“The experts say Apple’s self-driving car project is canceled, delayed or converted into a software play,” Mike Elgan writes for Computerworld. “They’ll also tell you that cars are a weird business for Apple to be in.”
Elgan writes, “The experts have it all wrong.”
“Apple is going pedal-to-the-metal on building a car and for good reason,” Elgan writes. “According to J. Crew CEO and chairman Mickey Drexler, who served on the Apple board from 1999 to 2015.. [Steve] Jobs wanted Apple to reinvent the automobile industry.”
“The autonomous car world will change everything. In the future, the car stuff (engines, tires, paint jobs) will be less relevant to consumers, who in any case may avoid actually buying a car. The reasons for buying or not buying a car will have little to do with status and everything to do with the experience of transport,” Elgan writes. “A car will become for Apple what the company’s data servers are — Apple-owned hardware that provides services to users.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: For many, the cost of a vehicle, or vehicles, are among their highest expenses. Imagine not having to buy/lease a car – or, at least, being able to lease a car service for pennies on the dollar, to go where you want to go, when you want to go, with all of your entertainment and work data at your fingertips – all without having to deal with a human driver.
The only big negative that springs to mind, besides those who’d really miss physically driving excellent vehicles, is the same problem with public transportation today: Cleanliness. Perhaps Apple Cars would drive through irradiation car “washes” between each trip?
Of course, you could choose to buy and own an Apple Car, or Apple Cars, solving that problem.
SEE ALSO:
Apple isn’t working on a car, they’re working on something much bigger – May 12, 2017
CarKit: Apple’s ‘Project Titan’ really a ‘HomeKit for cars’ rather than an actual vehicle? – May 11, 2017
Apple wants California DMV to shroud public reports about Apple’s autonomous vehicle tests – April 28, 2017
Check out the Lexus that Apple’s using to test their self-driving car tech – April 28, 2017
How Apple is training testers for self-driving Apple Car – April 24, 2017
Apple permit reveals self-driving car testers include NASA roboticists – April 24, 2017
Apple + satellites = ? – April 22. 2017
Why Apple may be interested in space satellites – April 21, 2017
Apple’s self-driving car test program revealed in new document – April 21, 2017
Analyst: Apple ‘almost certainly’ exploring making a whole car but there’s a big challenge – April 18, 2017
Right now, the ‘Apple Car’ is a 2015 Lexus RX 450h SUV – April 17, 2017
Gene Munster on Apple Car: Exploration does not mean a product comes to market – April 17, 2017
Apple’s Project Titan: California makes it official – April 17, 2017
Why you should get your self-driving car from Apple – April 17, 2017
Apple secures permit to test autonomous vehicles – April 15, 2017
Apple’s letter to the U.S. NHTSA reveals 30-year Detroit veteran on its stealth ‘Project Titan’ team – December 8, 2016
Apple files patent for autonomous vehicle collision avoidance system – December 8, 2016
Apple letter all but confirms plans for self-driving cars and commitment to privacy – December 5, 2016
Apple drops hints about autonomous-vehicle project in letter to U.S. transportation regulators – December 3, 2016
It’s not McLaren Racing, but McLaren Applied Technologies, that’s the apple of Apple’s eye – September 23, 2016
Apple-target McLaren is a tech company disguised as a carmaker – September 22, 2016
Supercar-maker McLaren says not in discussion with Apple ‘in respect of any potential investment’ – September 22, 2016
Apple in talks to acquire British supercar maker McLaren – September 21, 2016
Apple in talks to acquire electric vehicle-maker Lit Motors – September 21, 2016
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dan K.” for the heads up.]
Steve Jobs also wanted Apple to reinvent TV.
“For many, the cost of a vehicle, or vehicles, are among their highest expenses. Imagine not having to buy/lease a car – or, at least, being able to lease a car service for pennies on the dollar, to go where you want to go, when you want to go,”
While I doubt I will live long enough to see this happen, I think it is also just about the only viable way to solve the traffic problems that we have in many areas largely as a result of individual car ownership.
Combine that with the fact that fallible human drivers are responsible for roughly 35,000 fatalities a year currently, and that autonomous cars will lower that number substantially (even if not to zero), and the future is pretty certain.
Your logic is flawed as it assumes that humans don’t write the software code associated with these autonomous cars they will not be as safe as you can expect. There will be wrecks on the road just as there are today. Apple proves that they are flawed every year when they release an update to their OS’es over the past five years their software has gotten more flawed than ever
Yes, but the software will improve with time and experience, whereas human fallibility is relatively constant. I think it’s a pretty safe bet that the rate of accidents would go down very significantly over time.
How comforting to know that all the present day lab test humans will take solace and believe that one day in the future, possibly, it will all get better. No sale …
Your snide remarks aside, I’m working on the assumption that right out of the gate the fallibility of the system will be considerably lower than the rate of human error, meaning that lives will be saved immediately, with even more lives saved as the software is improved. If it’s not up to that standard from the start, then it has no business being approved at all. You can’t really be suggesting that on principle you’d rather see 35,000 people die by human-run-cars than perhaps a fraction of that die by software-run-cars, can you?
Saucy, not snide.
Your basic premise that thousands less will die is unproven speculation. In theory, who would argue against it?
As others have noted in detail many obstacles to overcome and some circumstances simply leave the driver helpless at the mercy of weather conditions, software and driving bots. As Captain Kirk once said something about the human condition will always prevail.
In the real world outside the think tanks, labs and universities, where the rubber meets the road (pun intended) — is all that matters …
Fair enough. But I believe that they have to give it a go and see if they can really significantly surpass human accuracy and reliability. We shouldn’t dismiss promising technology simply because it is as yet unproven. Were we to do that, Kirk would still be sitting at the helm of NCC-1701 (assuming he hadn’t blown it up).
Points taken.
My biggest concern is lack of or at best lackadaisical leadership at Apple. The software releases are historically the buggiest ever under Cook, ignoring the pro market for five years is the height of negligence and distracted by liberal social politics and fashion is taking Apple down the wrong road away from the founder’s mission and totally inexcusable. Those new areas would be advancement only if the rest of the house was in order and dutifully MANTAINED.
My main point is confidence in the company is at an all time LOW. Trust in the company needs to be restored before I ever set foot in an iCar. And I don’t care one atomic particle how much money they fork-lift into the bank every quarter.
All that said, as the project evolves will certainly keep an open mind …
I’m with you in everything you wrote here, with one exception. As a shareholder, I am quite happy about the tons of money they’re raking in. I just wish it was because of a uniformly-stellar product line!
Oh, I have no complaint against Apple making a ton of money daily. I don’t think I said that – your interpretation – your bad.
More along the lines of I don’t care how rich you are because it is obviously going to their heads and allowing cover story excuses for all the neglect and distractions I posted earlier. That better?
Most car accidents are due to driver error. Often due to alcohol or drug impairment, distracted driving, excess speed, failure to adjust to road/weather conditions. Computers don’t drink, take drugs, or drive when fatigued or distracted, and do not have the ego need to drive fast. Some computer car crashes may inevitably occur, but they should be radically less than crashes attributed to human driver error.
A “downside” to this obvious upside….is that traveling by autonomously driven car will become so comfortable and commonplace, you won’t likely ever want to take a bus or a train again. Mass transit’s role in things could change somewhat as a result. And now with the latest flight ban on anything larger than a phone (no computers or iPads from Europe), if it gets widened, I would choose to take auto car than to fly. More cars on the road, not fewer.
Will see how it works out but disruption is on its way in the transportation world, no doubt.
In counterpoint, considering the terrorism threat of not needing a suicide driver to deliver your car bomb … I’m not really sure that true Autonomous is going to be allowed in the current socio-political climate….
Cars v TVs ? Gee, that is a really difficult business decision to make …Not ! Besides, Apple has already revolutionized how many people watch TV; they knocked it off along the way of building its Mac, iPad, & iPhone business.
Cars can be thought of as sort of the ultimate “wearable”. And if the opportunity is described more broadly to include all vehicles — including pick-ups, vans, trucks, buses, tractor-trailers — the potential business opportunity is huge. Vehicles are quickly becoming all about the software, sensors, computer chips, hardware “packaging”, and user interface. It makes *at least* as much sense for Apple to study vehicles as it does for any other company now doing so.
Apple revolutionized TV, how so? Many competitors have already surpassed Apple TV in price, features and ease of use (Apple remote). They are not chained to iTunes and offer a broad base of subscription packages, unlike Apple with no skinny bundle to date. As to Apple making all these wonderful vehicles. As the world witnessed over the weekend a replicating virus affected 90 countries. Would not want to trust An Apple software vehicle and the availability of charging stations out in the Rockies where I travel extensively. By all means explore making vehicles better. But until they come up with something safer, more reliable, availability of fuel at a lower cost. — I’ll stick with gasoline and driving on my own terms. A complex computer driven vehicle might also kill the local auto repair economy, not to mention working to upkeep my fleet of vehicles with oil changes and other repairs that command premium repair costs at dealers. Keeping an open eye on their efforts.
This is a great solution for commuting and city driving, but if you want to take a 3 week road trip with the family, this is not going to work. Or drive to your relatives in another state. These vehicles do not (yet) have that kind of range. There are many other uses for a car besides commuting and I don’t believe these will solve that yet.
In addition, these cars are going to be useless in a major snowstorm. Whereas human drivers can handle such weather, I doubt autonomous cars will be able to. And what about road hazards? Say a tree falls on a road. It’s passable, but just barely. Will an autonomously driven car be able to do that? There are a LOT of off-nominal situations where these cars will not be a viable solution for a long time to come…
Great points macman. I’ll take it a step further and point out that autonomous cars will do to the auto industry what the iPhone did for the photo industry… diminish it drastically.
If I could use autonomous cars around town, I’d only need one car for ‘other trips’ as macman described. A family of four with two teenagers could go to just one car vs four.
Does the average family of four go with one iPhone?
Yes, on average. Android retains a healthy majority of customers, just as human controlled vehicles will for the next few generations. People don’t buy the best product, safety theories or not. People buy what they can afford that they think is good enough.
Unless Apple is planning a car with an internal combustion engine it will not appeal to the vast majority of the country. Gasoline is the most economical fuel and does not require government subsidies to be affordable.
“Gas is the most economical fuel” ???
The car with the highest MPGe so far in the world is the Toyota Prius Prime Plug-in Hybrid. It gets 133 MPGe. So it seems clear that a hybrid gas-electric power plant is the most economical “fuel” source.
When you factor externalities (like global climate change, species extinction, extreme storms, etc.) in to the market price of gasoline, it ceases to appear “cheap”. Virtually all economists agree carbon fuels should be taxed much more heavily. Yet our society is unable to do the right thing and implement such taxes. As G.W. Bush once put it: “we are addicted to oil”. The fossil fuel crowd is not so unlike the country’s meth heads and opioid addicts. Pathetic.
“The fossil fuel crowd is not so unlike the country’s meth heads and opioid addicts. Pathetic.”
We have been using gasoline to power vehicles for a hundred years. For you to conflate legal activity with illegal drug activity and lump all into a “crowd”, now that is PATHETIC!
I’m not sorry and you are wrong …
I guarantee you that So Sorry But I Am A Liberal Hypocrite uses oil and gas on jet fuel and plastic and all kinds of evil things. He and his ilk just like to pose as virtuous with their moronic stance on oil while they travel the world in oil powered vehicles and using as and coal powered AC and heat. The left will impress me when they start living like Ted Kascynski, if they are really serious. But the moron So Sorry is just a moron.
Totally agree, Kent.
The problem with the left is all talk and HYPOCRITE action, as you pointed out.
The Rosetta Stone, rubicon and gold standard of hypocrisy is Al Gore. Just check out where he lives, drives and flies … nuff said.
ha ha ha. You guys are funny. Humans have been poisoning the planet with CO2 for the past 100 years due to our unprecedented — and wasteful, not to mention unnecessary — burning of fossil fuels. And you defend it. As George Bush once said, “we are addicted to oil”. An addict is an addict… That is the core of my analogy. There is no reason to continue our reliance on fossil fuel in preference to conservation (ie, using less) and renewable alternatives.
Incidentally, I am not hung up on legality. A lot of legal things are still disgusting. If someone wants to become an addict, I pass no legal or moral or judgement on it. But that does not mean I don’t think it is stupid, sad, and pathetic.
Gasoline is an excellent and dense fuel. It has one deadly problem that our forebears did not know: it produces a huge amount of CO2. One gallon of gasoline weighing 6 pounds produces 20 pounds of CO2 when combusted due to the combination of each carbon atom in gas that adds 2 oxygen molecules (from the atmosphere) to form CO2. Every time someone burns through a 20 gallon tank of gasoline, they just produced 400 pounds of CO2. The unnecessary electrons in the new molecule produces the energy we enjoy in the form of heat and “fire”, but at a cost represented by the production of CO2. The problem as many see it is that we do not treat fossil fuel as though it were precious. We should be using it sparingly while we shift to renewables. Again the addiction analogy is apropos: we do something pleasurable at the expense of long-term detriments we don’t want to think about.
There are several critical shortcomings of the pro fossil fuel “drill, baby, drill” crowd like you. First, you deny science and willingly overlook the fact that fossil fuel produces CO2 in such huge quantities that we have physically altered the chemical composition of our atmosphere and our oceans. Second, you think anyone who argues in favor of reducing fossil fuel consumption is a nut case, and fail to support the efforts by others to take steps to reduce fossil fuel consumption and shift to non-fossil fuel alternatives.
I don’t quite understand your insult of calling me a Liberal Hypocrite. Yes, I use fossil fuel. But I think my appreciation of it greatly exceeds yours. Meanwhile, I am doing everything in my power to reduce my consumption of fossil fuel. We are a two hybrid care household. I have only LEDs in my homes. My new house (thank you, Apple) will be net-zero (are you aware how silly cheap PV cells are becoming?).
What have you two done lately to reduce the world’s consumption of fossil fuels and help take care of the planet for all posterity? It is not like anyone is asking you to be a hermit or survivalist. You can still enjoy the benefits and comforts of the modern world while reducing fossil fuel consumption through conservation and endorsing renewables. What is so pathetic about that?
“Incidentally, I am not hung up on legality.”
Hung up? Of course not! Only a Libtard describes following the law as a psychological problem.
“If someone wants to become an addict, I pass no legal or moral or judgement on it.”
Of course not! You already admitted you do not follow the law. Anything goes, right? Free 50th summer love, baby.
Your HYPOCRISY is on steroids. YOU DO pass legal and moral judgement on those using gasoline and the in a mea culpa admit you also use gasoline.
Well professor, you have moral standing to preach on this issue …
Sir,
You previously called me PATHETIC for comparing a legal addiction (i.e., to oil) with an illegal addiction to drugs. My point about not getting hung up on legal or moral issues was simply that both forms of addiction are unattractive regardless of human society’s current criminal code.
Then, in your preceding post, you assert: “You already admitted you do not follow the law” — which, however, is a false statement. I never said I do not follow the law. In fact, I am the opposite: I try to obey the law, which even includes driving within the posted speed limit, by the way. So you are plainly mistaken.
Poor reasoning skills is an indication of a small mind. So is calling people names and falsely accusing them of making statements they never said. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
So sorry to be the one to have to tell you. Most people figure it out for themselves.
You are hopeless!
My comments stand…
You did not count the coal or nuclear power required to charge the car. Gas is far more economical and has far better range and power. And there is no evidence of Global swarming since the planet has actually cooled about a degree in the past 18 years. Warmer weather, if the sun brings it, would extend the growing season and reduce world hunger.
When I read GoeB’s comment, I hearkened back to 1906, when Stanley Steamer and Baker Electric Automobiles were competing quite successfully against cars driven by the totally new and unproven internal combustion engine. By 1914, Baker was out of business and Stanley followed in 1924.
It is the nature of science and technology that ideas change and their implementations grow more efficient. Just because we have been using Otto-cycle engines for over a hundred years does not make them the best choice today.
As for the drug analogy: in 1906 there was no requirement that cocaine even be listed as an ingredient of over-the-counter remedies and soft drinks. Manufacturing properly-labeled cocaine products was not restricted until 1922. Thalidomide was routinely prescribed for morning sickness from 1957 until 1962, when it was confirmed to cause birth deformities. Tobacco might be an even better example.
I think one might draw analogies with other popular products are discovered to have regrettable side effects… among them the use of inefficient technologies that produce more heat and waste gas than power.
Kent, “So sorry…” did count the coal or nuclear power needed to charge the car. If the cost of producing electricity were not factored into the EPA numbers for plug-in vehicles, they would be getting infinite milage, not 133 MPGe. Commercial power plants, even with the cost of electrical transmission, use fuel enormously more efficiently than any possible internal combustion engine.
While current batteries obviously do not provide the same range as a gasoline tank, there is simply no question which power source is more economical over the life of a vehicle. Teslas even compete with comparably-priced gasoline cars for pure performance.
Kent’s allegation that global warming is not occurring is simply a lie. Every one of the ten warmest years on record has occurred since 1998, including every year since 2012. Ask the people starving in drought-stricken areas of Africa if the warming in their region is reducing world hunger.
The marketplace clearly finds gasoline engines far better. Further, electric cars pollute more. From a study conducted by Peter Achten and co-author Victor Timmers at the University of Edinburgh,
“Electric vehicles tend to produce more pollutants from tire and brake wear, due in large part to their batteries, as well as the other parts needed to propel them, making them heavier.
These pollutants are emitted when electric vehicle tires and brakes deteriorate as they accelerate or slow down while driving. Timmers and Achten’s research suggests exhaust from traditional vehicles is only about one-third of the total emissions.
In other words, while people understandably focus on what’s released from exhaust pipes, the research indicates that two-thirds of total emissions come from other sources. And these particulates may be especially problematic.
“We found that non-exhaust emissions, from brakes, tires and the road, are far larger than exhaust emissions in all modern cars,” Achten wrote in the study.
He continued: “These are more toxic than emissions from modern engines so they are likely to be key factors in the extra heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks seen when air pollution levels surge.”
The Achten and Timmers study has been cited all over the internet as claiming that electric vehicles are more polluting than gasoline cars, but that isn’t what it says.
For a given payload, an electric car with batteries is likely to be 24% heavier than the corresponding gasoline vehicle. That translates into increased tire and brake wear (although I suspect that engine breaking reduces the brake-pad abrasion). It also results in more dust and road oil being stirred up.
The stuff that flies off the brakes, tires, and road is even more significant than engine exhaust for particulate pollution. Hardly a shocker, since modern cars have emissions-control systems specifically directed at reducing particulates and some other pollutants. How many new non-diesels have you seen lately with a visible soot cloud? The converter systems actually increase CO2 emissions, but CO2 was not a pollutant with which this study was concerned.
Here in Texas, excessive vehicle weight is due to everybody driving pickups and SUVs, not because they are hauling batteries around. If the vehicle is 24% heavier, it emits 24% more particulates, whether it is electric or not.
People in Texas drive pickups and SUVs because they are safer and just better, for most people. I notice Obama and the Clintons and Al Gore prefer Suburbans and big Jeeps and private jets.
And because they are obese…
And maybe also because the culture is slightly biased in favor of “black gold”.
Kent, you just revealed your ignorance. The data are out there. Look for it. But don’t just look for a few citations that support your (limited) world view, because the full set of data may not support what you think.
“Gasoline is the most economical fuel…”
Actually, that would be water. Water is the most economical fuel.
Then you should buy a hydrocar. I will keep buying gas powered cars because they work great.
I vividly remember “The Water Engine” a 1992 made for TV movie set in the 1930s where Charles Lang invents an engine that runs on water. Purely as a fuel it is the most readily available and cleanest known today as hydrogen.
Unfortunately, it is anything but economical and commands the highest prices. Hydrogen vehicles are limited and cost hundreds of thousands to millions and no infrastructure exists outside of select test markets. Would I like to see it happen economically and change the world — absolutely.
Until that day, I’ll stick with reliable and no fuss gasoline …🤓
Macman, where is it written that an autonomous car has to be 100% autonomous, and that dual-mode cars wouldn’t be an option? And don’t agree 100% with your second point either, as I know how poorly many humans drive in snow.
Pirate, yep the auto industry won’t be selling 15 million cars a year then, that seems pretty certain.
Certainly Apple would have the problem of scalability with this kind of model. It would take years to generate enough vehicles to be a total transportation solution. You can count on it for a substantial period of time being more of a automated taxi service but like TV there will be other players in this space too. Apple once again won’t have it all to themselves.
Hopefully solar flares or another type of celestial problem would not create the electromagnetic bursts that would cripple such a system. Future technology in some ways could make us more vulnerable and less self-reliant, then make it difficult to react to emergencies when they occur.
Whatever.
Apple has currently on hand a quarter of a trillion dollars. That value, in excess of its cost of goods sold and other expenses, reflects its DNA – profit.
Look at the automobile market today and select the one manufacturer with the wherewithal to stop Apple from killing every one of them.
Pick any industry you want. Make a case for how it defends itself against Apple should they decide to own it.
Apple today is the face in the screen they parodied in the 1984 commercial.
“Apple today is the face in the screen they parodied in the 1984 commercial.”
So sad, but you speak the truth. When did Apple cross over to the dark side?
That’s easy. When liberal activist CEO Cook was allowed to mix liberal politics with business. Something Steve would have never done, and preached to stay out of politics. Bad for business.
The face on that 1984 screen today is a company that lost its non partisan identity and is INTOLERANT to views other than liberal identity politics.
I don’t need Cook to tell me what car to buy, when to get into a car, how to drive or not drive a car, where to go with the car, how and when to upgrade my car, well, you get the point …
Excuse me, did I just read that you regard tolerance as a virtue? I would never have guessed it.
I still want to see a self driving car in a snow storm or heavy rain. I’ve been in rain so heavy I couldn’t see two car lengths. I’ve driven on snow packed roads where zero paint or cement can be seen.
Excellent point!
Much like satellite TV that goes down under the same conditions and displays a lost signal message …
Sensors and computers are not necessarily bound by the limits of the human eye. I would think there are things like infrared sensors, and maybe a “radar”-type sensor that can differentiate between road and natural surface. And super-accurate mapping technology. Honestly, I don’t see why cars should necessarily perform worse than people do.
I see more drinking opportunities
Don’t stop there … 😜
Ransomware dudes: “Give us $300 dollars in the next six minutes or your iCar is going off the cliff”………
Brilliant …
I think the point about cleanliness is a problem with totally automated cars. I can’t imagine getting in after some drunk a*****e upchucks all over the car. It happens to Uber and Left drivers all the time and it takes their cars out of commission for cleaning. But you’d have to have a human report the problem and that human is going to be the next rider. Ewww.