Yes we do! Because the US like's to spend its money on shiny new Jet Fighters at $330,000,000 a pop that don't have a Mission and not on Healthcare for its people or Infrastructure because thats like boring and no Politician wants to support it.
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 in Discussions With Bay Area Test Track Focused on Self-Driving Cars
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pic aside, the answer is yes, and plenty of them. Bridges as well.
The American Society Of Engineers didn't pull the failing grade they gave our infrastructure after 15 years of evaluation out of thin air.
We can't afford spending on such trivial basic necessities in this country, because our nation has other priorities. Namely, being 1, war, and 2, maintaining the lifestyle of the baby boomer generation.
In response, the legitimately corrupt politicians whose job it is to address these issues have simply tried to dismiss these concerns, by claiming to know more than the combined sum of all the engineers that worked on it, and even more hilariously, trying to paint engineers as a bunch of radical lefties who just want to suckle at the government teat.
lol
This entire country is a poker game.
The last thing I'd want to have happen is to get run over by a self-driving car.
Apart from liability, these are many of the same arguments used against apple getting into Phones. And to say profit margins are slim is quite the generalization.
Lol, you're all over the place!!
Is it that they'll never do it?
Wait... is it that NOBODY should do it, because there's no profit??
No, no, no... it's that they should purchase a company in a market that you just said is dead???
You know you sound a bit loony, right????
Whoa, that is sooooooooooooo weird sounding!!!!!!!!
Omg, CRAZY!!!!! I can't even imagine!!!
That's like if a sweet car that was easily equivalent to a BMW, was named after an eclectic inventor!
Can you even picture how strange it would be to hear someone say: "this is my Tesla"?
Thank God things NEVER change & you won't have to get used to any new products ever being introduced into the world ever!
/sarcasm
You have trouble understanding simple concepts. Let me help you understand.
Not building a car is not the same is working on in-car electronics.
Working with Tesla (or even buying them out) is not the same as Apple building a car.
Why can't you understand that writing software and designing electronics is not the same as building a car? Have you heard of a company called Garmin? How about Pioneer? They make electronics for cars but they do not build them.
Learn how to read slowly and carefully before hurling insults at people.
Lol, I'm going to try to be kind this time then.
You make it sooooo difficult though!!!!
For example: buying & owning a company that operates in a completely failing industry would be the EXACT same thing as entering the industry yourself. As a matter of fact, it is one of VERY few ways possible to do precisely that. So you are both arguing for AND against the same thing.
I'm really not going to even touch the fact that you mention a gps & stereo company, pretending like Apple would need to rent a secure testing facility for something so minor... frankly, it's preposterous enough to speak for itself.
At any rate... you have the right to believe whatever silliness you want, but on a public forum- if you can't come up with the vaguest realistic scenario, I have the right to shoot holes in your "theories", wouldn't you agree?
Ford (mainstream carmaker for over a century)
Q1 2015
Revenues: $34 billion
Gross profit: $5.2 billion (15%)
Operating profit: -$869 million (-3%)
Porsche (luxury carmaker)
FY 2014 (note these absolute figures are for the entire fiscal year)
Revenues: €17.2 billion
Gross profit: €4.3 billion (25%)
Operating profit: €2.7 billion (16%)
Now look at Apple:
Q3 2015
Revenues: $50 billion
Gross profit: $20 billion (40%)
Operating profit: $14 billion (28%)
Keep in mind that Porsche is an established brand that is decades-old. It's one of the most profitable car companies. It also sells more than one vehicle. And it already has manufacturing facilities and other capital for its automotive business.
Apple currently has much, much higher operating profit than the best of the automotive companies. And they're doing it without having to take on the risk of entering a completely different industry. Why on earth would they take on risk to go into a field that has such low margins? Especially when Apple's way of cutting costs is to build everything in China? Chinese cars have a serious stigma attached to them—there's yet another uphill struggle to take on if they want greater margins.
I agree!
I am reminded of the speech by Elon Musk when he introduced Powerwall.
Basically he said (VERY rough paraphrase): "We can't do this on our own... we need other companies to step up as well. This is why we open source our technology... We really want to disrupt the system & change the world for the better. We're putting our money where our mouths are".
What better company than Apple to create a parallel operation??
They've shown their commitment to the environment already & could there be a more lucrative and larger opportunity than the green energy field??
I mean... so far: computers, cell phones, watches, etc. are nice, but not NECCESSARY. When you get into an area where the human race has literally ZERO choice but to embrace, if they value their own survival, well- I think the sky TRULY is the limit.
yeah, dude, you OBVIOUSLY said that apple sources parts from other companies when you said that apple has never let another company build their hardware......it was so clear....there was no contradiction in your posts at all
i totally agree and totally disagree with what you said! lol.....
Last edited by a moderator:
Would you prefer to be run over by a car driven by a drunk or distracted driver? Because that's already more likely given today's technology. Self-driving cars are already safer than human driven cars if Google is to be believed and they will only get better (MUCH better) as time goes by due to improvements in hardware and software. They are certainly not ready for prime time yet which is why I don't buy the rumors of Apple producing a self-driving car in the next few years, but they are definitely the future. In 15-20 years I expect self-driving cars will be way safer than human driven ones (and will also be commercially viable). Insurance rates will adjust accordingly and that will probably be that for human driven cars for all but the very rich.
Bad roads are best for testing. That way you can be assured the car will work on all roads globally.. Check out public roads India and Africa they can be worse than this.. Besides, maybe Apple is building a SUV .. Away from the crowded car space? This road would be perfect for an off-roader.
There is one thing I'd submit for consideration, with some evidence:
iPhones and iMacs are built in China and they are high quality items.
Should Apple decide to get into the car industry, they will need to ensure that the manufacturing plants can handle the quality requirements expected with that endeavor.
I completely agree with you.
And if Apple got into the car business and outsourced car construction to China, I'd bet that they'd make sure it was a well-built product like the iPhone. But cars are different. There's patriotism as well as prejudice applied to them. We hear terms like "German engineering" and certain attributes are applied to different countries (whether or not they're deserving). The problem is that Chinese-made cars still have a serious stigma attached to them as inferior knock-offs, butt of jokes, etc. even before they've made one for sale in the U.S. It's different than just having a phone made there. I think it'll be hard to overcome (look how long it has taken Hyundai and Korean carmakers to shake off most of their early bad press). I think car buyers are still relatively picky when it comes to manufacturing origin. Just another hurdle, in my opinion.
Yes, in some places. They're not as bad as they look.
----
The self-driving car will be released... And I'll still be driving my stick shift car.
You're going to have to better than that if you are denying possibility of Apple making a car. Explain the many hires of top auto execs and he hiring of hundreds of engineers with electric car battery and auto industry. Those are not rumors. Those are true. I'm sure some of those teams are working CarPlay or street view mapping but if you think Apple would hire that many engineers for something so simple you don't know anything about Apple. They are very stingy with hirings for along their products.
No one is saying there is real proof of an Apple car but to deny it just because Apple doesn't typically go Ito low margin markets is completely missing the mark.
The recent interviews and design profiles on Ive and Newsom tell much more of the story. They want to go on ad change the auto market by introducing a great car. They already disk it with PCs, phones, tablets and even retail stores.
Cars are not rocket science. They are becoming less complex, not more. They are becoming more about the electronics and entertainment system than about a drive train and combustion engine. Apple is in a perfect place to spark a revolution just like Tesla was 5 years ago. To not see that possibility is silly.
You know what is silly? Reading into rumors and trying desperately to piece together something to hang hopes on.
This whole thing happened with Apple's TV revolution. Rumors were wild about how it was imminent. That went on for years and nothing happened.
Compared to bringing a revolutionary car into the market by 2020, changing TV contract structure is child's play. But they still haven't been able to do that yet so why do you think they can jump into the car industry? There were more rumors about TV than a car.
Let's look at what Apple has publicly acknowledged instead of gluing rumors together. Cook has stated that Apple often starts projects that never come into fruition. Lots of major projects ended up on the cutting room floor. Tons of patents never become products. If you don't know that then you truly don't know anything about Apple.
Welcome to CA ...
Oh, and some of the actual roads are not too different from these so called secluded test areas
I think nothing else but a self-driving car makes sense for Apple. Just four wheels and a steering wheel in a nice enclosure wouldn't make the difference. But I'm not sure if they really get it done. In IT, people are used to crashes, hang ups and the like and Apple really added to it with their latest releases. In a car, people wouldn't like the software to freeze while on the motorway...
We have wonderful, near perfect rides in the USA.
And some bad ones, also.
If an autonomous driving car only got tested on the wonderful roads in perfect conditions, I wouldn't want to ride in one.
If autonomous cars are going to be successful, they must work on many kinds of roads. In the UK many rural roads are only wide enough for a single car, and they are lined on both sides with dense hedges so that you can't see around the next bend. Traffic on these roads travels in both directions, so if two cars meet head on, one will have to back up to a wider part of the road, or a pull out, so they can pass each other. A self-driving car needs to handle a busy traffic circle with no lane markings in Mexico City, and it must safely share the road with bicycles in Shanghai.
I think you're focused too much on the failures. When Apple entered the MP3 player market, many people said CE was a far different animal than selling computers and that Apple would fail. When Apple entered the cell phone business, many people said it was far different from selling music players and computers and that Apple would get trounced by the big players. It was "illogical to go out of their way to take on a massive risk in a market that they [didn't] understand" and yet look at the payoff.
Steve Jobs said that when they entered the cell phone business, they were betting the company and look where they stand now. Only in hindsight does it seem like a natural segue but at the time, there were tons of naysayers who said everything you're saying now.
You seem to think disrupting TV is easier than building a car. I disagree. With the TV business, Apple is at the mercy of Hollywood and TV studios whereas Apple doesn't need to work with 3rd parties to bring new innovations to the automotive industry.
As for heavy machinery and regulations, every industry is regulated, and whether Apple is building handheld supercomputers or 3,000lb cars, the knowledge and equipment needed to do that can be bought as I've said before. What matters is whether Apple can contribute to the auto industry in a meaningful way. I believe they can, and in my mind, the auto industry has never been so ripe for disruption.