Apple Cancels Self-Driving Vehicle Testing Permit in California After Abandoning Car Project

[Karllake]

You will need so STRONG numbers to make that argument. Don't make up or repeat claims without showing your work. Yes, some anti-sciece nuts make claims about how batteries pollute the earth but, let's see the numbers over the 200,000 mile lifetime of the car. And be sure to take recycling of materials into account when you do the math.

Actually there are only practical two ways to move a car
(1) with a heat engine. this is how gas, diesel and steam engines work. In all cases a volume of gas is expanded inside a closed cylinder and a prison is moved
(2) with electric power. but there are MANY ways to get the electric power. You can use batteries or a hydrogen fuel cell but either way the car is electric, on-vehical solar or nuclear power don't work well for cars are cars are too small.

So unless you want to burn some kind of fuel, "electric" is the only possible solution. The remaining question is only one: How to get the electric power. Today cars use batteries and trains use overhead electrified wires.

“Anti science nuts” good way to start and good faith discussion.. let me assume you’re a democrat and watch CNN?

Most power used for electric vehicles is produced using the fossils fuels you hate.

If the EV revolution was real then governments would be massively investing in the national grids to be able to charge them, they’re not, that should tell you everything you need to know.

“Global warming will raise sea levels” but we keep building on coastal land.

It’s all a lie, I suggest you do your own research, but I’m guessing your idealogy prevents this.

 

[mabaker]

By the looks of it, Vision Pro is next.

Of course. Good riddance.

 

[Juicy Box]

Apple was NEVER going to build a car.

I've been saying that for what feels like a decade at this point. It was somebody's pet project that was NEVER going to be a product.

That is a lot of R&D for a just pet project.

I think the original intentions was to build a car, and the more that Apple found out what went into car manufacturing, they pivoted to designing the SW for cars. When they were not making any progress on that, they abandoned it completely, attempting to recover some of the R&D by using tech that was originally meant for their car on other projects.

 

[Karllake]

That is a lot of R&D for a just pet project.

I think the original intentions was to build a car, and the more that Apple found out what went into car manufacturing, they pivoted to designing the SW for cars. When they were not making any progress on that, they abandoned it completely, attempting to recover some of the R&D by using tech that was originally meant for their car on other projects.

I imagine a major component of the driverless car element was the AI, a lot of this has probably not been wasted.

 

[Juicy Box]

I imagine a major component of the driverless car element was the AI, a lot of this has probably not been wasted.

You are probably correct about the AI, and it probably will not have been wasted, although too soon to tell that, I think.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Most power used for electric vehicles is produced using the fossils fuels you hate.

The nice thing about BEVs is that you can transparently change where and how the energy is generated without even touching the car. Can build the BEV today and down the road it's being charged by solar or nuclear.

I won't say anything about your other conspiracies. You're close to the truth but not in the way you'd think.

 

[Suicidy]

Does “all other players” include the auto manufacturers in your estimation. Probably not.

As long as Elon believes the FSD system needs data only from cameras, others will surpass what Tesla can offer. It’s just a matter of time. No established auto manufacturer is going to do what Musk did and claim they can offer autonomous driving years before it was feasible. Rest assured they are working the problem, and they are treating it with the seriousness it deserves rather than as a snake oil pitch.

The longer the better. Self driving cars are a terrible idea.

 

[Suicidy]

The nice thing about BEVs is that you can transparently change where and how the energy is generated without even touching the car. Can build the BEV today and down the road it's being charged by solar or nuclear.

I won't say anything about your other conspiracies. You're close to the truth but not in the way you'd think.

You can’t change batteries very easily, or without great expense.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

You can’t change batteries very easily, or without great expense.

You can't change an iPhone battery easily either. Should those be gas powered too?

 

[currocj]

Just buy Tesla Apple. Elon is a jerk anyway.

Reported you. Can we simply talk about apple’s failure here?

 

[currocj]

Shame for what exactly?

For failing?

 

[Karllake]

The nice thing about BEVs is that you can transparently change where and how the energy is generated without even touching the car. Can build the BEV today and down the road it's being charged by solar or nuclear.

I won't say anything about your other conspiracies. You're close to the truth but not in the way you'd think.

“Down the road” is now or it’s pointless, there’s no logic in running EV’s on fossil fuel electricity en mass. The “environmentalist” hate nuclear which is the only really viable option at the point.

What conspiracies?

 

[breenmask]

I never said he said that FSD is meant to be a conscious system. Read what I said again

you said

"He believes given enough data, something like human consciousness and intelligence can arise, eliminating the need for all these sensors since humans just need eyes and a mind to drive. "

You suggested enough data can breed "like human consciousness" enough to drive.

Sorry, but I think you're trying to change what you said earlier. And you won't answer who "Charlie Doyle" is and you're trying to change the article to a one sided article of the direct company I put into question. This is an endpoint here. 👋

 

[breenmask]

Sure, but not with a robotaxi only having two seats and FSD needing human intervention every 12 miles on average.

FSD doesn't need intervention every 12 miles. Just did a full LA to Vegas trip with zero interventions.

Waymo doesn't have humans in the car to intervene when it makes mistakes. Can't count interventions if there aren't any humans to check if it needs to intervene lol.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791628222599409709

I like the design of the robotaxi and the bus - nice 30ies/60ies style - but two seats is a joke.

average car occupancy is <2 seats. you're wasting energy by having 5 seats where less than half is full

For sure, autonomous driving will eventually work and just need cameras. But other electric car manufacturers have already mostly cought up with Tesla or even deliver a better experience in some parts (better build quality, more hardware buttons, car play,...).

Tesla has had quality complaints for many years yet Model Y is the best selling car last year and legacy automakers are slashing outlook left and right.

There's no need for CarPlay in a robotaxi. You'll be bringing your own laptop to work or iPad to watch.

More buttons is terrible and again, don't need it in a robotaxi.

I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla went belly up before FSD becomes reliable enough and electric cars get cheap enough ($30k for a two seater is still way too much for a sustainable mass market - see electric vehicle sales stalling as the upper middle class or higher market becomes saturated)

This is hilarious. $30k for a robotaxi that makes money for you and gets local products delivered to you for the cost of energy/maintenance instead of paying uber eats? $30k is compelling.

 

[cicalinarrot]

You almost need a jerk leader to build revolutionary products - Elon alone has Tesla, spaceX and starlink. Then there’s Steve Jobs and Sam Altman for OpenAI as further examples. If you’re a “nice” leader that bows to public opinion you get today’s Google with Sundar Pichai, todays Apple with Tim Cook and the Chevy Blazer with Mary Barra. You must make your own decision if you want awesome products or pleasant CEOs

A little more complex than that.
But if I had to say it in a simple way, I'd say Musk is just a social network jerk who can afford to fail much more than other startup idiots because people keep giving him money anyway. People are literally beta-testing his unsafe truck right now for higher prices than he promised.
He can do what NASA couldn't because he can afford to waste much more money since it's not public money.

That's not remotely how Apple operates. Apple gets bad PR for phones bending if you literally sit on them, he makes an accelerator pedal that tries to kill you and fans think he's real-life Tony Stark.
We don't want jerks, we want products that work.

 

[Premium1]

FYI: Apple cancelled the car project after realizing what Tesla was working on with the robotaxi and the robovan.

Source:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1844636946309747002

All other players in the market are headed towards extinction. Waymo too. Their only hope is to license FSD from Tesla.

Sorry, but it's just facts.

Yes because hasn't FSD been "a few months away" for like 6 years now?

 

[ANDJOE]

For failing?

You’d prefer they only make safe bets?

 

[diamond.g]

“Down the road” is now or it’s pointless, there’s no logic in running EV’s on fossil fuel electricity en mass. The “environmentalist” hate nuclear which is the only really viable option at the point.

What conspiracies?

Moving the tailpipe pollution to where power is generated is better than leaving it in city centers, or so it seems.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

For failing?

Can't fail at what you never intended to do.

Apple was NEVER going to build a car. We can argue if they spent too much on somebody's pet project that they let go on for too long or if the research was planned to be used for something else, but a car was NEVER going to happen as an actual product.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

The nice thing about BEVs is that you can transparently change where and how the energy is generated without even touching the car. Can build the BEV today and down the road it's being charged by solar or nuclear.

I won't say anything about your other conspiracies. You're close to the truth but not in the way you'd think.

The power mix in the US is already over 20% renewable and nearly 20% nuclear. Coal is down to about 16% and dropping. Fossil gas is too high and more is unfortunately being built, but it's at least better than coal.

And even with coal you're better off with BEV than ICE, it's still more efficient to charge a battery than burn oil at point of use.

So electric cars are a good call no matter what. But that has nothing to do with Apple not building a car that they were never gonna anyway.

And Apple is a terrible company to do business with. They're known for throwing hissy fits and dropping suppliers on a whim, they demand suppliers make tiny margins while they take all the profit, they intentionally destroyed their own dealer network, and when it comes to car companies, as big as they are they're too small to buy one. And there's no way they could design a car on their own, it's just way beyond their competence. Cars require long term planning, are heavily regulated, require long-term support (you don't get to declare a car 'obsolete' 7 years after you end production of a model), and are really, really hard to do well. Computers are comparatively easy, and virtually unregulated. The FCC is nothing compared to NHTSA.

 

[Karllake]

And even with coal you're better off with BEV than ICE, it's still more efficient to charge a battery than burn oil at point of use.

You think it’s cleaner to have a coal power station, transmit the power (with losses) and then charge the battery (with losses) than to run an ICE?

 

[Karllake]

The power mix in the US is already over 20% renewable and nearly 20% nuclear. Coal is down to about 16% and dropping. Fossil gas is too high and more is unfortunately being built, but it's at least better than coal.

Do you know 80% of statics are made up?

These seem inflated:

U.S. energy facts explained - consumption and production - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. energy supply by types of energy sources and energy consumption by transportation, industrial, commercial, residential, and electric power sectors.

www.eia.gov

 

[August West]

His numbers are pretty close to spot on according to this EIA table.

 

[diamond.g]

You think it’s cleaner to have a coal power station, transmit the power (with losses) and then charge the battery (with losses) than to run an ICE?

In a city (or at your house)? Yes. Plus it is cheaper to clean up that coal plant versus trying to clean up (on average) 13 year old vehicles on the road today.

 

[Karllake]

In a city (or at your house)? Yes. Plus it is cheaper to clean up that coal plant versus trying to clean up (on average) 13 year old vehicles on the road today.

We were talking about overall environmental impact. Coal to EV is not cleaner than an ICE