Apple Continues to Expand Self-Driving Car Fleet

[ActionableMango]

That's like suggesting that I can't drive.

That's not what I meant at all, and if I implies otherwise then I apologize. I'm sure you can drive.

And I'm not against self-driving cars. I also really like Musk and Tesla.

The only point in my post is that we shouldn't claim cars are self driving until they can truly drive themselves. "Mostly" self-driving is not the same as self-driving.

My dad is elderly and cannot drive a car any more. If we truly had self-driving cars, he'd have a car. My mom probably shouldn't drive any more, and unfortunately she lives nowhere near mass transit. I have no idea what to do about her--a truly self-driving car would be perfect, but there are none available for purchase yet.

 

[RealAppleFan]

CanTheyFocusOnNewMacbookProblemsFirstBecauseMySpacebarStillDoesn'tWork.

WhatTheEffApple?

 

[autrefois]

Apple can't even get the keyboard on the MacBook Pro right. Why would we trust them with self-driving car tech?

And before people say, do you really think the same people designing the keyboard will be working on self-driving cars? It's a fair enough point, but Apple has had over 40 years of experience with making keyboards. I've been using PowerBooks/MacBooks for 2 decades and am afraid to purchase a new one due to widespread reports of keyboards that start out clunky and have keys that stop working.

Apple's never released a car. What should inspire me as a consumer to get any new car right--much less a self-driving one--when they can't even take care of one of their core businesses?

 

[norbinhouston]

Apple can't even get the keyboard on the MacBook Pro right. Why would we trust them with self-driving car tech?

And before people say, do you really think the same people designing the keyboard will be working on self-driving cars? It's a fair enough point, but Apple has had over 40 years of experience with making keyboards. I've been using PowerBooks/MacBooks for 2 decades and am afraid to purchase a new one due to widespread reports of keyboards that start out clunky and have keys that stop working.

Apple's never released a car. What should inspire me as a consumer to get any new car right--much less a self-driving one--when they can't even take care of one of their core businesses?

Just keep Jony Ive away and it'll work as intended.

 

[frank777]

Exciting news but the Lexuses look hideous! They could get a low end Mercedes or BMW for the same price for their tests probably.

 

[SeattleMoose]

Cant wait to read all the fanboy excuses when the iCar starts running people over and causing accidents.

No that would be the "Googmobile"...

 

[IJ Reilly]

Most sensible post you’ve made in ages IMO! Well they aren’t spending money on the R&D for nothing, we don’t know though what they are doing with car AI, weather they are building a car or just developing the systems? With the rumours indicating more towards them developing the tech only, that may then be a driver in revenue but it’ll be exclusive as a business to business offering rather then direct to the consumer.

I think a push more into health monitoring may be more true? I guess we’ll see with the new Apple Watch design, I’m impressed with what mine can do know from the sensors it’s got!

We don't know is the most important part of what you said. The so-called "pivot" from an Apple-branded car was based almost entirely on speculation and the echo-chamber affect. The evidence that they were actually working on this project was practically nil and exaggerated, and the arguments against it were legion and completely disregarded. I wonder why after all these years some still think Apple isn't going to surprise us with a direction they've taken.

 

[Rogifan]

I'll be shocked if Apple licenses its self-driving tech to other companies. That's just not how they do things. We all know what happened way back when they licensed MacOS. I'm sure plenty of third parties would love to build iOS-based devices today, but Apple would never go that route. So I find it hard to believe that they will do it with a self-driving system.

I don’t think it will happen because what auto company needs Apple? Self driving and autonomous vehicle systems are about a lot more than the look/navigation of the UI on the dashboard. And most auto companies have already been working on this stuff for years. Also like you say it’s not Apple’s MO to license software for use with someone else’s hardware. Either Apple is working on its own vehicle or working with another company on a fleet of ride-sharing vehicles.
[doublepost=1526335668][/doublepost]

We don't know is the most important part of what you said. The so-called "pivot" from an Apple-branded car was based almost entirely on speculation and the echo-chamber affect. The evidence that they were actually working on this project was practically nil and exaggerated, and the arguments against it were legion and completely disregarded. I wonder why after all these years some still think Apple isn't going to surprise us with a direction they've taken.

If you can’t get the autonomous/self-driving systems working correctly building a car is pointless. It only makes sense for Apple to focus on the software first.

 

[0002378]

I can only hope that my aging body gives out before these shameful "self-driving cars" come to fruition.

Let's see what excuses they come up with when their car drives through a residential neighborhood and runs a bunch of kids over ... there will be a lot more to fix than a software bug.

Do they think this is a ******* joke ?
[doublepost=1526336617][/doublepost]

Cant wait to read all the fanboy excuses when the iCar starts running people over and causing accidents.

I once watched a documentary in which it was said ... "Stupidity is dangerous, but intelligent stupidity is terrifying."

 

[SteveW928]

They can waste money and resources on this, yet they can't update the Mac line?

 

[IJ Reilly]

If you can’t get the autonomous/self-driving systems working correctly building a car is pointless. It only makes sense for Apple to focus on the software first.

My point is, Apple building a car is pointless. A capital intensive, low margin product involving heavy manufacturing, mechanical systems, and a completely unfamiliar supply chain, never sounded like a plausible project for Apple. Not only is all of this completely outside of Apple's areas of expertise, it is contrary to their entire history and corporate culture. Consequently, I never believed it was real in the first place. So to me, calling this a "pivot" to software fundamentally makes no sense. My read is that we don't know what they are going after, but if we are guessing, it should be guesses that makes sense for what Apple does well.

 

[SteveW928]

I can only hope that my aging body gives out before these shameful "self-driving cars" come to fruition.

Let's see what excuses they come up with when their car drives through a residential neighborhood and runs a bunch of kids over ... there will be a lot more to fix than a software bug.

Do they think this is a ******* joke ?

Yea, same here.

No, I think they actually believe it will work. Tech progress + time = magic!
Unfortunately, it's based on some false presuppositions.

 

[0002378]

it's based on some false presuppositions.

Yes, like thinking that real life is like a Terminator movie or a VR game. Like thinking that a computer can do even a small fraction of what the human mind can.

 

[SteveW928]

Yes, like thinking that real life is like a Terminator movie or a VR game. Like thinking that a computer can do even a small fraction of what the human mind can.

Yes, forgetting that it is artificial, and applying that to understand its limitations. I like ML (machine learning) better than AI (artificial intelligence). AI is too easily associated with what our minds are doing.

It's quite a useful technology, when properly utilized. But driving cars isn't really a good application (infinite edge cases). Even the people who properly understand AI/ML are playing an odds game with it (i.e.: the idea that if we can 'teach' the system enough, eventually, that it will - on average - surpass human drivers). Or, to put in in the context... it might still run over that groups of school kids, but overall it will save lives. That's the goal, and even that is in question, IMO.

 

[Baymowe335]

Bryan Chaffin, who writes for the Mac Observer website, says there’s a reason Apple management is being so aggressive with the stock buybacks and he doesn’t think it’s about incremental changes to services revenue. He thinks something big will be coming from Apple in the next couple years that management feels will be a significant growth driver. I’m wondering if it’s something health related like non-invasive glucose monitoring or something to do with the car project.

The stock is hugely undervalued with just its current business and incredible services growth. You're paying a very low multiple for the most profitable company in the world, revenue growth across the board, booming China, Services growing at 20%+, wearables exploding, a gigantic cash position, a NEW $100B buyback, and now the greatest investor of all time behind it.

You get all that without even considering the expansion to other things the market can't see. In 10 years, I think we'll be looking at AAPL $190 and asking, how did we not buy more that cheap?

Apple and Buffett definitiely see it that way and are backing it up with $150B and counting.

 

[Regime2008]

Apple cars probably have the AI of Siri :/

 

[IJ Reilly]

In 10 years, I think we'll be looking at AAPL $190 and asking, how did we not buy more that cheap?

Wow, up 1 percent in ten years. That should be exciting.

 

[SteveW928]

Apple and Buffett definitiely see it that way and are backing it up with $150B and counting.

That's if they don't mess up to bad. A large part of the markets are also perception/speculation. And, with Apple transitioning from a quality product company to a fashion/services/consumer-electronics company, things could go wrong much more easily.

Apple cars probably have the AI of Siri :/

LOL, no kidding. Look at the state of all the AI for virtual assistants, social media moderation, etc. and then ask yourself... do I want that driving around on the road with thousands of pounds of steel?

There is a canyon-like gap between the public/media perception and reality, here.

 

[Baymowe335]

Are buybacks and dividends the same thing (do they at least have correlation?) The dividends from AAPL are okay, but my index funds are paying better dividends.

Anyways, I wouldn't care too much about what Apple executives think about how they stack up to the competitors. Remember that they're the ones who repeatedly tout Siri and Apple Music.

Healthcare is definitely blue water that Apple could make a big splash in.

Autos... there's a lot of blue water left, but entering it requires some massive, time consuming moves. Tesla is working on building the world's largest building, and once fully operational, it'll allow them to capture ~1% of the global market. Building a factory like this is going to take years, and presumably you'll want to prove it out for a year or two before you invest in building more of them, so it's going to take Apple ~5 years from start to dominance if they want to do the whole car approach.

If they want to do parternships like CarPlay... Google has been trying that for a long time and seem to be moving even slower than Tesla.

Might want to educate yourself on buybacks since it's such a huge part of the Apple story. They are totally different.

Apple has the biggest buyback in history. They've already bought back $200B in stock and have $10B left in the old capital return program and a NEW $100B buyback starting this quarter. They will aggressively deploy that capital because they believe the stock is undervalued.

Buybacks are my preferred method for capital return because they are more tax efficient than dividends and permanently increase EPS, quarter after quarter. Buybacks essentially make the remaining shares more valuable by reducing the number of shares available to own.

Dividends are fine and they did raise it from $0.63 to $0.73, but give me buybacks, at least for AAPL any day. The stock is so hugely undervalued that it makes perfect sense to buyback shares at these levels. Apple is still well within reasonable prices for buybacks, even at all time highs. Buybacks make sense at one price but not another price, so the company should always monitor valuation.

Sidenote: Warren Buffett, the greatest investor of all time, loves that AAPL is buying back its shares because he understands math and scale. He faces the same issue with Berkshire Hathaway. It's simply too hard to find big enough business to buy at prices that make sense.

People want to cry about not making a huge acquisition with their $265B in cash, but don't listen to them. You really think NFLX is worth $150B (almost as much as Disney) and will be accretive to Apple's bottom line? Apple's size is so big, the biggest impact they can make is buying back themselves.

 

[icrude]

Could it be possible that they are scanning roads just like Cadillac did for their SuperCruise technology? Maybe the reason George Hotz got out of the business wasn’t because he was being threatened but because Apple secretly bought his idea for their own software. Is that entirely impossible?

 

[Baymowe335]

That's if they don't mess up to bad. A large part of the markets are also perception/speculation. And, with Apple transitioning from a quality product company to a fashion/services/consumer-electronics company, things could go wrong much more easily.



LOL, no kidding. Look at the state of all the AI for virtual assistants, social media moderation, etc. and then ask yourself... do I want that driving around on the road with thousands of pounds of steel?

There is a canyon-like gap between the public/media perception and reality, here.

So you're saying stocks aren't guaranteed to go up? This is not a new concept. Every company has risks, fierce competition, and potential to screw up. Do any of the numbers indicate this is happening at Apple? Frankly, no. The numbers are absolutely phenomenal. They are killing it.

As much as you read people angry with Apple on this forum, it simply isn't reality. People buy their products, use their services, and say they are satisfied more than ever in the history of Apple. Apple is about the least speculative stock you can own. It's so cheap and so dominant for the quality of earnings.

When the facts change, I'll change (as will Apple) but there is nothing substantive that supports your concerns at this point. In business and investing, you always have to look back to the earnings at the end of the day. Sentiment can drive stocks in the short term, but fundamentals prevail in the long term. Fundamentally, Apple has never been better. You simply can't rely on these forums for your Apple sentiment. It's plainly wrong.

 

[Tech198]

I question these "safety drivers"

How safe?

There will always be the bunch of users who will never buy autonomous vehicles . Safety aside, use it where it matters most. I don't think its proven itself on roads yet .

But safety should always come 1st, so why isn't it?

 

[SteveW928]

So you're saying stocks aren't guaranteed to go up? This is not a new concept. Every company has risks, fierce competition, and potential to screw up. Do any of the numbers indicate this is happening at Apple? Frankly, no. The numbers are absolutely phenomenal. They are killing it.

As much as you read people angry with Apple on this forum, it simply isn't reality. People buy their products, use their services, and say they are satisfied more than ever in the history of Apple. Apple is about the least speculative stock you can own. It's so cheap and so dominant for the quality of earnings.

When the facts change, I'll change (as will Apple) but there is nothing substantive that supports your concerns at this point. In business and investing, you always have to look back to the earnings at the end of the day. Sentiment can drive stocks in the short term, but fundamentals prevail in the long term. Fundamentally, Apple has never been better. You simply can't rely on these forums for your Apple sentiment. It's plainly wrong.

Why did Apple stock recently drop to around $150, then? Did the company suddenly lose a bunch of value and regain it in a matter of weeks? I'm all for long term investing, and largely agree with the principals you're putting out there, but I'm just noting that too much of it is a legitimized form of gambling for the wealthy these days. (i.e.: not investment, but speculation... which is bad for the investment side)

But, my main point in regards to Apple, is that I've watched Apple for over 30 years now. I've been one of those 'evangelists' for the company. I was telling people to buy AAPL back in the 90s (when all the financial experts were thinking they were doomed), because the products were so excellent and the foundational principals of the company were so good, that if they didn't go out of business (not likely, even then), they were insanely valuable.

Today, however, I'm questioning this. Not in the near-term, but long-term. From what I've seen, their fundamentals have shifted, and I'd say, not for the better. They have tons of cash and even more image and brand momentum... and yes, the numbers are stellar. But, that could all change if they don't shape up. Product excellence and attention to UX are what brought Apple their success. Pie-chart and marketing driven design, fashion, and just OK services aren't going to cut it long term.

 

[0002378]

infinite edge cases

That sums it up for me. That is reason enough not to allow this self-driving cars farce.

Personally, I believe that one form of intelligence (human brain) can never create another more advanced form of intelligence. In other words, whatever the human brain creates will always have a subset of the intelligence of the human brain. We cannot create something smarter than us.

Even in the field of aviation, where traffic collisions are much more improbable (due to much lower traffic density and vertical separation provided by ATCs), they have done numerous studies on human behavior vs machine behavior. Airbus believes more strongly in giving computers control in emergency cases vs humans (and this has backfired countless times). Boeing believes more in giving humans control in emergency cases (and of course, pilot error remains a major factor in most accidents).

All said and done, the human brain is far superior when it comes to real-time creative problem solving. And, the "real-time" part of that is of particular importance in the operation of an automobile. So is the "creative" part of it, because, as you mentioned, there are infinite edge cases that no computer can cover comprehensively.

 

[SteveW928]

Personally, I believe that one form of intelligence (human brain) can never create another more advanced form of intelligence. In other words, whatever the human brain creates will always have a subset of the intelligence of the human brain. We cannot create something smarter than us.
...
All said and done, the human brain is far superior when it comes to real-time creative problem solving. And, the "real-time" part of that is of particular importance in the operation of an automobile. So is the "creative" part of it, because, as you mentioned, there are infinite edge cases that no computer can cover comprehensively.

Yes, if one has a bit of understanding of philosophy, or especially philosophy of mind, the problem is quickly recognized. It isn't even about superiority, the two aren't in the same category. That doesn't mean the technology is useless, but I'd limit it to assistive capacities (and even then, it could be dangerous).