And yet there are more accidents when people driving themselves. When I see my 86 neighbor driving away I always feel the need to call the police to block all roads.Not sure I want to be driven by any software, right now:
Autonomous Tesla Crashes Into Parked Fire Truck on California Freeway
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple 'Accelerating' Efforts to Catch Up With Self-Driving Competition, Expands California Fleet to 27 Vehicles
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No worries, 25,000 miles is nothing for a Camry. I used it own a 2001 Camry, and my aunt still uses it to this day. 171,000 miles when she bought it from me, and she hasn’t had to do any heavy maintenance to it.
I'm fully expecting this car to last until my nieces are 17. It'll be a gift to them. So i've got 7 years to save up for a downpayment on a new car.
I have no doubt that a Camry will last that long barring unforseen circumstances. Unless they release a new patch that removes 32bit support of course
.
Flying and driving aren't comparable. Planes are spaced thousands of feet apart and sometime miles apart at altitude (in cars you whizz past each other only a few feet apart - and if both cars are at 60mph, that's like hitting a parked car at 120mph). Pilots are also highly trained and are constantly monitoring everything while on autopilot (unprofessional drivers will be lost in a movie or book). You also have air traffic controllers watching all the aircraft in flight and informing pilots of any collision issues, including weather. Planes are super well maintained (better than any car) and are thoroughly looked over and tested on the ground before every flight.
There is no comparison at this time between these modes of transport.
To be fair, flying a plane is far more straight-forward than driving a car.
Planes only need to know a few key things (position, altitude, other planes (which all communicate) etc) to be able to fly around.
The trouble with cars is they will need to be able to actually 'see' and interpret everything around them. That's the most difficult part.
Even now a Tesla on a snowy road will follow the car in front of you off the road. There isn't enough information getting to the computers to be able to evaluate the environment.
For example, a human driver could easily see that the car ahead has hit ice patches by seeing the car wiggle or skid a bit, and know that they need to be extra cautious and probably slow down. Getting the computers to correctly pick up on things like this is very difficult.
HA! Given the price that dealers give when attempting to sell extended warranties, an Otterbox may be your best bet!
Not sure I want to be driven by any software, right now:
Autonomous Tesla Crashes Into Parked Fire Truck on California Freeway
Yikes! I have to agree, Apple’s CarOS (or whatever it will be called) will need to be much tighter than what it’s software is looking like right now.
LOLOL!! Yeah, Siri would be an immediate no-buy. Doubt I’d even trust a test drive. It’s so bad I can’t even have a general conversation with my husband and say the word “serious” without her thinking I’m talking to her. Poor thing.
Lexus is pretty successful. I mean, Apple is just using the car a cyborg to test their software.
[doublepost=1516909569][/doublepost]
Actually, I know you don't know anything about Apple's car plans because essentially no one does. It's not public. You can't know they've fallen behind if you don't know where they are or their desire to push it any more. Apple doesn't do non profit.I like keeping comments related to the topic at hand though
I've been waiting to see for a few years now what the Apple Car project was. I didn't believe it was an actual car. That made no sense. Self driving, mapping, in car entertainment / design stuff? all possible. But not an actual car.
But to hear, depsite the wealth that they're so far behind anyone else, even companies who have started more recently, means there's something being mismanaged. People are not paying attention to the market and it's progress, and aren't pivoting or pushing harder as needed to keep up.
Apple doesn't need to be first. And they genrally do well with how they do these things. But, Self driving car tech is one that once others get a leg up, its' going to be VERY hard to get into.
Do you think Ford / GM is going to pay Apple for self driving tech if they manage to figure it out themselves first?
[doublepost=1516905999][/doublepost]
man, your posts are so defensive of apple. You say we don't know anything, yet you don't know what we know either....
I'm quoting this because it points out how little you understand about markets yourself. The Car market for example is an extremely saturated market controlled by very few manufacturers. The cost to buy in is extremely EXTREMELY expensive. COULD apple be making their own car itself? Yeah, POssibly. But I doubt it (and yes, I could be wrong).
But given that they are not likely building a car of their own. Coming out 10 years later for example for in car technology, will mean they will NOT have a market.
if Apple is working on developing self driving tech. If they only get it out in 10 years, all the current manufacturers will already have their OWN technology. Do you think Toyota, Honda, BMW etc are going to in 10 years time drop their own self driving solution for Apples? Which will likely have a high licensing cost?
Self driving tech in cars is one you can't be 10 years late for (unless you make your own cars)
So what else is Apple doing in the Car department? I'm genuinely curious? Apple CarPlay is nothing more than a set of Application that run on existing QNX platforms, and I highly doubt they've spent the years and money rumoured in this car project JUST for carplay.
It's going to be a super interesting couple years in the auto industry. The big disruptor is already here with EV, and Apple doesn't seem inclined to play and compete for an EV (could change, but above, doubt their actually building a car).
I also know this tech has been in the development stages for a decade already, no one is making money from it yet, and it will take many more years to monetize. Saying Apple has a "management issue" because we don't see self driving Apple Cars yet is nonsense and ridiculous.
My impression is the Europeans and Asians are building the infrastructure required for these systems to operate. While the USA simply talks, and talks, and talks. It’s marketing over substance.
Apple can’t create stable software anymore, Google abandons projects as a norm. No responsible automaker would ever choose to use anything mission critical from either of them.
Apple's probable intent is to compile a book of patents it can sue people for violating. A likely better financial payback anyway.
Apple can’t create stable software anymore, Google abandons projects as a norm. No responsible automaker would ever choose to use anything mission critical from either of them.
Apple's probable intent is to compile a book of patents it can sue people for violating. A likely better financial payback anyway.
need to get outside the bubble you're in.
THere are a few cars now selling with basic self driving functionality as addon's that car manufacturers are self developing (and aren't likely going to Apple for)
My brother just got the newest Acura RDX that has some basic self driving already involved. so yeah, people Are absolutely making money from it already. even it's its current rudimentary functions.
it was kind of cool. Getting onto the highway. Pressing a button. and then taking your hand off the wheel while it drove for you. kept you in the lane. braked to avoid the car in front of you, accelerated back up to speed when clear. gave warnings when cars around you were possible risk to merge, even reacting to it.
So sorry, I'm going to have to stop responding to your nonsensical constant defense of everything Apple just because they are Apple doesn't mean suddenly they're smarter than everyone else.
The entire range was updated in mid 2017, the iMac Pro has just come out and the Mac Pro will come out this year - what on earth more updates could you possibly want??
Over 5 years behind the curve, there is no way Apple could ever catch up with Google on this front.
I am one of the few people here that calls people out on their ridiculous speculation and flat out wrong assessment of Apple.
I know the functionality you’re talking about in the Acura. This is nowhere near what we are talking about here and that function alone doesn’t sell cars on a large scale.
Anyway, I’m exactly right that Apple has given absolutely zero detail about their car aspirations. Stop talking about it like you know.
not much personal interest in self driving cars here. I would like to see a micro electric car for lite urban driving. Fiat e500; but current electric cars, well they look like any gasoline engine vehicle.
the battery industry needs to go through the same change as the lighting industry. who would think we would be buying affordable LED bulbs after 150 years of incandescent technology.
also
they need to develop direct in wheel motors for electric cars. eliminate the differential and any drive train.
my two cents is as a technology company Apple is done and i really see Apple Inc acquiring a Netflix like company.
.
the battery industry needs to go through the same change as the lighting industry. who would think we would be buying affordable LED bulbs after 150 years of incandescent technology.
also
they need to develop direct in wheel motors for electric cars. eliminate the differential and any drive train.
my two cents is as a technology company Apple is done and i really see Apple Inc acquiring a Netflix like company.
.
Last edited:
Yeah, that way it fits into 2 completely different categories: self driving cars and personal fitness, because you’ll need to work out to be thin enough to fit into next years model.
I like keeping comments related to the topic at hand though
I've been waiting to see for a few years now what the Apple Car project was. I didn't believe it was an actual car. That made no sense. Self driving, mapping, in car entertainment / design stuff? all possible. But not an actual car.
But to hear, depsite the wealth that they're so far behind anyone else, even companies who have started more recently, means there's something being mismanaged. People are not paying attention to the market and it's progress, and aren't pivoting or pushing harder as needed to keep up.
Apple doesn't need to be first. And they genrally do well with how they do these things. But, Self driving car tech is one that once others get a leg up, its' going to be VERY hard to get into.
Do you think Ford / GM is going to pay Apple for self driving tech if they manage to figure it out themselves first?
[doublepost=1516905999][/doublepost]
man, your posts are so defensive of apple. You say we don't know anything, yet you don't know what we know either....
I'm quoting this because it points out how little you understand about markets yourself. The Car market for example is an extremely saturated market controlled by very few manufacturers. The cost to buy in is extremely EXTREMELY expensive. COULD apple be making their own car itself? Yeah, POssibly. But I doubt it (and yes, I could be wrong).
But given that they are not likely building a car of their own. Coming out 10 years later for example for in car technology, will mean they will NOT have a market.
if Apple is working on developing self driving tech. If they only get it out in 10 years, all the current manufacturers will already have their OWN technology. Do you think Toyota, Honda, BMW etc are going to in 10 years time drop their own self driving solution for Apples? Which will likely have a high licensing cost?
Self driving tech in cars is one you can't be 10 years late for (unless you make your own cars)
So what else is Apple doing in the Car department? I'm genuinely curious? Apple CarPlay is nothing more than a set of Application that run on existing QNX platforms, and I highly doubt they've spent the years and money rumoured in this car project JUST for carplay.
It's going to be a super interesting couple years in the auto industry. The big disruptor is already here with EV, and Apple doesn't seem inclined to play and compete for an EV (could change, but above, doubt their actually building a car).
What if all this "self driving car " stuff has to do with Maps. Apple can keep a fleet of cars mapping at all times, all over the world, with "street view" type functionality. Possibly add in their tie to Didi in China.
It wasn't question of personal interest, it was only a matter of looking at the facts of the situation and grading the likelihood of an Apple branded car as being extremely low. I'm sure Apple conducts all sorts of research exercises internally and rejects the vast majority of them as not viable as products. Throwing things against the wall to see what sticks is what an R&D-driven company does.
So I don't see that Apple abandoned building a car, I think they were never anywhere close to as committed to that project as the rumors insisted. It got so intense for awhile that every piece of random evidence about what Apple was doing even marginally involving automotive tech had to point to them building a car. Even the vans fitted out for Apple's street-level imaging project were touted here as evidence for the Apple Car. Not something else, it has to be the Apple Car!
A lot of forest can be missed for the trees. Look at the forest. That's my suggestion.
[doublepost=1516915565][/doublepost]
Oh, not hardly. Aviation happens in three dimensions, so that make it inherently more complicated than driving. It also involves two, critical physical forces not present in driving. Another complicating factor in aviation is the room for error is actually smaller than driving. An airplane cannot pull over or come to a stop if something goes wrong. Among others.
[doublepost=1516915712][/doublepost]
Sorry, just pointing out that your stated opinion is internally contradictory.
Last edited:
None of that makes flying more complicated to automate.
All of the parameters in flying that are important are accurately and reliably measured and reported to the computer systems. Sure, the software has to be complex to handle the data, but the plane doesn't have to be able to read the landscape beyond what its sensors can measure.
Altitude, GPS position (which is used for ground velocity), environmental conditions, air speed, pressures, level, etc... all use very specifically purposes and well sorted sensors to report their data. The plane doesn't have to do any guess-work to figure out what's going on, because airspace is entirely open with the exception of other planes and high-rise buildings (both of which are accurately known to the plane).
Everything the car encounters is unpredictable and there is no accurate way for the car to see and interpret what's going on with accuracy. That's why they rely on a ton of cameras, they're visually looking and then trying to figure out what that data means. A plane can precisely know all its parameters at once and the programming just does the work. The car doesn't.
Once the automated car is in a snowstorm or construction zone, it loses much of its ability to read the situation around it.
Like I say, getting cars to accurately "see" everything is a colossal challenge that will need to be overcome.
than it's not really a self driving car, and it's jut a mapping program using cars. sure, they might self drive, but it's really not a commercial venture, but a benefit to improve their mapping.
but it's already done. Apple already do it, just without self driving. So do google and many else.
it's really weird. everyone knows Apple is working on SOMETHING related to automotive industry. Yet we can't guess, but whatever it is, whatever we assume they're doing, makes little sense from Apple's perspective (this isn't me saying they shouldn't do it. Do it, spend your money hiring people and TRYING to grow and create new things). But so far nothing makes sense.
Their own car? Doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Self Driving automation for existing cars? they've got A LOT of catchup to do as there are already limited capabilities of this for sale today and the car manufacturers are already getting there on their own, without Apple.
in dash system? Apple lost that due to their OS not being sufficient for the requirements of driving. (to be fair, Microsoft nor Google are in this position either). That was won by BlackBerry (most people wouldn't believe that) as the QNX real time OS pretty much the high end OS of choice these days for car automation. Even Apple CarPlay is a program that runs on top of a QNX based system.
What I see is perhaps the "Apple car" will be a car Apple helps design for BMW or Mercedez (or equivalent luxury brand). But then it's not really an "Apple" product and would be much like the Motorolla ROKR. ultimately a product created, crafted and built by someone else with apple logo on it.
Its fun to speculate, but the Auto industry is massive and being disruptive and getting into it is something that takes a lot more than just money and saying it. Heck, look at Tesla, Despite it's disruptive nature, Tesla STILL isn't a profitable company.
SO, despite all the secrecy, what the hell is Apple actually doing!?
You really think programming a plane to fly from LAX to JFK is MORE complicated than programming a car to take you from your home to the grocery store? Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. Not even the same game!
The number of unquantifiable variables in the trip to the grocery store for your car is so far greater than flying a plane from one airport to another that the comparison is ludicrous. Have you really thought this through?
Oooh good idea! Just in case you drop your MacMobile or submerge it in water.
But with changed tire colors regular. Not only black. Also rose-gold and roadkill-red
That is only partially correct. It's been 4 years since the mini was updated, and even those that were more recently updated are far behind the curve from everyone else. My 'Windows' machine has an 8-core with 32GB of ram. You can't tell me that a Mac wouldn't benefit from those specs.
[doublepost=1516918789][/doublepost]
I like keeping comments related to the topic at hand though
...
Do you think Ford / GM is going to pay Apple for self driving tech if they manage to figure it out themselves first?
Fair enough, and we would all be better served from that comment.
As for GM and Ford, they are already the leaders in self-driving technology, so no... they're not going to pay Apple.
[doublepost=1516918906][/doublepost]
What I want? A line of high-end, high-priced computers that are updated at regular intervals and make use of current technology.
And some models with glass backs for wireless charging, upgraded cameras on selected models, stainless steel handles on the top range model, a dreadful coppery rose pinkish colour option, silicon bumper covers in a wide range of personality colours that cost $400 each, battery management you might not realise after the first year until you can't hit the speed limits as signposted - and we'll announce it just we'll need "a little more time" to get it out the door.
This Car project has had massive resources and time. Needs a GPS as they seem to have lost their way!
I once co-owned a small business. I wish we had the resources that Apple has. The amount of people, time and cash they waste these days without producing anything. Or listening to customers. What happened to the lean and mean Apple that fought back from collapse with customer focused products? Where is the wonder, the game changing products?
This isn't a "Steve wouldn't have done this" comment. Even Steve stuffed up along the way but overall the vision has changed. I hate the new phone with notch. It's as bad as that awful apple case with battery bump. Never seen one of those in real life in use. What happened to "make it simple, make it work"?
At least making tv content and bringing new talent in has some chance of heading somewhere. That seems to be the only bright star currently!
And pull Apple Music out of iTunes. They did it with books. iTunes exemplifies all that is wrong at Apple. A confusing mess of a program, stuffed with features and arbitrary changes that tries to do too much and fails to do much well. Pull it apart even if the backend uses the same data structure. We don't need to know how it works, we just need it to work. I don't need to see everything at once: if I want music i want to see my music, perhaps with a button to go to the store to buy more and a button to go to a streaming service. Same with "tv". And books. And podcasts. If bits aren't of interest to you, you won't even see them. Get some usability analysts in and see how real people use this program and where their frustrations lie. It's not hard:
1. What I own (my music, videos, books)
2. What I'd like to own (store music, videos, books)
3. What I'd like to see/listen/read now (stream/borrow).
4. What I need to maintain (preferences, backups, sharing).
I'm sick of sync which takes forever, hangs or locks up. Why is this even needed? Why not just happening in the background?
If they can't get this basic software stuff sorted how are they ever going to make a Car or guidance system work well? CarPlay is not compelling when I've seen it in action. Other car media systems have improved heaps in the last few years.