Apple in Discussions With Bay Area Test Track Focused on Self-Driving Cars

[ChrisA]

The last thing I'd want to have happen is to get run over by a self-driving car.

As it turns out these self driving cars will be safer. The computer is never drunk or talking on the phone.

If ALL cars were self driving there would likely be almost no accidents and we could eliminate the red lights and stop signs

An obvious step is for my car to network with the car that is 100 yards further up the road to "see" farther than it otherwise could. Humans only have two eyes and we must point them both in the same direction. A car can have a dozen or more "eyes" and look in every direction and as I wrote above can "borrow" eyes from other nearby cars. The car can also talk the other cars near it asking "may I changes lanes?" or "is there anyone on the other side of that blind corner?" It can cary dozens of such conversations all at the same time.

 

[ChrisA]

I... 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....

But two self driving cars can "see" each other even if there is no line of sight. They can broadcast their location and listen to the broadcasts from other cars. They can adjust their speeds so that they meet at the wide spot on the road and can pass. They don't need to "see" each other to avoid collision.

A car would not have eyes and ears like ours. They use other sensors like "LIDAR" or could even catch a video feed from a stationary public camera that might be mounted on a utility pole near an intersection.

Human drivers have to focus their attention. They have to choose what to look at. Machines don't have this limitation and can attend to multiple cameras, laser scanners and radar sensors all at the same time. They may be able to track the location and speed of thousands of cars that are miles away. Seriously keeping a database of the nearest 5,000 moving objects (cars, bikes, people, dogs...) is not an impossible job for a very powerful computer

 

[byke]

Seems like Apple is being outdone by Samsung in terms of Secrecy surrounding car projects.
As no one seems to be talking about Samsung project Titanic (yet).

 

[Keirasplace]

As it turns out these self driving cars will be safer. The computer is never drunk or talking on the phone.

If ALL cars were self driving there would likely be almost no accidents and we could eliminate the red lights and stop signs

An obvious step is for my car to network with the car that is 100 yards further up the road to "see" farther than it otherwise could. Humans only have two eyes and we must point them both in the same direction. A car can have a dozen or more "eyes" and look in every direction and as I wrote above can "borrow" eyes from other nearby cars. The car can also talk the other cars near it asking "may I changes lanes?" or "is there anyone on the other side of that blind corner?" It can cary dozens of such conversations all at the same time.

No red lights and stop signs... That would sure suck for pedestrians, cyclists hey! I'm all for self drivers, but don't be silly.
Lights that know the discrete traffic around it could better optimised, but we still need them.

 

[1JJJ]

What a picture. You really have such bad roads in the USA?

In CA yes they have. If you go to rich part of CA you don't see that. I call USA a marketing country. But I would like to come back.

 

[Keirasplace]

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...

Smart phones are way more stable than PC's and in large systems, not all parts need to be as reliable.
System level software in the phone, the equivalent to the driving software in a phone, is usually much more stable than the user level software.

The driving software can be developed in a more systematic slow way to reduce major bugs (they'll still be some glitches), with redundant computers (you could even have 3) working at all time to make sure no failure can bring the system down (if one of the three diverges, its input is ignored).

The internal, user centered systems, can have a more aggressive, Iphone like development).

 

[Piggie]

Will driverless cars have software that will break the law in order to keep traffic flow moving?
This happens every single day, especially in busy built up areas, something happens.
An accident, something breaks and falls into the road. Anything unexpected, then there may be technically illegal manoeuvres needed to keep the traffic flowing around something.
Driving on the sidewalk, flashing of lights by others to allow right of way, entering a pedestrian zone as the road way is blocked by a fallen tree, going thru a red light as the lights are broken.
All these things are happening every single day of the week across the country and humans are making judgements on the spot about how to get around the problem so they and all the traffic behind them can make progress, unless you want a Computer Car, just sitting there, being good and legal, creating gridlock, until the police can get to it and drag it out of the way so humans can get around the legal lane blocker.

 

[macguru212]

What a picture. You really have such bad roads in the USA?

That's one of the good ones. <sigh>

 

[Benjamin Frost]

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.

Good examples.

And why self-driving won't happen for the foreseeable future, if ever.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

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.

I disagree.

Before the iPhone, most people used cheap Nokias and the like. Business used Blackberry. The immature market of smartphones was commonly derided as awful. The market was ripe for the picking. Everyone was clamouring for an Apple Phone.

Cars? This is a very mature market. Cars won't get any faster. Their fundamental job of getting from A to B in comfort has been achieved. People enjoy their cars and they enjoy driving. There is no great cry for an Apple Car. Certainly not for electric cars, which are rightly seen as expensive and impractical. Self-driving simply won't happen. Petrol or hybrid is the future for several decades, at least.

As such, if Apple do bring out a car, it will be a vanity project much like the overpriced Apple Watch. It will be very expensive and bought by a tiny niche like the Apple Watch.

All well and good, but not part of the traditional Apple ethos. We've been spoilt by Steve Jobs's revolutionary products.

 

[MRrainer]

Profit margins on cars are slim.

Not on all cars.
I think Volkswagen (a couple of years ago) made a profit of about 900€ per car (on average - they've got a great variety of models). Porsche's profit on a car was said to be in the region of 16000€ (on average).
They are, AFAIK, the most profitable volume car-maker of all.
Tesla, as has been recently revealed, loses about 4k USD on a car they sell.
That, I assume, could be one of the reasons Apple isn't that interested in Tesla.

Obviously, Apple won't go where the bottom of the market is.
Are you an Apple-paid shill spreading mis-information to keep the "picture" of the Apple Car blurry in public view?
;-)

 

[Piggie]

What I can see happening, and is a VERY realistic scenario is either new roads layouts being constructed from scratch specifically for driverless cars. Or current areas, being converted/adapted and there only be driverless cars allowed on them.

Having zones, where there are only driverless cars sorts out a BIG chunk of the problem, as does changing road layouts to suit them.

Even having perhaps new roads along side current ones, just for driverless cars, so you sit there in your human traffic jam, and watch the driverless cars wiz by in their own zone.

Two problems are:

1: Putting driverless cars on REAL busy/narrow City or tiny country roads, in rush hour etc etc.

2: Mixing then in with human drivers who are doing crazy stuff every second of the day.

If you remove those two problems, by only having these cars in Zones/Areas specially made or adapted for them, then you will bring forward their introduction by years if not decades.

I think that is the most realistic way to go. Perhaps drive in the car as normal, and when you get to the ZONE, if you have such a car, then you can place it into AUTO DRIVE mode, and the car will be allowed in, driving itself.

 

[Juicy Box]

Anyway this is terrible timing if it turns out to be true. All the data says the generation in their 20's now consider personal cars to not even be important to them.

Maybe cause they don't have jobs to buy/maintain them.

The thought of self driving cars does not interest me. I grew up on 90's tuners and love driving my Mr2 turbo. I would never want give up control.

 

[Piggie]

Maybe cause they don't have jobs to buy/maintain them.

The thought of self driving cars does not interest me. I grew up on 90's tuners and love driving my Mr2 turbo. I would never want give up control.

There is a VAST difference between Getting in the car you love, going out for the day, driving for pleasure, which many love and will love for generations to come.

And getting up, half awake, still dark, rain/cold, getting stuck within moments in the traffic jam/rush hour boring commute to work, and back home in the evening.

Both very different, mentally, uses for your means of transport.

 

[JCrz]

Not on all cars.
I think Volkswagen (a couple of years ago) made a profit of about 900€ per car (on average - they've got a great variety of models). Porsche's profit on a car was said to be in the region of 16000€ (on average).
They are, AFAIK, the most profitable volume car-maker of all.
Tesla, as has been recently revealed, loses about 4k USD on a car they sell.
That, I assume, could be one of the reasons Apple isn't that interested in Tesla.

Obviously, Apple won't go where the bottom of the market is.
Are you an Apple-paid shill spreading mis-information to keep the "picture" of the Apple Car blurry in public view?
;-)

Then let's take a look at Porsche—the best-case scenario out there right now:

Porsche
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.

Now what numbers are you using to accuse me of being an "Apple-paid shill"?

 

[MrSmith]

Whatever works for my Apple stock. Building autonomous cars for 2015's roads wouldn't.

 

[ChrisA]

No red lights and stop signs... That would sure suck for pedestrians, cyclists hey! I'm all for self drivers, but don't be silly.
Lights that know the discrete traffic around it could better optimised, but we still need them.

Why would it suck for pedestrians? The cars would see there was some one wanting to cross the road and stop. It might be better because the automatic cars would actually obey the law and give pedestrians the right of way.

Here is California the law is that at every intersection if there is a person trying to cross the road you must stop for them. But even so we know drivers might not see us so we are careful. But if every car was automated and has 12 cameras and all cars shared information then I'd could be sure I'd be seen.

 

[Tech198]

it won't be for 2015's road. it would be for 2020's roads.

I however would use the tern "autonomous" and "self-driving" as the same, but have it their way.

I dunno where where i'd be be by 2020....... On mars, probably still posting in MR. (That would be right)

 

[ChrisA]

Whatever works for my Apple stock. Building autonomous cars for 2015's roads wouldn't.

As of today Google's self driving car has loved over 1,000,000 miles on normal streets in Central California and other parts of the US. These miles were not all on 2015 trees, some of the miles were on 2014 and 2013 streets.

 

[ChrisA]

What a picture. You really have such bad roads in the USA?

Here is a highway in New Mexico. They don't seem to have funds to pave it. The population density of there is less than one person per square mile. Where you live in Europe the there are many people and many cars so there are many people who share the cost of roads maintenance. NM is 3x larger than the Netherlands and has 1/8th as many people so they have longer lower cost roads there.

 

[Tech198]

Neat.. the middle of nowehere.

 

[iZac]

I can't wait for Apple Car 2s+ myself.

Yeah, in all likely hood, Gen 1's top speed is 40mph and can only turn left.

 

[JohnPhamlore]

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.

The reason why Apple hasn't made further progress negotiating TV deals is simple: Steve Jobs died. Jobs was a made man with the content companies since he headed Pixar as well. Tim Cook isn't and will forever be the enemy to the content companies because Cook heads Apple and nothing else.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Then let's take a look at Porsche—the best-case scenario out there right now:

Porsche
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.

Now what numbers are you using to accuse me of being an "Apple-paid shill"?

Here is something interesting from an article I just randomly looked at (from April, 2014, before the 6+ came out):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/09/us-samsung-elec-smartphones-analysis-idUSBREA3806J20140409
Operating margins of the Samsung phones were 16-18%, yet Apple's were in the 40-60% range.

I think that the counter to your argument is that Apple seems to make more money in markets by simply pricing it to make money. The idea that Apple will get into a market and do what the established players have done may be the difference between them and others that are established.

I guess another point in my argument is the computer price. For 20 years, I thought, "heck no, I'll never buy a Mac. They're too expensive!" Then, because of business requirements, I bought one (a 2008 iMac). I hated it. It wasn't like Windows. I didn't "get it" for 4-6 weeks, but I kept at it, and now I "get it". I got it when I was reloading Windows on my wife's computer, and the Mac was working fine. I got it when I re-reloaded Windows on my kids' computers. I got it when I pulled the computer apart and replaced the 250GB hard drive with a 1TB drive and after the Time Machine restore, everything was as I left it, except I had 750GB more HD space. No code keys to put in; it just worked. In retrospect, it is one of the least expensive computers I have owned. It's 2015, and the computer is still running strong.

Bringing this back around, I think that Apple, if they are working on a car, will find a way to make it profitable.

One last thing that is of interest: I went to an Edward Tufte class (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) and one thing he said stuck in my head: "Apple doesn't do market research. They make the best products they know how to make, and things that they would use." (paraphrased)

 

[merkinmuffley]

Given Apple's recent SW releases and the apparent lack of any testing or QC, if this moves forward I'll be spending more time indoors.