It was very prudent of them to get out of this crowded risky market before entering it. As a stock holder, thank you Apple for not falling into the sunk cost fallacy. I hope that the generated IP can be useful, perhaps through a partner.
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 Car History - Where Did Development Go Wrong?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One of the most risky business endeavors is supplying some types of automotive subassemblies or parts. A example that has had catastrophic instances is producing Airbags or as some like to call them burn bags. You can build a factory to make them, but if they are recalled because of some defect or part of your plant explodes there goes all your profitability. Thats the same with making an autonomous electric car which Apple was rumored to be involved with. Who wants that involvement with consumer recalls or lawsuits?
ChatGPT is leagues ahead of Siri. If I were going to put bets on the worst assistant award, I'd go Siri or Tesla's implementation (if you could even call that AI more than voice detection).
It's still terrible.
Remember when a lawyer made the mistake of using it to write a brief? It made up citations for court cases that did not exist. The only thing it's really good at is being confidently wrong.
Siri is arguably better than ChatGPT, because while it doesn't give you as much, it's more accurate.
Isn’t the average company car kept for about 3 years? That accounts for the large number of three year old secondhand cars that are available. I doubt your friend with 4 electric cars in 10 years scrapped them. They just sold them on, surely?
Autonomous driving needs to be a government-mandated standard for the same reason that traffic signals and road rules do, for the same reason that the internet isn't a product but an agreement. This isn't effective if only some cars have it.
It isn't even sufficiently effective if we strive for partial autonomy because constant engagement is a lot easier than having to know when to take over from the autonomous system.
One right approach to trial this would be an autonomous vehicle lane or lanes... but participation in this is like the HOV lane. People are constantly violating HOV lane regulations, at least in the U.S., because we haven't had the appropriate investment in public transit and city planning to help facilitate common commuter routes. If everyone has to go in all sorts of different directions in a sprawling geography, then you end up with lots of single occupant vehicles on the road, and then you end up with tons of single occupant vehicles clogging HOV lanes in every direction.
So I'm just not sure this will ever work without a MAJOR overhaul of public transit and city planning infrastructure first to lay a foundation around which autonomous driving can work safely.
It isn't even sufficiently effective if we strive for partial autonomy because constant engagement is a lot easier than having to know when to take over from the autonomous system.
One right approach to trial this would be an autonomous vehicle lane or lanes... but participation in this is like the HOV lane. People are constantly violating HOV lane regulations, at least in the U.S., because we haven't had the appropriate investment in public transit and city planning to help facilitate common commuter routes. If everyone has to go in all sorts of different directions in a sprawling geography, then you end up with lots of single occupant vehicles on the road, and then you end up with tons of single occupant vehicles clogging HOV lanes in every direction.
So I'm just not sure this will ever work without a MAJOR overhaul of public transit and city planning infrastructure first to lay a foundation around which autonomous driving can work safely.
Great engineering is when you pull the plug on a product once you know realise it can't be done to your specification. I am wild guessing Apple just didn't see a product that would be massively profitable. At this stage I am also guessing they were looking 15-20 years into the future and all they could see was an ever declining market of car ownership.
I don't know that anything has actually gone wrong and no one really knows if it's cancelled or just shelved for the moment.
What's absolutely clear is that demand for EVs has fallen through the floor, as have profits and everyone is scaling back. Tesla profits are down 25%.
The market is also far more uncertain than it was because there have been two reports recently that solid state batteries are just around the corner, plus AI has become a big thing in the last couple of years and that will change everything.
So maybe they've just said 'Now isn't the time' and they will leave it a couple of years or so to see how things pan out. Of course, they will have to reassign people in the meantime, and it's such a secretive company they aren't saying but it's entirely possible that they will start up the project again in a few years, but with companies like Rivian struggling, it isn't looking like a good time to get into the business at the moment.
What's absolutely clear is that demand for EVs has fallen through the floor, as have profits and everyone is scaling back. Tesla profits are down 25%.
The market is also far more uncertain than it was because there have been two reports recently that solid state batteries are just around the corner, plus AI has become a big thing in the last couple of years and that will change everything.
So maybe they've just said 'Now isn't the time' and they will leave it a couple of years or so to see how things pan out. Of course, they will have to reassign people in the meantime, and it's such a secretive company they aren't saying but it's entirely possible that they will start up the project again in a few years, but with companies like Rivian struggling, it isn't looking like a good time to get into the business at the moment.
I never believed these rumors. I'm not saying that Apple wasn't experimenting with it, or that it hasn't made progress with Lidar or advanced driving systems, but the automotive market has too little profit margin for what Apple is used to (most automotive groups are for below 10% when Apple has margins of around 20/25%). Ferrari, which is the brand with the highest profit margin, is around 25%, with Tesla being second with 17%. The rest of the automobile groups are below 15%.
I also don't think Apple's car was disruptive enough to be worth the extra price they asked for it (which based on their profit margins, would have been expensive, very expensive).
Apple has to experiment and try new things, but I believe that technology manufacturers should stay where they know, in technology. A car is very different from a telephone, both in its own conception and after-sales service and so on.
I get the feeling that Apple has fallen behind in terms of software and product in recent years, partly because of the Vision Pro and partly because of these much more ambitious projects. But iOS has many shortcomings, iOS needs an urgent redesign, Apple's AI exists, but other manufacturers have overtaken it to the right (we'll see what they come out with this year), I see Apple's designs as stagnant... Apple needs to reinvent itself and be fresh again, because I haven't been excited about anything from the brand for years.
I also don't think Apple's car was disruptive enough to be worth the extra price they asked for it (which based on their profit margins, would have been expensive, very expensive).
Apple has to experiment and try new things, but I believe that technology manufacturers should stay where they know, in technology. A car is very different from a telephone, both in its own conception and after-sales service and so on.
I get the feeling that Apple has fallen behind in terms of software and product in recent years, partly because of the Vision Pro and partly because of these much more ambitious projects. But iOS has many shortcomings, iOS needs an urgent redesign, Apple's AI exists, but other manufacturers have overtaken it to the right (we'll see what they come out with this year), I see Apple's designs as stagnant... Apple needs to reinvent itself and be fresh again, because I haven't been excited about anything from the brand for years.
Relying entirely on cameras like Tesla does is a mistake. LIDAR is vital for autonomous driving, supported by sensors and cameras, of course.
Both LIDAR and cameras need real-time processing and need AI to determine the situations the car is facing at any given time.
A LIDAR is a much more accurate sensor that is capable of mapping what is in front of the car, and that does not have the disadvantages of a camera when the sun is shining or there is fog or heavy rain.
The problem is that making real autonomous driving is much more complicated than manufacturers thought, even Tesla, which no matter how much it tries to sell it in another way, has been stuck at level 2 of autonomy for a long time, being overtaken by other manufacturers, such as Mercedes-Benz, which uses radars and additional sensors in addition to cameras, by the way.
Please, watch any video of Tesla's FSD v12 software on Youtube before speaking nonsense.
Quite literally the most speculative thing I have ever read!
After spending a decade developing an autonomous car, Apple this week decided it was time to pull an AirPower and shut down the project. The Apple Car is no more, and Apple is no longer planning to release an Apple-branded electric vehicle.
The hundreds of engineers and car experts who were working on the vehicle will be laid off or distributed to other teams within Apple, including the AI team. The Apple Car is one of the longest running rumors that we've been reporting on without a product materializing, so we thought we'd take a look back at some of the key moments in the Apple Car's history to provide some insight into what went wrong.
2015 - Early Development
In early 2015, a van leased to Apple surfaced on the streets of Concord, California with LiDAR equipment on its roof. Apple had been using vans like this for mapping purposes, but the hardware looked similar to hardware being used by companies testing self-driving software. This one vehicle sighting ended up sparking a slew of rumors.
That same month, an unnamed Apple employee told Business Insider that Apple would "give Tesla a run for its money," and Financial Times claimed that Apple was recruiting automotive technology and vehicle design experts to work in a "top-secret research lab." The Wall Street Journal then broke a story with in-depth details on the hundreds of employees working on an Apple-branded minivan-like electric vehicle.
There were a number of other key headlines and details shared in 2015.
- Apple CEO Tim Cook reportedly approved the self-driving car project in 2014.
- At the time, the project was led by Steve Zadesky, Apple VP of Product Design and a former Ford engineer. It was overseen by Dan Riccio, Apple's SVP of hardware engineering.
- In 2015, Bloomberg said that Apple was hoping to produce the car by 2020. Later, the WSJ said it could be ready as soon as 2019.
- Apple was said to be meeting with Magna Steyr, BMW, and automotive companies as it sought a partner.
- The Guardian published a report that Apple wasn't just working on an electric vehicle, it was working on an autonomous vehicle. The report also said that Apple had prototypes ready for testing, which wasn't accurate.
- Former General Motors CEO Dan Akerson said that Apple was underestimating the difficulty of operating in the car business. "They have no idea what they're getting into," he said.
- Apple hired a ton of vehicle experts from automotive companies and from companies with expertise in autonomous vehicles.
- Apple's "secret" car headquarters were located in Sunnyvale, California, close to the Infinite Loop campus.
2016 and 2017 - First Signs of Strife Lead to Major Upheaval
The first hints of trouble with the Apple Car project surfaced in January 2016, with Apple Car lead Steve Zadesky departing the company. Around this time, Apple registered several domain names, including apple.car and apple.auto.
Former Apple SVP of technologies Bob Mansfield came out of retirement to head up the project, and under his direction, rumors suggested that Apple was focusing on an autonomous driving system with the aim of partnering with a car manufacturer in the future. Apple kept aggressively hiring, and at this time, split development into the hardware for the car and the software that would run on it.
With the transition to Mansfield's leadership, hundreds of employees were fired or reassigned, and in late 2016, there was a major upheaval. Apple "abandoned" plans to build its own vehicle and gave Mansfield's team a 2017 deadline to prove the feasibility of a self-driving system.
In early 2017, white Lexus RX450h SUVs outfitted with LiDAR equipment and piloted by Apple employees were spotted in the Bay Area, and Apple has used these vehicles to test its autonomous driving systems up until now. Apple was also rumored to be testing its self-driving technology at a facility in Arizona.
Apple at this time was also working on building an autonomous shuttle in partnership with Volkswagen to ferry employees to the Infinite Loop campus, but that was nixed.
Tim Cook made the unusual decision to confirm that Apple was working on autonomous driving. "We're focusing on autonomous systems," Cook said. "It's a core technology that we view as very important." He went on to say that it was the "mother of all AI projects," describing it as "o... Click here to read rest of article
Article Link: Apple Car History - Where Did Development Go Wrong?
I will say stupid things, but these are just some of the examples of how "well" the FSD V12 works and going all-in with the cameras (even for parking maneuvers). Even a "simple" Peugeot has a better parking system than the Tesla.
The first link has been an on and off again issue with FSD since v10, I've not had it happen to me, but I could see situations where it would probably try to get around slow moving vehicles improperly. The second link is my fear with unprotected left turns (I don't let my car try them at all and probably still won't when I get v12 access). The third link can only really be fixed with a bumper camera (it also doesn't have anything to do with v12 per se).
I've still not seen FSD handle school bus stop signs, nor yield signs in an acceptable manner, and I'm not sure if it is a vision problem, or a vehicle control issue. Generally speaking FSD seems to handle itself fairly well where I live.
So are these videos real or fake? I don't care which account it comes from, those videos are real and it shows that the FSD V12 is seriously flawed.
There are many more similar videos, they are mere examples of reality.
As a user of FSD I don't think it is seriously flawed. It has flaws. Since you are supposed to be in control anyways it is fairly easy to stop any mistakes from being made (imo).
Really the biggest impediment to FSD is going to be getting folks to not want it to drive like them. FSD being (probably overly) cautious is ideal, but feels unnatural and thus folks ask for it to do things that it shouldn't do (remember the California Stop issue that NHTSA hit Tesla on?).
I see it failing in my opinion, that although it works well in "simple" environments, when complex tasks arrive, the car starts to do "weird" things like the ones seen in the videos. Is it a problem of the cameras, the software or a mix of both? I don't know, but calling it FSD and being considered not to be in beta, seems excessive to me.
Mercedes benz does have a level 3 autonomous driving system in the US and Germany, and it carries radars and LIDAR, and cameras too.
That Tesla is trying to do everything with cameras because it is cheaper seems perfect to me, but these have physical limitations that with the addition of more sensors makes it more reliable. Just like parking a car with cameras is comfortable, but parking sensors help you where the camera does not reach.
FSD is a great driving assistance system, but its name is still far from being a reality (in my opinion). In Europe, in fact, at the moment it is not authorized to work, although they have changed the regulations. We will see how it works here in Europe, with more winding roads, traffic circles and more complex environments than the Americans roads.
I live "in the country" so we have a lot of two lane back roads, where the vehicle tends to slow down in curves (even though a person driving wouldn't slow down). The couple of roundabouts that are in OBX have somewhat confused the car (it doesn't seem to respond to yield signs like I think it should).
The Mercedes system is cool, but as far as I know it only works in low speed traffic jams on a highway, which is a fairly simple environment.
Literally nothing went wrong. They did the right thing if it was truly in development and now cancelled. Cars are climate ruining death machines that no level of Apple greenwashing can change.
Apple literally had no idea with Electronic vehicles
1. They have no freaking technologies for making a car.
Seriously, they have no such things and yet, making cars require tons of high-end technology which Apple lacks a lot. Even Tesla took more than 20 years to establish. Since Apple has no technologies in terms of vehicle, it's already failed before they even start. Beside, where are they gonna make parts? They still need to rely on suppliers.
2. Nobody wished to do subcontract with Apple.
This is what you get when you wanted to treat world class companies like Foxconn. Nobody wanted to work for Apple and wasted their time and technology. They know how Apple treated suppliers.
Clearly, it's already fail right after they started. They know nothing about cars and therefore, it's an epic fail.
1. They have no freaking technologies for making a car.
Seriously, they have no such things and yet, making cars require tons of high-end technology which Apple lacks a lot. Even Tesla took more than 20 years to establish. Since Apple has no technologies in terms of vehicle, it's already failed before they even start. Beside, where are they gonna make parts? They still need to rely on suppliers.
2. Nobody wished to do subcontract with Apple.
This is what you get when you wanted to treat world class companies like Foxconn. Nobody wanted to work for Apple and wasted their time and technology. They know how Apple treated suppliers.
Clearly, it's already fail right after they started. They know nothing about cars and therefore, it's an epic fail.
Your take on Titan is where I thought Apple was headed, not just another car in the traditional sense, but an innovative urban/suburban vehicle reimagining. As for acquiring Rivian, I don't know what that achieves seeing as how Volvo, who know a thing or two about cars, just ended funding for Polestar.
Volvo Will Stop Funding Polestar EV Brand but Keep Collaborating
Geely—the two automakers' Chinese parent company—will now fully support Polestar, which has two new EVs on the way.www.caranddriver.com
Presumably, Apple still has the objectives that led to them investing billions and a decade into this car. Rivian is farther along – they have an actual commercialized set of vehicles – and are a fairly easy acquisition target given that Apple can buy them with cash on hand.
Even if Apple were to acquire Rivian and let them operate as they are now, it's already an operational business and they could quickly add CarPlay natively and leverage a synergy with Apple's ecosystem and data. Integrating Apple's decade worth of EV R&D can come later.
The alternative is not great: they miss out on whatever their strategic objective was, lose billions in R&D and patents will expire without a Statement of Use.
Apple should acquire Rivian. Worse case scenario, Apple owns an independently operated automative company.
AI is brand new to Teslas and hasn’t really been hyped. So far it works great. Keep complaining.