A couple months ago I was contacted by a recruiter from Apple on LinkedIn. He claimed my skillset was a great match for some new thing they were doing but wouldn't explain. I thought WTH, I'd been doing EVs for the last 6 years and non-EVs for longer than that. Maybe they need to get some official vague news out so they can actually hire the people they need?
Similar story here; they weren't recruiting but showed lots of interest in a certain device an eventually bought the thing, while we have no idea what on earth they are planning to do with it and they of course wouldn't tell.
So it seems that behind closed doors they are reseraching a lot of different areas, trying to figure out which one to explore/exploit. That sounds logical, Microsoft/Google/... do the same, but funnily enough I never looked at Apple that way - I always only saw the shiny end products. Must be their marketing.
Apple hardware is generally beautiful and feels extremely well built, but usually makes a few key compromises of function for the sake of form, with the result that some of their gear is prone to failure after a surprisingly short period of time. Take pretty much every Apple cable ever made for example. They lack stress relief and, hence, tend to fall apart where they are stressed. Some of this can be blamed on Steve Jobs. Reportedly, it was Jobs who hated the look of stress relieved cables so much that he prevented Apple from adopting sensible cable designs. Hopefully Cook is less dogmatic in pursuing form over function.
Even so, I'd be wary of a buying a new car from a first-time auto manufacturer, especially one with Apple's track record of compromised function. I'd be afraid that Apple, in trying to set their car apart from the competition, would build a car that is either unsafe or doomed to early failure. I'm sure people will line up to buy the iCar just like every other iProduct, but it may well prove sensible not to be amongst the first!
...be wary. Hell yes. This is a product that, with a hidden bug or quirk, will kill, maim or hurt you and others around you.
On the other hand, Apple has the capital to do this correctly. Even if they later decide to limit the scope of the project, it will pay dividends with their existing automotive control group. A project like this will take many years. But, with their best project managers, there's no doubt that they can do it. Who knows, with the kind of money they have now, I'd say even 5 years is doable.
But, be mindful that the existing existing players such as BMW, Ford, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes, Nissan, Tesla, Toyota and VW are all getting better too. Electric cars aren't rocket science, but with all the regulations and bureaucratic red tape surrounding the automotive industry, it may as well be.
Here's another kicker--Apple may be thinking about integrating some new thing(s) that are novel. It could be that Apple engineers have thought of some great way to combine X (and Y...) in some novel way with the automobile that will revolutionize the industry. If that's the case, you can expect even greater and more fanatical secrecy than the existing wall of silence.
Here's the nice thing about a project like this as I see it. Cars are fun. They're sexy and lots of kids dream about driving, building, fixing and/or designing them. This is the type of thing that gets the public eye and can rally existing employees and potential employees. Who wouldn't want to work on a car?
Lastly, just like the moonshot project of the 60's, you never know what technologies and ancillary benefits will come about because of something as complex and far-reaching as this appears to be.
Some of my friends who develop for android say that API's and functionality can sometimes just get dropped from version to version especially in things the Nexus. Without warning. To the extent that there are threads with 100/1000's of developer woes going to deaf years wrt un-planned degradations/api changes/ and deprecations. Bugs/defects leading to phones getting bricked are also not un-common.
Apple api's and documentation and deprecation - are more deliberate. and gives me more confidence that i won't end up with a bricked phone.
tldr; i'd still trust an apple EV over a google/android one.
I don't understand why you would inject a hypothetical Android EV into this discussion.
I feel that Apple/Google partisanship is off-topic when GP was talking about Apple v. GM/BMW/other established automakers
I respect this sentiment and am not completely dismissing the analogy, but there are certainly more safety regulations and checks on cars than on low-voltage DC power cables.
I think eventually minivans will be a quite popular format for autonomous vehicles. Full size buses are inconvenient for suburban streets, while vehicles for single occupants may be priced out in on-demand situations for many trips.
Already, minivans are very popular in unofficial public transport systems in many less-developed countries. In Morocco, grand taxis are old Mercedes sedans that leave when full - they're cramped and reckless, and I bet minivans would be preferred if they were more readily available.
I think we'll see many people commuting in the near future by shared transport decided by efficiency algorithms and based on demand and prediction. Minivans could get 5-10 people into the CBD quite effectively in peak hour rather than the 1-2 people/car we see now, and without waiting for a bus or walking 3-5 blocks to the stop.
A minivan with swappable internal components could easy convert to sleep four people (a family on a roadtrip), or have bench seats facing a card table (like a train), or have four reclining seats (like a plane, watching movies on VR headseats).
I like your point about in-car leisure. As autonomous driving unlocks it in a new way, I would expect our for forays into autonomous vehicles to attempt to highlight the luxury of this. It certainly seems more appealing than tightly gripping the arm rests while you observe how the robot is doing.
I would add that interchangeable parts are probably not going to be a focus. The auto industries are pretty efficient at managing large supply chains to service several different models. If convergence was economically important it would happen more often.
More so a convertible interior than interchangeable parts. As with how RVs convert dining areas to beds, or how an SUV's rear seats fold down to provide more cargo space.
I think a comfortable, self-driving car would be a quite pleasant alternative to flying in many cases, especially if you're likely to be hiring a car at the other end anyway and have a good amount of gear to stow on a trip.
I think a lot of it too is room for batteries. When you make an EV sedan you've got to either use a T battery, or use the entire width and breadth of the bottom 4 inches of the floor.
But, a minivan or SUV/CUV? Those things ride high as a preference. I bet you could put a full foot high of batteries under that design and no one would even notice a change. Look at the Outlander PHEV, for example. It's got 12 kWh of low-density batteries in the floor and they didn't have to compromise interior space at all. I've always wondered why those things weren't the first vehicles to get electrified.
Apple has done many great things but revolutionizing operations management isn't something I'd put on the list. How is their OM different from other software companies or electronics product companies? Their association with Foxconn comes to mind which I wouldn't exactly call revolutionary.
Their supply chain and channel inventory turnover management is second to none, which was Dell's old claim to fame. Foxconn assembles, Apple designs, sources, coordinates, markets, packages, and troubleshoots - which is where most of the value in a product is.
"Toyota was the largest automobile manufacturer in 2012 (by production) ahead of the Volkswagen Group and General Motors." [1]
For example…
"Introduced in 1966, the [Toyota] Corolla managed to become the best-selling car worldwide by 1974 and has been one of the best-selling cars in the world since then." [2]
While I praise more competition in the ecar market - I do wish Apple would return to concentrating on build quality, stability and performance optimising OSX - 10.10 has been a nightmare and if it isn't fixed soon or if 10.11 is a repeat they'll lose their reputation for building high quality, stable products. I do worry slightly that they may be trying to do too many things.
Apple, I think, has seen the incoming wave of transformation for the transport industry and decided it would be worth getting prepared for it. The upcoming increase in automation on both passenger and commercial cars will open up new perspectives on what's valuable on a car. When you longer can appeal to a consumer about the pleasure or ease of driving, what else is there? Comfort, security, style and design. If Apple already has a good grasp on how many people create, manage and consume information and media, if they are making a move to shine new light on fitness and health, and on managing a smarter home, the missing link would be transportation.
He was asked in an interview not too long ago if he'd recommend to Apple that they get into the car business, and he said, "Yes, they should!" Odd response if he's expecting competition. I think an acquisition is much more likely, and it would also fall under the explanation of "we need a ton of money". I.e. we agreed to get bought by Apple because of their massive cash engine and operational expertise.
I'm a little miffed that people don't express more skepticism about self-driving cars on tech sites. Given what I know about AI research and the technical limitations of LIDAR etc., I find it unlikely that fully self-driving cars will be available at any scale in our lifetimes — if at all. I wish people wouldn't talk about them like they're already de facto the future of transport.
I think if Apple is working on a car, it's going to be a mass-consumer competitor to Tesla, not anything to do with self-driving.
Could you elaborate on this? What do you know about AI research and technical limitations of various components that leads you to be skeptical of the realization of autonomous vehicles?
I'm with you on predicting that if Apple is getting into it, it will be non-autonomous, but I'm curious as to how you have reached your other incredulous conclusion.
* People talk about how automatic cars have been extensively tested. That's not really true. There's only a handful of them on the roads and they've been tested in limited conditions, with particular limits placed on suburban driving (slow speeds, etc.). I suspect there will be entirely new classes of bugs when there are hundreds of different AIs competing on the road, especially when mixed with normal human traffic.
* LIDAR does not work in poor weather conditions, including ice on the road.
* In terms of AI, getting to the 90% point is relatively easy, but it seems like the last 10% would require something resembling true intelligence. How do you deal with a lack of markers on the road? Dangerous situations in shady areas? Sensor equipment getting damaged and feeding your car wrong information? Animals and children running out last-second into the road? Severe obstacles at a distance? Tiny, cramped residential roads with non-sidewalk pedestrian traffic? Accommodating emergency vehicles and police? We shut off our brains when driving 90% of the time, but that last 10% does require human levels of intelligence. Furthermore, unless every car on the road is automated, the AI in automatic cars will need to deal with the idiosyncrasies of other human drivers. Sudden merges. Speeding. Road rage. Unexpected emergencies. Tailgating. An AI can't send and receive feedback to other human drivers and pedestrians; it can only use its model of human behavior to predict likely outcomes. (And this is saying nothing of other AIs on the road, who might behave completely unlike human drivers.)
* People say that automated cars only need to drive better than human drivers, not perfectly. I don't know if that's true. If automated cars drove perfectly 99.9999% of the time but then crashed horribly that remaining 0.0001% — taking some poor pedestrians or bicyclists along with them — I wouldn't get into one. And I don't think they'd be street-legal. Most people don't want to think about human lives in terms of numbers; they'd rather have control over their actions and accept the inevitability of occasional accidents, rather than having a machine that's practically guaranteed to eat up human lives every so often.
* Speaking of which, how does the car decide who gets to live in a life-or-death situation? Are there situations where the car would elect to kill the driver? Which programmer gets to make that decision? I'd like to know this information before getting into my car, please. The idea of offloading split-second moral decisions to an AI seems like it should be severely legislated.
* People talk about mesh networking improving traffic and whatnot. I can't even get my USB devices to work across OSes half the time, and we're talking about sophisticated traffic control across multiple manufacturers? Especially given the quality of software that car companies tend to put out?
* Self-driving technology is extremely expensive, and most cars on the road are pretty cheap. You'd have to have some sort of insane subsidy program to get more than the 1% driving automated cars.
* People want to get in their self-driving cars drunk, but I think there will be severe legal hurdles in the way of that.
I think semi-automated and AI-augmented driving are certainly possible. Highways are easy enough to tackle. I could see some expensive cars getting that capability over the next few decades, as well as maybe cargo trucks. But endpoint to endpoint driving, where you could snooze on your way to work? I don't think so.
> If automated cars drove perfectly 99.9999% of the time but then crashed horribly that remaining 0.0001% — taking some poor pedestrians or bicyclists along with them — I wouldn't get into one
Thousands of human drivers crash horribly every day and over a million people die every year by car accidents in the World. If humans "crashed terribly" 0.0001% and a self driving car did so 0.00005%, it would already be a great improvement.
I don't have solid data about this, but I think LOTS of the current accidents are due to drivers being reckless, distracted. high or emotional. Self-driving cars would introduce some new risks, but they would take away lots of the current ones.
And for many of the situations that you list, there is a simple solution: the car should have two modes, self-driving and human-driving. Self-driving will only work when conditions are normal. Incompatible weather conditions? Broken sensor? The car parks itself, and you need to drive yourself or wait for assistance.
> And for many of the situations that you list, there is a simple solution: the car should have two modes, self-driving and human-driving. Self-driving will only work when conditions are normal. Incompatible weather conditions? Broken sensor? The car parks itself, and you need to drive yourself or wait for assistance.
That would be a good solution, but many people who talk about self-driving cars don't want that. They want to sleep in the car. They want to "drive" home drunk. In both cases, a manual override would be disastrous and probably illegal. (We can already get a DUI just for getting into a car while drunk!) They also want to be able to "fetch" their cars without a driver, which wouldn't work.
First of all, "many people" will just go along with what is offered, even if it isn't their ideal solution.
Regarding the sleeping and "fetching" your car, those would still be compatible: simply, if the conditions aren't good, the car would respectively park and wake you up, or inform you that it can't respond to your fetch request at the moment.
Regarding a drunk/high person, it would still be an improvement to the current situation: most of the times you wouldn't drive yourself.
<em>Animals and children running out last-second into the road?</em>
I feel like AI would outperform the heck out of us in that situation, because solving it correctly involves a) high situational awareness, which we suck at because we get distracted, and b) making split-second calculations, which we suck at because we panic and our reflexes aren't that fast. I mean, this is a simple situation, when it comes down to it:
Something runs out into the road.
- Can you swerve and avoid hitting it without hitting anything else or driving off the road? If yes, do. If no:
- Can you hit the brakes without endangering anyone behind you? (Humans tend to have trouble with this decision, because half the time we forget to watch the rear view mirror and now there's no time to check. An AI would ALWAYS know what was behind it.)
If yes, do. If not:
Are you more worried about endangering the thing before you or the thing behind you? If it's an animal, hit the animal. If the thing in front of you is a squishy human and the thing behind you is a car protected by all the engineering that protects cars in crashes these days, hit the brakes.
That's all there is to it, 99 % of the time. Sure, this is a situation where AI might make the wrong decision in 1 % of cases, but it's also a situation where humans are wrong much more than that.
<em>How do you deal with a lack of markers on the road?</em>
This one is actually probably most easily solved by just putting markers on all roads. Sure, that would require driving down all roads in a specially-engineered expensive vehicle with a dedicated crew, so you think it sounds like unaffordable insanity until you realize google has already done it once, for the googlemaps mapping project. Just do it again, this time in a car made for spray-painting markers instead of mapping stuff.
Apart from that, the overwhelming majority of problems on the road can be solved by yielding even when you're technically in the right and just slowing the heck down, if necessary to walking speed and below. There will still be problems that only a human being can solve, but there's going to be a human being in the car, so worst case, pull over and ask them. If your human is drunk or underage, pull over, wait for the next passing car, watch how their human solves it, and do what they did. In the rare case where there's no other car likely to pass any time soon and the human in the car is incapacitated - possibly some sort of remote solution would work, where a human in some kind of remote driving center can take control of your car for a minute if necessary?
There'll still be high-speed situations where the AI will fuck and kill someone, but I do think people would come to accept self-driving AI even if it occasionally fucks up and kills people, because it'll be world-changingly convenient. And so far we've accepted a LOT of occasionally-deadly shit if it's sufficiently convenient. (Trains. planes. Nuclear reactors. Every single one of those things had waves of protests and people going "It will never work, and when it fails, people will die! Not worth it!"
And occasionally they failed, and people died, but we still keep using them.
> I feel like AI would outperform the heck out of us in that situation, because solving it correctly involves a) high situational awareness, which we suck at because we get distracted, and b) making split-second calculations, which we suck at because we panic and our reflexes aren't that fast.
My understanding is that current self-driving technology works great at short range, but is pretty incapable of dealing with obstacles at a distance. If there are things far away that are potentially dangerous — kids, a car behaving erratically, a landslide — I can slow down in case something happens. A self-driving car might have more trouble until the obstacle gets in range, by which point it might be too late.
> Are you more worried about endangering the thing before you or the thing behind you? If it's an animal, hit the animal.
What if it's somebody's pet? Sometimes putting a dent in someone's car is worth saving a beloved animal's life. What if you're about to hit someone and there's a bicyclist behind you? There will be times when the car will have to make decisions regarding which life to save, including the driver's.
> This one is actually probably most easily solved by just putting markers on all roads.
This isn't possible on all roads. Markers can be covered by snow, mud, etc. Yes, you can have RFID markers or whatever, but that would be incredibly expensive. Who's going to pay the bill? The taxpayers? Why?
Also, I was just reminded of parking: how the heck will self-driving cars deal with the current parking rules? It takes all my intelligence just to figure those out sometimes!
> There'll still be high-speed situations where the AI will fuck and kill someone, but I do think people would come to accept self-driving AI even if it occasionally fucks up and kills people, because it'll be world-changingly convenient.
But self-driving cars won't be world-changingly convenient. I don't drive. I don't have to: trains, buses, and occasionally planes take care of my transportation needs for me. I can already snooze on my way to work, get home when I'm drunk, etc. Who will these cars change the world for? Silicon Valley types who want to commute and go on vacation without bumping into anyone else? Because the poor certainly won't be able to afford them, country folks won't be able to use them, and Europeans will probably have no need for them. (Heck, they're still mostly on manual transmissions. And have you looked at the gas prices over there?!)
When we went from horses to trains (and eventually cars and planes), it made it possible for humans to travel across the entire world in a matter of hours. Self-driving cars won't be that kind of leap.
I think it would be much healthier for our cities to focus on developing public transit infrastructure. The best places I've ever lived have been threaded by a city-wide metro system, with commuter trains connecting to further regions. Pedestrians benefit. Suburbanites benefit. The city feels more compact and walkable. You can even get rid of some of the roads!
Exactly a situation where you want the black-and-white AI solution. If it's a 1% chance the human dies and 100% chance the pet dies, the pet has to go every time.
> This isn't possible on all roads.
It doesn't have to be all roads to be transformational. Tag major city roads + self-driving cars + uber = Johnny Cab. Tag major transit routes + self-driving trucks = no sleepy truckers, no paying sleeping truckers, no rest breaks, on-demand cross-country trucking in 48 hours or less.
This, of course, ignores human desires for control and "freedom of the road" (at least in the US). Who knows how the technology would actually catch on, especially when Johnny Cab DOES run over Fluffy.
What would be the point of expressing more skepticism?
Like you, I'm very skeptical that we'll get self-driving cars any time soon, and somewhat skeptical that we'll get them in my lifetime. But what would be the point of expressing skepticism here?
I'm not investing my money on it, and I'd be annoyed if significant amounts of public money were being dolled out for it, but if Google and others want to spend a few billions investing on AI instead of funding a few yachts for their shareholders, I'm all for it. And like you pointed out, if anything self-driving cars will be held to an higher standard in terms of security, so I don't see a problem there either.
There was an article recently saying how people bought lottery tickets to justify dreaming big about their possibilities. If Google wants to pay for our ticket, I'm not complaining.
(By the way, I say this as a layman. If I was an expert on, say, LIDAR and I had a specific criticism that hadn't previously been raised, I'd speak about it.)
I agree self driving cars is something which won't happen any time soon. But I think if all the cars are self driving in the city we can manage them well centrally like Air Traffic...
That's unlikely given the hires that they've been making. I know of a number of engineers working on drivetrains, motor controllers, etc. who've been hired into that group.
Doesn't mean that they're building a car; maybe they're building OBD3 for electric cars and need people with domain knowledge. With Apple's NDAs and general secrecy policies, it's not like your colleagues would be able to even hint at what they're working on at Apple.
Possible downside: Apple could end up bidding against Tesla for employees, factories, and rare materials; increasing the price of electric cars and slowing Tesla's production and growth, while not producing many cars itself for some time.
Why join a company where you have to work on fake projects for sometime before you are allowed to work on a real project, when you can join a company where such waste of time is not happening?
On one hand, Apple is clearly not in their wheelhouse when it comes to vehicles - even Google has more experience than them.
On the other hand, I would kill for an electric (or even hybrid) minivan. The Model-S with 2 extra seats just isn't enough room.
On the gripping hand, look at how Apple played the industry and pundits on sapphire. Where is WSJ getting their info - they didn't even describe their sources.
Google only has experience in vehicles because they started up a vehicles program. If apple wants to get into vehicles, they have to start somewhere too. "they haven't done it before" is not a good reason why they aren't doing it.
How did Apple play the industry on sapphire? They attempted it, put up hundreds of millions of dollars, and failed at attempting to bring a sapphire screen to market, which included bankrupting the manufacturer in the process.
Google has that experience because of their own research. There's nothing to say that any other company of large enough size can't do research of their own. This is especially important to consider when you think about the level of secrecy Apple has when starting an internal project. Despite all of that, it's super unlikely Apple would make a car. It's just too weird.
Google bought Thrun's self driving car startup, well after he led the team which won the DARPA Grand Challenge with Stanley; and subsequently acquired additional startups with autonomous vehicle technology. Apple purchased chip design firms to bootstrap its integrated chip capabilities, quite successfully. They've demonstrated the ability to assimilate outside technology.
Did Apple play anybody on sapphire (except for the supplier)? The press rumors were mostly true in hindsight, Apple had big sapphire plans (and there's real estate to prove it), it just didn't work out.
It's also worth noting that they appear to still be working on the sapphire concept.
"GT Advanced officially confirmed its settlement with Apple and the closure of some of its sapphire plants. As part of the deal, Apple will recover its $439 million pre-payment made to GT Advanced over the course of four years, without interest. The Mesa factory will be closed and all of its 650 employees laid off, but GT will retain ownership of production and ancillary assets. GT and Apple will “continue their technical exchange,” and work on developing next generation sapphire crystal."
My first thought as well, if anything I can think of two reasons why Apple would be building their own car:
1. Compete in luxury electric automotive market. Motivation is there, but I find it dubious that Apple will go for it. On the other had Apple does have everything they need to become strong player in this field (engineers, cash, supply chain, strong U.S. lobbying presence, and army of lawyers)
2. Get competence on how to build cars in order to be able to rapidly prototype integration of Apple products with car entertainment systems. Possibly design said entertainment systems for car manufacturers, or at least influence the design to give apple products an edge.
I agree that they phrase it oddly, but I would argue that cars are a product category with more user expectations about the particulars of functionality, and is thus less open to apple's typical refinements.
Did the old film cameras fall under consumer electronics? I don't think so. What about analog telephones from the 90's? What about overhead projectors and phonograph players (I hope that's what they were called)?
Those devices have changed. I have to imagine the umbrella of 'consumer electronics' is constantly expanding. In the long term, why would cars be any different?
A car is still in a different device category. It has to be a lot more dependable and secure then a phone, with deeper social implications (life critical). Jobs managed to slip the antennagate under the rug, you can't do that with cars. IMHO this is not the kind of knowledge you can imprint in a company in a few years safely.
I dislike Apple, their products and their "you're unique just like everyone else" mentality but i honestly want them to make this move and do it well. They might make an over priced, marginally better EV but more importantly they will drive interest in the technology and the products, leading to faster and greater adoption as well as serious industry commitment which will push for research and development and massive improvements in the industry. Just like they did with mobile phones. I love Tesla but they're the Palm pilot or BlackBerry of EV. Trend setters who will maybe get overshot.
Could this be a form of concept car for Apple to test hardware/software on without any real intention of making their own car?
Maybe it's a demonstration platform to show partners what a well integrated system could feel like. Perhaps Apple wants to make the guts of the car control/infotainment system instead of just projecting an image over the OEM system.
Early reports on CarPlay from various vendors said that they varied widely in hardware speed/quality (I believe Ferrari's was said to be pretty bad). Apple doesn't like relying on third parties for their user experience (see: Moto ROKR).
This doesn't square with the report that says they are looking at manufacturing processes and materials. I agree with you though that this is the most likely explanation.
Yes. And now wait for Apple to do the same reciprocally... if only.
In reality, they are more likely to get a patent on some trivial detail, turn around, and start suing the pants off Tesla for having the temerity to steal their 'inventions' - slide to unlock, revisited.
Are you kidding me? Almost Apple's entire product line has been very polished, stylish imitations (Xerox Alto -> Apple PC, Diamond Rio -> iPod, Blackberry -> iPhone, Microsoft Tablet PC -> iPad) with some incremental improvements, and they've been extremely popular.
I think history has shown that most people will choose the imitator, if the imitation is a good one.
The Mac was not an imitation Alto. Xerox tried and failed subsequently to commercialize the Alto. The iPod was not an imitation Diamond Rio; the iPod could fit in your pocket and hold most people's entire music collection, rather than a few dozen songs. IPhones are not Blackberries; the latter were black & white email centric keyboard centric non-touch business centric devices with modest compute and consumer media features and no comparable app & music ecosystem. iPads are not Microsoft Tablet PC's. Microsoft has launched generations of tablets going back to the late 80's/early 90's, none of which were very successful.
> People buy from whoever makes the best product at the best price.
People buy from whoever does the best marketing (that is, whoever makes them feel like they are getting the best product for them.)
> Regular consumers can careless about who had the original idea
(Nitpick: "careless" is not the same thing "care less")
Regular consumers probably do care about originality, which is why being "the original X" often plays a key role in marketing, in products in a wide array of different markets. If it wasn't something consumers tended to care about, it wouldn't likely be a perennial marketing point.
It is, of course, not the only thing consumers care about, obviously.
> they only care about who executed best
Arguably, they don't care directly about who executed best, they care about who they trust to execute best for them. Evidence about having executed well to others, like being the original in a category, may be indicators by which consumers judge that likelihood.
Most people don't decide which product to buy based on who was first. If a competitor produces a quality alternative, they will compare the two and buy the one they like more (Where the product they like more is subjective and base on many factors).
I think Apple has a big enough name that them being the "imitator" won't scare anybody off. I also think that Apple is a bigger household name than Tesla.
1997-2000 showed us that having a lot of money is no guarantee you'll build something that anyone wants to use (or at least, that they want to pay for).
Who said anything about any guarantees? Hopefully, we're all a little smarter and if all three companies each tried a few moonshots, we'd get a few really big advances.
Also, given their hiring practices which include aggressive recruiting of people in autonomous vehicles, this car, or later versions of it is going to have significant autonomy. I say this would be a GREAT step for Apple.
Very interesting, but what is Wall Street Journal's success rate with Apple rumors? I know it's higher than most, but that was probably due to Walt Mossberg (who has left WSJ in recent times).
The Journal is traditionally Apple's outlet of choice when they want to leak something, but they've been a little bit hit-and-miss lately. Maybe something's changed since Katie Cotton left.
It's probably 10 years off, but I bet it will be a self-driving one. That isn't a car anymore, but a moving computer, which makes it a natural fit for Apple.
Apple is not a software house? They produce two OS's with development tooling and applications, they run some of the largest online services on the Internet, and they just released their own new programming language. What would a software house look like?
Software for a self-driving car has to be built to a standard that's entirely different from anything they've had to build to before. Lives are at stake.
Based on my experience with desktop software, I'd take the Apple software over pretty much any other vendor every day of the week. Funnily enough, nobody seems to question Google's chops when it comes to making self driving cars. Yet I have more problems with bad software decisions from Google than I do from Apple.
One of the most naive comments I've read for a while.
Apple maintains one of the largest software portfolio's in the world, even Tim Cook doesn't think Apple is a hardware company and makes billions a quarter directly from its software and services:
That's not including the R&D that goes into developing iOS/OSX which they give away for free to complete the iPhone/iPad UX, which would be nowhere near as successful if it weren't for iOS and the optimized apps that ship with it.
OK, I have done a little Googling. The evidence boils down to only a few verifiable facts.
In the Bay Area, a van registered to apple was spotted. The van was mounted with hardware that is unmistakably designed for car automation, namely spinning cameras at the front and rear. It is basically conclusive that the car is a self driving prototype and not something for apple maps. There is video of that van linked below. This is not conclusive evidence that Apple has intentions to enter the EV market, though.
Recently, Apple has hired people from the automotive industry, including some from Tesla (Articles that state this as fact cite linkedin, so I am assuming it is true). Basically, based on the qualifications and expertise of these hires, it can be concluded that Apple is not assigning them to work on CarPlay, which is the only known alternative. (I have not verified this myself but feel that it is OK to accept as true for the time being).
As far as I could tell everything else out there is speculation or not verifiable. There are various instances of bloggers and reporters claiming that they have gotten word from Apple employees that Apple is exploring the possibility of entering the EV market. These employees have all remained anonymous and there is no evidence that their claims are genuine or accurate.
My own conclusion is that there is a strong possibility that Apple is attempting to enter the EV market in some way. Let us ignore the evidence that has come to the surface as of late. The EV market has a lot of growth left and a lot of unclaimed territory. Apple has a lot of cash sitting around, a relative familiarity with power electronics and most importantly a very strong leader, Tim Cook. Apple is large and old but it does not appear to be fragmented and it is, IMHO, still capable of pouncing on new opportunities and markets. The means, motive, and opportunity all seem to exist in the case of Apple and EVs. And bringing the recent observations back into the equation only appears to strengthen the hypothesis.
What if Volkswagen decided they wanted to do smart phones?
And had recruiters call random people at Google, Samsung and Apple ...
I cannot quite get my head around this - Apple is an excellent engineering, sales and design company with gigantic wealth - but the leap from computers and phones into automobile is very big. They have little in common wrt. sales, technology and support.
Why would this work out? And does noone question the sanity of it?
They have several key advantages that apply to this space: 1) unparalleled industrial design credibility, 2) a limitless money hose. If they decide to do this, they do have the ability to make the hires they need to give it an honest shot.
I would say apple has no domain expertise and they should focus on what they focus on. This is positive news for the "future" no matter how it is seen.
It might very well be the largest mistake Apple has ever done and seal its demise or the smartest move and they will be a global dominant company even more so than today...
The only domain expertise they had on phones was the itunes phone with motorola. And then they launched the iphone.
Same goes for the ipod.
Only thing they had expertise in was computers. And with computers becoming extremely important for cars, they might just have a chance. Just as much as google, and they don't have any particular domain knowledge either (ie. they have never sold a car before).
I'll gladly believe that Apple will produce a car with a completely amazing user experience for its center console.
But I'll take a car with a less amazing user experience for its center console if it drives better, gets better mileage, has lower maintenance, costs tens of thousands of dollars less, and looks good on the outside. Apple has no expertise there, and it's a complicated business.
We like to sort of claim Tesla as our own, but it's not a computer company, it's a car company. Maybe Apple can create a car company ex nihilo, but that's a lot less in their wheelhouse than producing a rectangle with a touchscreen on it.
Computers aren't important for cars the same way phone apps weren't important to phones 10 years ago: they were gimmicky, prone to failure, and too locked down to target by developers.
What if you change those facts? It's not too hard to imagine a world where computers could have greater effect on your car driving experience than just simple things like a music player or voice recognition.
>drives better, gets better mileage, has lower maintenance, costs tens of thousands of dollars less, and looks good on the outside
Except these are improved with improved software now...for example battery technology isn't anything without good software, same with maintenance (software is the reason why the F-35 is orders of magnitude cheaper to maintain over the lifecycle)
>We like to sort of claim Tesla as our own, but it's not a computer company
Except it is...
At its heart, Tesla is a software developer dressed in a carmaker's robes. The Silicon Valley company has focused on developing its software to be the primary component behind its fleet's sophisticated safety and battery systems, not to mention its infotainment console[1]
Tesla is closer to being a technology company than a traditional automobile maker.[2]
Surely one would be a TV. Smart TVs right now are woeful, and just providing a weak set-top box on the side might provide something at an accessible price point, but it doesn't solve the real problem.
An ideal smart TV would pre-fetch EPGs to load and switch quickly, have an optional social layer over the video feed (like what Xbox One proposed), and more naturally fit in with other hardware and ways of getting media to the screen.
Xerox might argue with that. The phrase "personal computer" was around in 1970, and the Alto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto) was released in 1973.
http://blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml discusses a variety of personal computer milestones, sadly also disagreeing that "Apple literally invented the personal computer".
Down vote if you find what I'm saying factually wrong.
-- signed, someone who lives in a household with 2 rMBPs, an iPhone 6, 5S, 2 iPad Airs, and an iMac.
In modern cars where nearly everything is computer-controlled and un-serviceable by the end user, safety is pretty much guaranteed, and fuel economy is average.. what other choices are there? It's just as plausible that someone would choose a car based on built-in entertainment options as that they'd do so based on color scheme.
>I think you are deluding yourself, if you believe that an average person would choose their car based on the entertainment system.
who said entertainment system? Design is among, if not the, main aspects when people decide on tech choice. With cars being electric - simple commoditized drivetrain - design will become even more important.
I'm pretty sure design wise the entertainment system would be the only thing they could beat the designers of Porsche, Mercedes etc. at, I have less doubt that they might be able to kill off some of the American car manufacturers.
>the only thing they could beat the designers of Porsche, Mercedes etc.
i think electric cars for some segment like "Millenial urbanites" would be a market where Porsche and Mercedes don't have any starting advantage in car design over Apple as all their established design themes of high power/dynamics, masculinity, posh-ness, etc... wouldn't resonate that much there.
I think we need to think of this strategically. Apple isn't going to want to build an equivalent substitute for a run of the mill car. They have the cash on hand to burn a billion trying this, and write it off as a line item on r&d and the investors wouldn't flinch.
Cars are going to dictate what technology silo you end up joining. The car that works the best as a communicationpod/office will win the next major consumer battle just as Apple won the smart phone war. This is about Google not Tesla.
There is a trend of not owning a car, at least in Europe, thanks to companies like car2go, moovel and many others. Uber too. Autonomous cars will further the trend. Cars are going to become a B2B product, not exactly Apple's playground. But this is in the long run so it could not matter even strategically.
About winning the smartphone war, if Apple won it, that was the war for cash. Android won the war for usage, same way IE won the browser wars. I wonder what's the margin on a car. If you have to make low margin products to keep selling high margin ones you end up low margin overall. So, if Apple goes for $50+k cars, it will still be a high margin business but even more biased towards the richest consumers. If it goes for 10k cars, that will be a big change in strategy.
If anything comes out of this, maybe electric cars will be seen as cool now that Apple is in on the market. Although I am not a fan of Apple itself and likely wont get an iCar, I hope this isn't a rumor.
I think Tesla has already done a great job of making electric cars cool. They've gone from being dismissed as golf carts for kooks and granola-eaters to being derided as overpowered playthings for the rich. That's a huge change!
At first I thought this was crazy. Then I realized it's all about extending Apple's ecosystem of hardware + software + services. Better together. Plus, they make their profits off hardware.
Wow, two downvotes in ten minutes! I'm honestly at a loss as to why. If anyone could clue me in, I'd be grateful. Thanks.
Edit: very funny, you mysterious downvoters. Now the downvotes are on _this_ comment, and the original one has been upvoted 4 times. And I still haven't learned how/why I should change my behavior in the future. The only thing I've learned is that up/down voting seems to be random.
Karma actually has a real value on HN because it prevents some people from downvoting. If an Google fan keeps an Apple fan below the karma threshold then the Apple fan won't be able to shape future discussions. The system encourages people to downvote even reasonable comments that are from the "other team". You ran into somebody like that.
Ah, interesting! Thanks for sharing. I thought my comment was fairly ambiguous as to which "team" I'm on (I develop for both iOS and Android), but I guess when it comes to these kinds of polarizing politics, if someone doesn't immediately identify with your viewpoint, you must be from the "other team".
To do that, "the other team" person would have to make a calculation based on keeping a certain account they don't like below 500 points. I don't think it's even possible to achieve that if anyone tried, and the probability of an account being just at that limit is pretty low to begin with.
Then why does HN have a 500 karma limit on voting? Why was it raised? If karma doesn't work to exclude people with unpopular opinions then there's no point to the limit. If it does work and helps shape the discussion in a certain way then it can be used by others to tilt the discussion toward their viewpoint. Surely you must have noticed how cliquey HN is.
> Then why does HN have a 500 karma limit on voting?
Occasionally getting downvoted not withstanding, a user's karma tends to only go up over time, as long as the account isn't flagged in any way. It's generally not a battle between negative and positive karma - getting downvoted is more of a short-term signal that others found the quality of your post wanting. So in an environment where there are many more upvotes than downvotes, a 500 karma limit is merely a means to stop novice users from dishing out punishment until they become more experienced users.
Downvoting a comment sends a harsh signal to the commenter that you believe their comment is so bad it shouldn't be there, but it's an unsuitable tool to influence the discussion at large.
> Why was it raised?
I've been here a few years and to my knowledge the limit wasn't raised during that time.
> If karma doesn't work to exclude people with unpopular opinions then there's no point to the limit.
As someone who mostly only posts if he has something contrarian to say, I don't think it's about unpopular opinions. Yes, I receive some downvotes, but mostly people just ignore me, so my average comment karma is very low. That's what you can expect for having unpopular or boring opinions. Reaching the karma threshold necessary for downvoting on the other hand isn't really that big of a deal, nor is it really a challenge.
HN's primary exclusion mechanism is flagging, not downvoting. In a way it's more insidious because you may not even notice it's happening. People get shadowbanned, even. Or, as apparently happened to me yesterday for the first time as far as I can tell, a moderator steps in and forcefully pushes your comment below the much older "green newbie" comments where the thoroughly grey content goes to die.
Downvoting is at least an overt signal, like I said. And personally I think the capability to issue a downvote is probably overrated.
> tilt the discussion toward their viewpoint
Discussions on HN are generally not happening on the razor's edge of opinions. Instead, they tend to be carried out by people who are very certain of their own viewpoint. There is so much momentum, tilting these things is not an issue. But if you can voice a coherent minority opinion, that comment might still get to the top of the thread.
> Surely you must have noticed how cliquey HN is.
It depends, I think there are several big blocks of people here who think alike, but I noticed the biggest influence on how a post is received often seems timezone-related.
That's what I thought at first too, but as I thought about it, I began to wonder.
They certainly have the chutzpah to try, and they have an ocean of money to spend overseas. A longshot bet on building another trillion dollar product might be preferable to paying corporate and personal income tax on dividends.
No, I totally agree with cgusto. Building a vehicle manufacturing base is a mammoth undertaking. Tesla's been at it for 12 years and is only now putting out 35,000 cars a year. It really doesn't make that much difference how much money you start off with; that was never Tesla's obstacle. Elon has said as much on more than one occasion, that they're spending money as fast as they can and the only real limit is the amount of work that can feasibly be done per unit time.
Apple may have almost $200 billion but where would they get the batteries, to focus on just one aspect of it? Tesla found there literally wasn't enough battery supply and decided to build the largest battery factory in the world from scratch to provide what they needed, and it's been in planning for years and won't be ready for a few years to come. And again, money isn't the blocking issue. It would be laughable to suggest that Apple could just conjure up a comparable factory out of nowhere....it would take them just as long.
And given their penchant for overseas labor, it would take even longer. Don't even get me started on that. It's like Elon has said: importing phones in bulk is one thing; importing cars or large heavy things is wholly another. They would really have to do it in the US, which could hardly be done in secrecy. Car manufacturing plants tend to be large and obvious.
My point: maybe they'll get into it, but it won't come out of nowhere and it will certainly take a LOT of time regardless of their bank account. Tesla will be many years ahead of them for the long-term foreseeable future.
Right, but the article's point is that they started working on cars. You are making the point that it would take them a long time to build it.. They have the cash and I don't see why they would be in any rush, if driverless cars are expected on the streets in 2020, or potentially 2023..
As a matter of fact, Apple's last quarterly profit was $18bn, while Tesla's valuation, is $25bn. They could buy a company like Tesla every two quarters..
Furthermore, maybe what they are trying to do is to create some in-house talent, in preparation for future purchases. Perhaps so that they can have their own employees join those of the acquired company..
As negative as it may sound, there's really no need to extend their closed ecosystem once again into something that only began to grow (electric vehicles). I hope this scattering approach will be their ultimate demise.
What I like about Musk an his company is that he's not evil (yet?) and so for now the private space industry and electric vehicles are looking really nice.
Steve Jobs up ended multiple industries. Musk is no small player but Jobs basically reinvented the way the game was played when he entered an industry. Musk wouldn't have had a chance.
