Apple Abandons Car Plans 'For Now,' Sets Late 2017 Deadline to Decide Fate of Self-Driving System

[Quu]

It has become clear that the future of cars is self driving. To be competitive on the time scale predicted (2020-2021 for the first car release) it would have to ship with self driving at launch.

How is Apple going to suffer the brand image tarnish when these cars inevitably crash? - Tesla hasn't even gone full automation yet and one man has lost his life because the auto pilot system couldn't tell the difference between the side of a truck and a brightly lit skyline driving straight into the truck without attempting to break.

That is the kind of bad PR that Apple doesn't want to have. It is much smarter for them to instead tread carefully, wait the market out, have some other companies figure out self driving and then license it for their own vehicle far off in the future.

 

[Rogifan]

Agreed, I think they're trying to branch out in different markets and while that in of itself isn't bad, provided your core business is no impacted, yet here we are years removed from the last Mac Pro and Mac Mini update. The MBP is stale and behind its competition.

What exactly do people's current MBPs not do that they need them to do? Are they unable to run certain software because the hardware is too slow?

 

[anthorumor]

I guess Apple can now focus on their core products...
New Watch bands!

 

[Rogifan]

For the life of me, I've never understood why Apple went down this road.
What would have been the differentiation from other self driving cars? That it had Siri? That it comes in Jet Black?

First it was the watch, then the car.
Seems more recently, Apple's new motto is 'Thing Alike'.

The ecosystem would be the differentiator. The integration of hardware, software and services. Which is the differentiator on all their other products.

 

[jimbobb24]

I do a lot of research on Musk, Tesla and spaceX. And although I admire Elon Musk a lot, Tesla was on life support just a short time ago.

If it wasn't for big investors they would have been gone. It's not easy starting a car company like a Tesla from the ground up. Musk had to literally reinvent the battery for these types of vehicles just to make one affordable for the every day joe.

And they are still running into major hurtles. Not to mention the rest of the gasoline car industry wants them to fail.

One thing I do feel strongly about is the fact that Tesla is made here and not sourced out to a foreign nation unlike where Apple makes all of its products and does all of its banking.

They can not survive without the subsidies and at some point as these cars become more common there will be no rationale for subsidizing the cars of upper middle class car buyers. Tessa better figure out how to make a profit long before that happens.

 

[maflynn]

I'm not sure. We didn't have any money until around age 38. It takes time to build a successful career and see any payoffs for paying your dues and making some smart choices and working hard in one's 20's and 30's. Now at 50, we have some money, but not the time or the energy to do all the things we wished we could do when we were younger and healthier and our parents needed us less. Any money we could have spent on luxuries will go to maintaining our independence as our health declines.

My point is companies are investing a lot of money into R&D for self driving cars, they'll want to recoup that investment. I don't believe positing a price point for a 70 year old grand mother to afford the vehicle on a fixed income is a way to achieve that goal.

The trend in the automotive industry tends to roll out high tech innovation in the premium cars, then over the years, it trickles down to the more affordable models. Just look at power windows, back up cameras, both of those items were in high end vehicles for years before the cost of them came down enough to be able to add them into lower cost models.

I see the same exact thing occurring now with Tesla, and to be honest, before Apple killed it off, I'm like 90% sure Apple would have rolled out a premium priced car, not something that someone on social security could buy.

 

[840quadra]

Fuel Cells are a myth. They're difficult to make, difficult (and energy intensive) to refuel, and there's no existing infrastructure.

Not a myth, & using renewable energy to extract Hydrogen is something that is being looked into in parts of Europe and Asia. And in regards to infrastructure, the current grids within the US, Europe, parts of Asia, are not robust enough to handle a wide switch to charging EV either.

For EV to replace fossil fuels to motivate populations, investments need to be made into either upgrading the worlds power grids, or, looking into alternative ways to generate local clean power, one such way could be hydrogen.

With EVs, there's simply not enough battery supply in the world right now. It's why Tesla is building the Gigafactory in Nevada. Once that factory is operation in 2020, Tesla will control 75% of the world's battery supply. Having all of those batteries will be enough for them to build 1M cars per year.

That's why GM says they're only going to build 30K EVs per year - they can't obtain enough batteries to build more.

Until other companies get serious about making batteries, Tesla is going to be the only major EV manufacturer. The other car manufacturers can talk all they want, but they're not making the investments that they need to right now to be a major player in this game in a few years.

Oh don't get me going on GM (Personal Rant)

First off, GM is a disaster of a corporation, with quite a bit of it's assets and history tied into fossil fuels, and lobbying with those corporations to help with regulations that boost their sales. They are also notorious for resisting change (Granted mostly in the US, their European divisions are much better).

On the subject of batteries, Testla has a clear current advantage in automotive, but lets not forget the other big players out there, some of them are currently providing cells for items such as our iPads, Laptops and other components (Samsung being one of them). Tie in larger cells, with charging / control system technologies possessed by Siemens, Samsung, etc, a rival for Testla car batteries is simply around the corner.

One thing Testla is really good at (and I like this too) is self promotion, however, Musk also has a bit of his own (Jobsish) reality distortion field. Testla doesn't really have solid competition yet, as Ford, VW, Honda and other big manufactures haven't really plaid their EV cards yet, and I highly doubt they will simply standby and let the scrappy young company take all their lunch . Despite their various failings, the currently successful major automakers are goood at playing a long game.

 

[Gasu E.]

Until we can program morality, self driving cars won't be a thing.

(The classic problem when the car has to decide who to kill if the brakes fail scenario)

Let me know when we can program morality into humans. Then you would have a good argument.

 

[Sylvan]

I'd still like to know how many people really want a self driving car. Personally, most of my driving is short around town where I can't see it practical (knowing parking rules in town - which streets are better, not wanting to park next to a large truck with big doors, etc. ). Sure it might be nice the times I'm doing a multiple hour trip on the highway but that is a very small part of my driving.
Plus I'm sure the cost of a self driving car will be much more that a normal car plus the cost of subscriptions to maintain maps, directions, etc. etc.
Maybe there are surveys but I've never seen one and would love to see who actually is going to buy all these cars that the manufactures will make,

I suspect that, much like public transit, polls would indicate most people are in favor of everyone else using them.

 

[5105973]

I think they spun their wheels on this for so long and didn't have anything to show. The reports of in-fighting sound very Microsoft like and very unApple like. I think the same thing happened with the Apple TV, rumors were abound for years that Apple would roll out a branded television, but never did

As a fan of Apple under Steve Jobs this makes me very sad and discouraged.

I have largely gone with Android for cell phones because they are still innovating when Tim implied the market is stagnating and needed to go to China and India to be lucrative. Instead of doubling down on improving Siri (I love my girl when she works, but I have to speak in a very Mr. Spock precise way and think like a computer myself to get her to meet me halfway).

I think health and Augmented Reality and AI are worthy interests for Apple to pursue and can get them back on track with their core strengths. But they are now going to have to play catchup instead of leading the way.

I'm not sure how much of a head start their competitors have. I hope to find out when my Pixel arrives.

 

[maflynn]

I'd still like to know how many people really want a self driving car.

I wouldn't want want, I love driving, why take that away.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'd still like to know how many people really want a self driving car. Personally, most of my driving is short around town where I can't see it practical (knowing parking rules in town - which streets are better, not wanting to park next to a large truck with big doors, etc. ). Sure it might be nice the times I'm doing a multiple hour trip on the highway but that is a very small part of my driving.
Plus I'm sure the cost of a self driving car will be much more that a normal car plus the cost of subscriptions to maintain maps, directions, etc. etc.
Maybe there are surveys but I've never seen one and would love to see who actually is going to buy all these cars that the manufactures will make,

In another point in time, just as the automobile itself was coming onto the scene...

I'd still like to know how many people really want an automobile. Personally, most of my traveling is short around town where I can't see it practical (knowing stall rules in town - which streets are better, not wanting to put it next to a large stallion, etc. ). Sure it might be nice the times I'm doing a multiple hour trip on the trail but that is a very small part of my riding.
Plus I'm sure the cost of an automobile will be much more that a normal horse plus the cost of subscriptions to maintain paper maps, trail heads, etc. etc.
Maybe there are surveys but I've never seen one and would love to see who actually is going to buy all these automobiles that the manufactures will make


Basically, because you haven't experienced it, you think you are not interested in it. However, once it's commonplace, you won't think any such thoughts about it. Before cell phones were commonplace: how many people really want a cell phone? Before iPods were commonplace: how many people really want an iPod? Before personal computers were commonplace: how many people really want a PC? Etc.

Then, the new propagates and now we question whether we can live without cell phones, PCs and all our music in our pocket. Think of the self-driving car like using taxis when you travel, minus the concept of having to pay & tip the driver at the end of each chauffeured trip. Or think of it like the rich person who has a chauffeur to drive them anywhere they want to go. Or notice how some of the very young are in no big hurry to get their driver's license because they don't want to be a driver, instead favoring being chaffered or catching rides with others. If you think about driving, it's actually a pretty boring experience where you have to maintain a fair amount of focus to accomplish a mundane task. How else could you spend all the time you spend in mundane focus doing something else more interesting... and still getting to or from your destinations too?

It's coming. Once it's relatively commonplace, we'll wonder how people ever got by having to spend so much time focused as a driver... much like we wonder how people ever got by without the constant internet connection... or texting... etc. Step back even 25 years and hardly anyone had cell phones... and people wondered who really wants to always have a phone that you have to carry around everywhere and costs a lot of extra money.

 

[calaverasgrande]

I think they discovered that for the kind of car they would want to build. The margins are just not there.
This, and basically Tesla is already occupying the niche that they would want in the marketplace.
And Elon Musk is more like Steve Jobs than Tim.

 

[RogerWilco]

As I've stated many times, the car project was a convenient fairy tale, a way for Cook to shore up the share price while he (and others) wait for their compensation packages to pay off. Cook, Ive, and Cue will likely be gone by the end of next year.

 

[iZac]

Apple nix R&D projects all the time. This just happens to be extremely high profile.

 

[Henry 3 Dogg]

Tesla CEO Elon Musk believes Apple will not have its own vehicle ready by 2020, calling it a "missed opportunity."​

Increasingly there are doubts that Tesla shareholders will ever see a financial return. An even bigger missed opportunity.

 

[breather]

Buy Tesla already....

 

[RogerWilco]

They have had great sales in Q3, but that does not lead to a profit when they are still losing money on each car sold. At the end of the year 2016 will still be a loss. The elephant in the room is their Model 3, which has the potential to break the company if it isn't handled correctly.

Elon Musk is no Henry Ford, the Model 3 will be Tesla's Waterloo.

 

[TechZeke]

I wouldn't want want, I love driving, why take that away.

One of the reasons why I'm skeptical of completely driverless cars ever making it big.

To get to the driverless utopia, the government is eventually going to have to ban or heavy regulate manual driving. Talk about a non-starter until 2 or 3 generations of people die out at-least.

Also, I think true driverless technology surrounded by a bunch of manually driven vehicles in traffic is also a lot harder than the industry makes it out to be.

 

[Karma*Police]

Be nice if they started to laser focus again like that have in the past with just a few awesome products....getting back to Macs would be a great starting point ;-)

Apple has always had a ton of research projects behind the scenes which eventually led to great successes such as the iPod, iPhone and iPad. The focus part was saying no to "productizing" a lot of those projects.

The Mac funded those developments and while it pains some people to hear it, the Mac is a category in decline and will continue to lose its relevance in an increasingly mobile world.

So by shifting its focus away from the Mac, you could argue that Apple is very much focused on the future and milking the Mac cow for all it's worth which is what any smart business person would do. Heck, even Intel is looking away from PCs for growth.

 

[maflynn]

Apple nix R&D projects all the time. This just happens to be extremely high profile.

I think from my perspective, Tim Cook is on borrowed time (in a sense). You see, apple has been making money hand over fist, but all the products that produced those record profits, date back from when Steve ran the company. Only the Apple watch is something that Cook can put his name on, and even then, its questionable about how successful that is.

Apple is relying on one product for the majority of its profits, and Wall St. never likes to see that, because if that single product falters, then there goes all the money their investors stood to make. Cook does need to innovate and roll out more products that allow a consistent and balanced revenue stream.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Yeah that would have been an awful move. Buy a company that would want a ridiculous amount of money paid for it, despite the fact that they aren't profitable and seem to be headed towards losing even more money with the release of their next car.

But they would have been in the running to go to MARS!!!

 

[Macneck]

Maybe they're finally realizing that people don't want a self-driving car. That's not something that's feasible for the near future. And to be honest, driving is fun. As much as I like technology, I'm very against self-driving cars.

Maybe, but I believe it's more that they are finally realizing that it takes decades to mass produce premium cars no matter how many mountains of gold you invest.

 

[5105973]

My point is companies are investing a lot of money into R&D for self driving cars, they'll want to recoup that investment. I don't believe positing a price point for a 70 year old grand mother to afford the vehicle on a fixed income is a way to achieve that goal.

The trend in the automotive industry tends to roll out high tech innovation in the premium cars, then over the years, it trickles down to the more affordable models. Just look at power windows, back up cameras, both of those items were in high end vehicles for years before the cost of them came down enough to be able to add them into lower cost models.

I see the same exact thing occurring now with Tesla, and to be honest, before Apple killed it off, I'm like 90% sure Apple would have rolled out a premium priced car, not something that someone on social security could buy.

I agree with what you're saying. I'm just saying the interest in self driving cars lies with a certain group. Some of them may be able to afford it, some may not. The original post asked who would be interested, almost as if nobody would. I know when a person is young and mobile it can be hard to see any appeal in this concept. Target the 50 year olds, who have disposable income but bad eyes or other interests beyond driving, this could be lucrative. Or it could be of interest to younger people who like to party hard and still use their own transportation home.

It may very well be that the true innovations in the self driving car concept will come from countries where governments are more active in consumer product R&D to address issues in their aging populations.

 

[jimbobb24]

Hehe ,well I'm just being real. My point is AI is just so god damn crude (bad) at the moment that it doesn't work for situations where it have to take less rational decisions based on valuing a situation (that humans do all the time without even thinking). For those that still thinks people are rational, go read something by Herbert Simon.

And we won't see breakthroughs in AI any time soon either... We don't even understand how our own brains work... We haven't even come to a consensus of what consciousness really is... So how could we possibly make a machine that mimics something we can't even describe? lul

AI is maybe never going to happen. Not like orginally conceived. That does not matter.

We tried forever to develop software so machines could "see". It's harder than we can imagine and NO ONE can do it. Instead, other people figured out that we can train a computer to "see" by training algorithms with billlions of images. Now Google and Apple software can tell me when my images involve beaches or concert halls, or corn.

We will not need to make AI that can "think", we will train cars algorithms that respond to 99.99% of cases and in the others adjust to avoid serious harm. That will be better than 99.9% of humans in 99.9% of situations allowing everyone to be safer. AI like in the movies might never happen, AI that can "see" is almost done, AI that can "drive" will not be far off.