I would much rather have Elon Musk remain in control at Tesla.
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 Hiring Autonomous Vehicle Experts, Including Tesla Engineer Now Working on 'Special Projects'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I will guess that's maybe they are after all the big data business that many of the auto manufacturers hasn't been able to fully leverage/manage. The partnership with IBM may hint some great opportunities to develop technical solutions to manufacturing issues that may help car companies to solve plus enable harvesting data from vehicles in a away that will help them capture actual customer vehicle usage for future Apple Car solutions. Apple end goal maybe to figure out ways Apple customers to stop wasting time driving the vehicles and focus on using Apple devices to consume more and more Apple stuff.
I see your point but there is a difference if they bought an existing company, or they started from scratch. If Apple bought Honda then they have no problems, but they are building from scratch.
Any company can start anything they want, but being successful at it is a different story. Again, I am ok with a subsidiary, but I will never take a Google pills or ride a Nestle airplanes.
I burst out in laughter. Thank you for that.Apple Car? No thanks. I'd rather be driving this.
By the gods that is ugly.
That timeframe is for an established company. For someone operating in a completely foreign space could be even more significant, not to mention costly. Keep in mind that car companies have spent well over $5 billion just to produce a redesigned model of an existing vehicle.
I'm too skittish to pull the trigger on TSLA. Understandably, they a new company trying to enter a market with high barriers so costs are high. However, they have set their goal to make a profit in 2020. Last year they lost about 300 million on 3 billion in sales. The value in Telsa is largely through their stock, and the expectation that they will do great things in the future.
The technology for self-driving cars is already sufficient to replace human drivers and reduce total number of accidents. You are correct though in that it will be slow progress to allowing that. This is why you see so many vehicles introducing safety technology that "takes over" when you're about to do something stupid. It's a way to familiarize drivers with the root technology. Humans have an illogical aversion to letting technology replace them as drivers. As a race, we are horrible pilots.
In addition to voice systems...
Well, it's a little bit harder too. Apple holds the vast majority of their cash overseas to avoid paying taxes on it. If they were to use it for a purchase, it would have to come "home" for taxation first effectively increasing the cost of such a spend.
It would be impressive to sell 3 million cars in 8 years. It's also an improbable suggestion. You're talking about them controlling 20% of the US auto market in their first 8 years? I don't think any company would even dare suggest such a thing was possible. Tesla wants to sell 55,000 this year, and they are the golden boy of the industry. There's so many different reasons that the mind reels from the idea. Apple isn't a manufacturer, and they don't have a significant retail presence. Where will these vehicles be sold? Who will make them?
The only serious electric-only car company...maybe.
You're conflating dissimilar industries. In the consumer electronics space it is common to be a "parts assembler" for the end user (which Apple isn't). It has become incredibly more common in the automotive industry to be "fancy" parts assemblers, but they're still doing a huge amount of heavy manufacturing. Your suggestion with the chip would be analogous to the car's engine. I see no reason to believe why Apple would be better at creating engines than the people out there.
While I'd quibble with the suggestion that television sales aren't cutthroat, you're spot on here. This is a consumer electronics market where suppliers are readily at hand, and you can pay someone to be your assembler. This is where Apple knows how to play.
Everything I've heard from IBM about the deal has been much more pedestrian. It feels like Apple wanted business to take them more seriously, and IBM wanted people to think they're cool with no amazing plans. Truthfully, toolkits and core products to allow people to make "smarter" offerings and leveraging IBM's technology with Apple's name and ecosystem.
Thanks for the video - just watching this video makes me wonder if this is what Apple wants to get involved. This is far more difficult than making phones/computers
My first car was a 1988 Dodge Daytona. Had it for about 13 years while living in Louisiana-Ohio-Maryland-Minnesota, so it saw all sorts of weather. We think something computerized made it finally stop starting and I felt like a new car so I sold it to a junkman for $35. My next/current car is a basic 1999 Plymouth Neon. Nowadays, I work out of my home most of the time so it doesn't get driven as much as the first car did. Haven't even hit 100k miles yet. It's fun when I rent a car and can experience power windows and a fancy radio, lol. But I think the fact that I bought a car without a lot of bells and whistles means there are fewer things to break. My next car will also probably be slightly used (about a year) and will be a hybrid or electric of some sort.
Very similar to what the skeptics were saying before Apple released the original iPhone in 2007. "They would be lucky to even get their foot in the door of the highly competitive cell phone market", which was then largely dominated by the likes of Nokia, Blackberry, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson, etc.
Does Tim have the vision to do a full-fledged AppleCar right? I don't know, time will tell, but with all the automotive expertise Apple has hired lately, there's no doubt in my mind Apple is at least working on a car, rather than just a better version of CarPlay.
I thought seeing Garmin at certain point of time in these notes, currently it shows these instead:
Two (and a half) thoughts -
1). Apple is working on it's own autonomous vehicle tech, for it's own car,
or ...
1b). to be licensed/sold to auto manufacturers.
2). Apple is vigorously testing and collecting data, and having all these experts contribute, to prepare for the future where there are autonomous vehicles on the road, with CarPlay, or any other Apple technology in the vehicle, at the time of a crash. Testing for what? Hacking vulnerabilities. RF interference with the systems that autonomous vehicles relay on to avoid other vehicles, people, solid objects. User experience? Best ways to integrate into future vehicle systems?
Honestly, I think #2 is far more likely, as in the event that a crash were to occur, Apple would likely be seen as one of, if not the only party involved, with deep pockets filled with actual *cash*. It makes sense that Apple would be forward thinking and preparing for the day when CarPlay, and other Apple technologies, are being used in autonomous vehicles. Sooner or later, one will be involved in a crash, and there will be legal action. Better to have collected mountains of data now, along with input from experts in the field, than need to rush and cover their backsides after the fact.
If Apple is indeed developing it's own autonomous vehicle systems, I think #1b) is the most likely direction they will go.
1). Apple is working on it's own autonomous vehicle tech, for it's own car,
or ...
1b). to be licensed/sold to auto manufacturers.
2). Apple is vigorously testing and collecting data, and having all these experts contribute, to prepare for the future where there are autonomous vehicles on the road, with CarPlay, or any other Apple technology in the vehicle, at the time of a crash. Testing for what? Hacking vulnerabilities. RF interference with the systems that autonomous vehicles relay on to avoid other vehicles, people, solid objects. User experience? Best ways to integrate into future vehicle systems?
Honestly, I think #2 is far more likely, as in the event that a crash were to occur, Apple would likely be seen as one of, if not the only party involved, with deep pockets filled with actual *cash*. It makes sense that Apple would be forward thinking and preparing for the day when CarPlay, and other Apple technologies, are being used in autonomous vehicles. Sooner or later, one will be involved in a crash, and there will be legal action. Better to have collected mountains of data now, along with input from experts in the field, than need to rush and cover their backsides after the fact.
If Apple is indeed developing it's own autonomous vehicle systems, I think #1b) is the most likely direction they will go.
#2 makes the most sense. Now having data to be ready for a legal defense, as the main driver for apple project doesn't make sense. Risk analysis and management are key to good project management, however isn't the main purpose of the project goal.
Harvesting data from car users is the goldmine that all industry players are trying to get. Apple has long ways to go regarding some basic functions provided by current products, hopefully they iron all the wrinkles in parallel to this car project.
Worst thing that can happen from hiring "experts" from other car companies is that they create a status quo-car. They limit their efforts of what a car 'can be'. Think different!
There are some interesting ramifications here:
1- Apple need input regarding how to deal with traditional automotive market-suppliers-manufacturing-sales-service. This doesn't imply they will implement the same business models.
2- Apple will listen to the people they hired and then does exactly the opposite that was suggested.
3- The people they hired aren't the traditional automaker people narrow minded and limited to do exactly what they are told to do. Apple doesn't hire anyone out of the street. They have ways to filter and get the people willing to work nonstop to produce results in a very compressed timeline without much guidance.
4- If indeed the scope of the project is to develop next gent CarPlay interaction with plenty of vehicle sub-systems, the.they are doing the right thing to understand current and near future vehicle architecture therefore the system integration can be well managed by seasoned industry resources inside apple, apple soldiers that can deal with the automotive "traditional" stakeholders.
They hired approx. 10 people to integrate CarPlay better and understand the car industry? Maybe.
I was talking in the case that they're developing a new car with these people. Maybe they made the decision to work at Apple because they wanted to 'switch things up'.
10 people can't make from scratch all the vehicle systems nowadays needed to put a car on the road.
10 subsystems that Apple Play may need to interact with:
1- Radio/Music apps
2- Instrument cluster
3- Headsup display
4- Navigation
5- Phone
6- SMS/Email/Messaging
7- Body security
8- Driver assistance
7- Windshield wipers/defrost
8- HVAC
9- Interior illumination
10- Backup cameras
Why would a car company want CarPlay to control: Instrument cluster, Headsup display, Body security, Driver assistance, Windshield wipers/defrost, HVAC, Interior illumination and Backup cameras? Would that not limit the car company and be a very hard task for Apple to customise for every car model...
This is not what the car makers want, it's what may Apple want. All these I listed are hypothetical examples about the quantity of 10 "experts" assigned to one thing. Something as simple as using Siri to control your vehicle systems is something some Apple fans may want to have.
Yes indeed, Apple Maps is quite a mess.
Where I live it's customary to describe a location by giving the cross streets.
Type "First and Edison" in the search field of _Google_ Maps and it points to the correct intersection.
Type "First and Edison" in the search field of _Apple_ Maps and it points to "Edison Electronics" 15 miles away from the intersection one is looking for.
Hello Apple? Anybody home?
