid taxi service managed via software & services].  

However, for those who work outside of that core, and for all those in the suburbs, fringes, and rural, a car is still very useful (and economical when including time).  We don't need to rehash the arguments that in order for ride-hailing services to perform the job of today's personally owned cars, there would need to be as many of them as private cars.  Some habits shift over time, but as mass transit growth attempts have shown, it is in small increments.  There is also this thing called "freedom" (to easily go where you want) which was one of the driving forces of the automobile in the first place.  Want to jump in the car to go 2 hours away to the beach today - no problem - put your stuff in your car.

Cars are going to be around for a long time, and new ones will need to be purchased.  The market is definitely going to change and some incumbents will be hurt.  Doesn't mean there isn't room for a new entrant that can do something better.  I wouldn't be placing all my bets on the ride-sharing future.

True and well said, also not to mention that Apple has little play here if any. It's amazing how people keep making the same misguided argument when it comes to this hole self driving cars marlakey, 

kevin kee said:

Yes, this does make sense and solve a lot of modern life problems in one hit: car price increasing, car parking space limitation, car fuel price increasing, traffic is worsening, car accident rate, etc. If there is a company that can make this work, and still profit in someway, as well as creating halo effect, it is Apple.

No it doesn't make any sence, Über and the likes largely sove the problem of teens who need a ride to the mall and don't want the third degree from their parents or for people who cant or shouldn't be driving. Yes car prices may be increasing but that's because they are getting better and better every year, like iPhones. Self driving cars won't sove parking space problems, when these self driving cars aren't need e.g night time when everyone's sleeping they'll need to be stored somewhere for safe keeping. Self driving cars won't change fuel prices either just move everyone to electricity which off cause means coal so... Nuts to that, and don't even dream about solar that would make the hole thing an economic nonstarter.

I don't know wher people get this idea that self driving cars are going to reduce traffic and accidents, this will only be true in a meaningful way when every car on the road drives it self and communicates with every other car on the road regardless of brand, so this dream of a world where the are zero accident and traffic jams is still just that, a dream.

To onother fanboy favorite, Apple car will be so awesome, out of all the companies working on this, Apple is by far the least suitable for self driving cars and ride hailing business. I've said this ample times yet , Apple is a user experience oriented company, everything they do well in one way or onother involves a mastery in user experience. An interaction where a user sits in the product and says " take me home" leves no room for Apple to introduce the Apple difference, the legendary intuitive user interface that makes the Apple experience, a car whose primary feature is that it can drive it self very well, is creepy softwear, it's cloud it's sever, and if we are honest that's more google than Apple. As to the ride hailing idea, Apple sells affodable premium axperiences, there is no worthwhile market for a Rolls Royce Uber

Might this not have something to do with the fact that maintaining a live phone call on such a small device might rather dramatically run the battery to near zero ? I think small controlled data packets sent from and to the watch at a suitable rate and magnitude is more feasible and appropriate at this moment, in fact considering how little regard Apple has for batteries I just don't see how making calls on the watch is ever going to work, it must be remembered that its just not the watch but also the network which Apple doesn't custom design, part of me thinks Jony and gang are betting big on solid sate or something like it coming at some point soon  

tzeshan said:

holyone said:

Awh, are people still on this ? If you don't like the landlord's rules move, the Chinies people need to deal with theire government, every free and democratic nation got that freedom by fighting for it, they can't expect foreign business entities to do it for them, every freedom and privilege enjoyed anywhere was paid for with blood, this is why its treasured so. Lets hope that the "Asian spring" is coming in the not too distant future

This is truly stupid reasoning.  The problem is from Chinese developers not from Chinese government.  Why do you place the blame on the government. Apple has been doing this to all developers around the world very few has filed suit. 

You've missed the subtle point to a fact, which I was implying, the Chinese gov is to blame, they told Apple and many other tech firms to remove certain apps from their stores that allow just a little too much liberty for Chinese citizens threatening their ion grip on their people and the hegemonic regime operating in that country and instead of confronting their government that force some of these actions on Apple they take their frustrations out on a company that is required to follow the law in all regions where it does business, expecting Apple to fight their battles for them is well, ridiculous. Apple didn't just wake up one day and went " hey what could I do to fuck with the developers that help me sell millions of iPhones every year coz you know, I'm a sadistic fuck, oh wait, I know"

avon b7 said:

holyone said:

Awh, are people still on this ? If you don't like the landlord's rules move, the Chinies people need to deal with theire government, every free and democratic nation got that freedom by fighting for it, they can't expect foreign business entities to do it for them, every freedom and privilege enjoyed anywhere was paid for with blood, this is why its treasured so. Lets hope that the "Asian spring" is coming in the not too distant future

It isn't as easy or clearcut as you make it seem. If you consider the landlord's rules to be illegal in some way, what should you do? Just move out and let things stand?

But it is though, it is the landlord's house after all, that he built with his own hands, if he says no loud music after nine, that Goddamn it no fucking loud gangster rap after nine end of story, you can't just say "but the neighbors allow music till twelve" screw that, go live there then. If Apple was doing something even vaguely resembling lawbreaking the Chinese government would be the one going after Cupetino, what this is is disgruntled citizens fighting a dictatorship indirectly through a tech company. I mean Apple cant fight the Chinese ruling party, Apple ins't Chinese, and that be the quickest way to get the iPhone banned in China, then what ? 

Compered to the oppressive regime they live under App Store regulation should seem like heaven, and let's not foget Apple ain't the only game in town, there's plenty of hot competition, if a developer is so unhappy then how bout he invents his own revolutionary tec and a store then implement whatever rules he wants. I understand that fairness is important and commendable but it isn't owed to anyone, not in this situation.

My suspicion is that China wants to be the next North Korea with their money and expertise they figure they can do it better, then, who ever rules can rule forever

Awh, are people still on this ? If you don't like the landlord's rules move, the Chinies people need to deal with theire government, every free and democratic nation got that freedom by fighting for it, they can't expect foreign business entities to do it for them, every freedom and privilege enjoyed anywhere was paid for with blood, this is why its treasured so. Lets hope that the "Asian spring" is coming in the not too distant future