Apple 'Accelerating' Efforts to Catch Up With Self-Driving Competition, Expands California Fleet to 27 Vehicles

[G5isAlive]

Nope. You repeating misinformation doesn't make it true.

Finally, something we agree on. Now instead of just platitudes and condescending quotes, why don't you specifically point out what fact i present you disagree with? edit. scratch 'disagree', which fact is WRONG.

If not, you got nothing.

 

[adamski23]

Are you saying they'll come up with a levitating car? After those come out any wheeled car will seem to be from the stone age.

I find it funny how people are scared of software driving their car but are ok with an Uber driver who may be more interested in chatting with you than paying attention to the road.

How many people were killed on the road the same day of that non-fatal Tesla accident?

Levitating car? Sign me up

As far as automation of driving, I'm not ready to give up that much control as of yet. Also, where I'm from there's no Uber and I try to avoid taxis. Whenever I can, I drive - I like to be in control.

My opinion is based upon never having been in an accident that was of my own fault. I don't speak for anyone else.

On another point, you can't compare the amount of fatalities from manual to that of automated driving directly as the latter's numbers on the roadways are insignificant in comparison.

 

[G5isAlive]

Anyone who has flown DRIVEN much has felt the holy terror of having another airplane CAR appear nearby seemingly out of nowhere,

Fixed that for you

really I bet you can count on one hand 'the holy terror' of anyone coming remotely near you, but in no real danger of actually hitting you, sorry you got scared...

versus how many times all the rest of us, and you if you are being honest, can remember cars, people, balls, motorcycles, potholes, appearing out of nowhere within feet of us.

sorry. just the reality. The fact that you got scared a few times does not take away from the reality that automating cars is much much more difficult than planes. You still have no argument for the obvious fact that planes HAVE been automated, but cars have not. And you have no argument on why flying is well known to be safer than driving, which directly reads on to complexity and risk.

but at least now i understand why you insist on taking this stance. sorry about that brown stain.

 

[lederermc]

What a fugly (Lexus) car, at least the front is.

Edit: just saw some more pictures on the net, ugh, what an awful design.

All of the auto-drive systems are ugly but I assume it can be compacted for delivery once refined... At least I hope they can be made less ugly.

 

[justperry]

All of the auto-drive systems are ugly but I assume it can be compacted for delivery once refined... At least I hope they can be made less ugly.

You read that wrong, the car is ugly, wasn't talking about the added stuff.

 

[Bacillus]

What a fugly (Lexus) car, at least the front is.

Edit: just saw some more pictures on the net, ugh, what an awful design.

Always this and the same pciture. Not just ugly, the whole camera design is of the 80's.
Waymo, Tesla, Volvo, all competitors have camera's have integrated their sensors by now.
Apple just makes itself the worst PR with this (and their

Question:
Why would a successful ("primo") automobile manufacturer secede market-essential technology which senses, processes, and ultimately manages intelligent driving to a third party, such as Apple?
Two examples of "fail" -- the race to the bottom when strategic know-how is simply licensed from others:

1. Google as licensor: the Android market, when reference designs are vested onto multiple licensees.
2. Microsoft as licensor: the Microsoft-computer (personal and server) market elicits the same results.

One is uniquely successful when there is proprietary marriage of hardware and software producing a single, indivisible unit.
In my view, Apple must produce fully-assembled, proprietary technology to compete successfully in the next-generation autonomous-driving marketplace -- somehow, somewhere, sometime. The alternative, simply licensing a plug-compatible overlay to the many will be faced with derision.

Here you touch the hardest part of the puzzle: partnering.
No car company wants to pair with Apple because of its prominence - the last they want is a parner to become the UX sitting between their customers and themselves
[doublepost=1519891826][/doublepost]

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.

I tend to agree with you, but your example happens to show the opposite: very easy to recognize and implement. In fact, Waymo/Volvo already do.