Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It was a joke. Hence the smiley.

As for your case - are there any (legal!) industries that are even more profitable than Apple?
If Apple is going "iCar", they've probably thought this through. And probably for longer than a typical car-ride.

As pointed out, Apple has repeatedly demonstrated that you can't transpose results from other companies's over to Apple.

I do agree with everybody that this whole "thing" sounds surreal.
If you sell it, somebody has to maintain it. Are they going to build car repair shops for it?
Most of the current stores certainly aren't equipped for it.
Nor are they located ideally.

I agree that Apple has managed to make profit where others have failed. But those markets were relatively similar—consumer electronics and music. Cars are an entirely different thing and a gigantic risk for Apple. A song has never killed anyone but a self-driving car surely could. A few lawsuits would surely damage Apple's reputation and cause it to lose millions of dollars—all eating into any profit they could make.

There are different laws for different countries—safety, environmental, etc. Did you know that carmakers build different vehicles for different geographic markets? In America we don't see the great number of cars that are specific to other regions. Apple would need to design and build different cars (or at least different sizes or modified versions) for different countries—that costs a lot of money. But an iPhone can be sold almost anywhere in the world with little or no modification.

You bring up a good point about maintenance. Hopefully electric cars will be much more reliable than gasoline versions (Tesla's drivetrain, for example, has only a couple dozen moving parts total...I think 18 or 22 for RWD models). But repairs and maintenance have big profit margins (traditional auto dealerships make the vast majority of their money through service, not car sales). So it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
 
Last edited:
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.

Such a flawed idea.

In London, people are constantly crossing the roads at will; there is no such thing as jaywalking. If you had self-driving cars, they would never get anywhere, because they would be constantly stopping for people. Also, remember that these cars would have to veer on the side of safety, so they would have to allow a large margin of error for the pedestrian.

What's more, were they ever to become a thing, pedestrians would simply take advantage of them. Imagine if you knew that certain cars or lorries were self-driving. If you wanted to cross the road, you would simply step out and make your way, knowing that the car or lorry would automatically stop for you. For this reason, you could only have self-driving allowed in built-up areas if the roads were cordoned off from pedestrians completely, which would be highly impractical and prohibitively expensive. And I haven't even started on cyclists, motorbikes, animals etc.
 
Fair enough.
You may consider me whatever you want because I don't AGREE (as opposed to understand) with your stance that Apple is working on some teeny little unimportant bs slightly car related project..... yet is poaching employees left & right from top car manufacturers for it.
However, I will consider you both obstinate and obtuse for refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you are oh so incorrect.
*toodles*

^^^ cyberbullying at it's best...writing a 6th response with the same mindless rambling to someone whose obviously blocking you isn't making you look any smarter

the biggest cyberbullies are always the wimpiest people in real life
 
Not in the majority of the USA, no... in South Carolina, I have never seen a road that bad. But in Massachusetts, I saw them all the time because the government is corrupt.
I would also think that South Carolina's climate has a lot to do with that. Snow and ice are probably the biggest contributor to road damage.
 
maybe they are aiming for a self driving fleet of e-taxis? short distances, high price offset by lack of driver and fares, controlled & smaller environment, lower speeds...

but the "pedestrians would stop self-driving vehicles at will, if they want to cross the street" also sounds pretty convincing...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
They sure do! Some parts of developed Europe are pretty bad, some are very well kept like the Netherlands and the UK, some are pretty crappy like Germany, but you 'aint seen nothing until you travel to America.

It is interesting that so many people are concerned about the road in the picture, instead of what the article is about.

Climate has a lot to do with roads in the US. Every winter snow melts on the roads and saturates the ground under the asphalt. Then it freezes and expands at night and causes the ground under the asphalt to become weaken. This happens over and over then the asphalt becomes brittle causing cracks and potholes.

During spring many roads are fix/replaced only to become messed up again a few seasons later.

It is worst in areas like Wash DC, Maryland, Virginia and surrounding states because temps are generally mild there. But areas up north stay too cold to melt so it isn't as harsh.
 
maybe they are aiming for a self driving fleet of e-taxis? short distances, high price offset by lack of driver and fares, controlled & smaller environment, lower speeds...

but the "pedestrians would stop self-driving vehicles at will, if they want to cross the street" also sounds pretty convincing...

Also, if you wanted to hijack a self-driving car, all you've got to do is step in front of it. The driver is then at your mercy. Thugs would have a ball.

Can't see them catching on in Ferguson.
 
Never say NEVER, ALL Apple printers were 3rd party hardware rebranded, Silentype was a rebranded Trendcom 200 & the list goes on and on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apple_printers



When has apple ever let another company build their hardware? They have literally never. Even when everybody said it would be the death of them in the 90s.

If this product sees the light of day, then it's all apple. Hardware and software. Not a chance in hell its a licensing play.

If it were for licensing, why would apple need to be looking for test tracks? Surely BMW, Mercedes, audi, tesla, have enough to where it would be unnecessary.
 
Never say NEVER, ALL Apple printers were 3rd party hardware rebranded, Silentype was a rebranded Trendcom 200 & the list goes on and on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apple_printers



When has apple ever let another company build their hardware? They have literally never. Even when everybody said it would be the death of them in the 90s.

If this product sees the light of day, then it's all apple. Hardware and software. Not a chance in hell its a licensing play.

If it were for licensing, why would apple need to be looking for test tracks? Surely BMW, Mercedes, audi, tesla, have enough to where it would be unnecessary.
 
Also, if you wanted to hijack a self-driving car, all you've got to do is step in front of it. The driver is then at your mercy. Thugs would have a ball.

Can't see them catching on in Ferguson.
Would you stand in front of it? It still takes time to slow down and it could still have a horn.

Who will be responsible if the car hits a pedestrian? The margin of error will have to be minimal for a company to dare to release it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
It is interesting that so many people are concerned about the road in the picture, instead of what the article is about.

Climate has a lot to do with roads in the US. Every winter snow melts on the roads and saturates the ground under the asphalt. Then it freezes and expands at night and causes the ground under the asphalt to become weaken. This happens over and over then the asphalt becomes brittle causing cracks and potholes.

During spring many roads are fix/replaced only to become messed up again a few seasons later.

It is worst in areas like Wash DC, Maryland, Virginia and surrounding states because temps are generally mild there. But areas up north stay too cold to melt so it isn't as harsh.

This is the bay area, there is almost no rain (3 months ) and no snow and very rare freezing. Likely its like that because it hasn't been used in 20 years and before that got used by lot of heavy equipment and not refreshed before they abandoned it.

I live in Montreal Canada, we have some of the most god awful roads in existence, especially in spring, and they try to repair them! The road in front of my house makes that one looks like some autobahn!
 
It was a joke. Hence the smiley.

As for your case - are there any (legal!) industries that are even more profitable than Apple?
If Apple is going "iCar", they've probably thought this through. And probably for longer than a typical car-ride.

As pointed out, Apple has repeatedly demonstrated that you can't transpose results from other companies's over to Apple.

I do agree with everybody that this whole "thing" sounds surreal.
If you sell it, somebody has to maintain it. Are they going to build car repair shops for it?
Most of the current stores certainly aren't equipped for it.
Nor are they located ideally.
If Apple builds it, they will come.

Heck, I may even invest in a shop that does high quality repairs on these cars, as this is the wave of the future. I'm sure the same argument was made, or could have been made 120 years ago with those "horseless carriages" that were being talked about.

I mean, really, why would anyone need to go somewhere at 30mph, and what do we do about the people in the streets, and where are we going to get all of this "gasoline" to propel all of these "automobiles"? Where will people buy this stuff?
 
Also, if you wanted to hijack a self-driving car, all you've got to do is step in front of it. The driver is then at your mercy. Thugs would have a ball.

Can't see them catching on in Ferguson.
  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except when it conflicts with the first law
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
I bet there can be a manual override on these as well.

What I can see is this: self driving will be a feature that will be "cute" at first, then, in 15-20 years after delivery, it will be required in high congestion areas, then, in 40-50 years, it will be mandatory, and there will be little need for the manual override.

I just hope these cars will have restrooms in them. That way, you'll never have to stop!

***EDIT***. Those rules are from Isaac Asimov. I guess rule#1 for quoting people should be citing thee source... ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mojolicious
  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except when it conflicts with the first law
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Nice rules, and I agree with them.
However I don't feel the USA Army/AirForce/Navy etc have been sent a copy of them as they are spending multiple millions desperately trying to invent robots which will kill humans.
We better get a copy of these rules to them asap.

Having robots fight battles and kill people is, in the grand scheme of war, a very very VERY bad idea long term.
War is SUPPOSED to be horrid, nasty, painful, terrible, vile, disgusting etc etc.
You never want to make war clean easy and nice, all that does is make wars easier to do.
People need to NOT want to go to war as it's so horrid, not make is nice and easy.
 
People need to give up on this idea of Apple building a car. They will never do it. They are working on in-car electronics. And they should work with Tesla (or buy Tesla, too).

Profit margins on cars are slim. The market is saturated with established companies. And there's enough liability to bring down the company.

Aside from the liability comment (which can only be hypothesised at the moment. Governments will need to introduce new laws for autonomous cars and insurance companies will need to adapt too) that sounds very much like the mobile phone market in 2007. I'll let you draw your own thoughts on how that went for Apple.

The car market is currently very slow with innovation and change, and products are sold on lifestyle adverts as a means to differentiate between brands and models - sign of a mature market, but it is one which hasn't changed much with technology (yes, cars have gained technology, but it isn't integrated outside of each vehicle, and driving a car is still very much a manual experience) so is ripe for a major overhaul.
 
I mean, really, why would anyone need to go somewhere at 30mph, and what do we do about the people in the streets, and where are we going to get all of this "gasoline" to propel all of these "automobiles"? Where will people buy this stuff?

Rudolf Diesel's prototype Diesel-engine was powered by groundnut oil, BTW.
Gasoline at the time had to be sourced at pharmacies...
 
Aside from the liability comment (which can only be hypothesised at the moment. Governments will need to introduce new laws for autonomous cars and insurance companies will need to adapt too) that sounds very much like the mobile phone market in 2007. I'll let you draw your own thoughts on how that went for Apple.

The car market is currently very slow with innovation and change, and products are sold on lifestyle adverts as a means to differentiate between brands and models - sign of a mature market, but it is one which hasn't changed much with technology (yes, cars have gained technology, but it isn't integrated outside of each vehicle, and driving a car is still very much a manual experience) so is ripe for a major overhaul.

Look up lawsuits against car companies and compare that to lawsuits against consumer electronics companies. Your solution is that Apple will work with government and insurance companies to enact laws regarding autonomous cars. Well, there are laws now about non-autonomous cars and car companies get sued all the time—why hasn't the government and insurance companies fixed that yet? You make it sound like it's easy.

Here's what you need to know about law: The biggest consumer lawsuits are from personal injury/death—lawsuits involving things that have no pricetag (life and health). Apple will be entering a war zone. Add to the fact that Apple is always under attack because it's top dog (look at every product launch—everyone wants to be the first to find a flaw whether it's antennas or bendability or whatever).

Going from iPods to phones was a tiny step compared to going from consumer electronics to automobiles. That's a huge leap. Why not go into space exploration? By your logic it should be successful since they they were successful going from portable music players to cell phones.

I agree that the auto industry is ready for a huge overhaul. Apple is not the company to do it. There are way too many fanboys on this site who think that success in another consumer electronics field means Apple can tackle anything without any thought as to what it may be.
 
Slim profit margins and a saturated market were both comments people made regarding the phone industry before Apple entered it.

Those are only a problem if you plan on just entering the market and not being a disruptive player, if you're just planning on being a me too player.

If Apple moves quickly enough on making an autonomous vehicle, that could be a serious disruption to the market. I'd be willing to pay over a year's salary for a car if it ran reliably for over a decade and was fully autonomous - that gives Apple plenty of room for profit margin, I think. If Apple enters with a product like that before anyone else has it, the competition will immediately fall apart just like RIM/Blackberry/Windows Phone did.

But Apple will have to move quickly, because Tesla is already barreling down that path. Their already available cars require little maintenance and have a lot of automation. And, last I heard, they said they would have a car available for ~$40K by the end of next year... if that car comes with comparable automation features, they could beat Apple to the punch.
Apple reliability sucks. Phone companies did make a big profit out the services they offered.

Now disruption to the Automotive Industry has many aspects that we expect to see, Tesla is getting there but not yet. Apple sucks balls dealing with their suppliers and how they will deal with the current traditional automotive supplier is something I'm a really eager to witness. Will they have enough leverage to make it happen? They have enough money to buy any OEM or key suppliers but that wouldn't be disruptive enough or as efficient as they are used to.
Asian suppliers in the auto industry aren't as vast as the electronics ones.
How long had Google been testing? How far are them to actually release a vehicle to market?

These non-automotive players are more interested in finding ways to enable the buckle drivers and passengers to spend more time using the devices and consuming digital media instead of focusing on the road or having a nice fun driving experience. Driving a car is fun if you are on the right car and the right place at the right speed.
All other transportation needs or alternative methods may be disruptive but not ready for prime time, the lobbyists and traditional auto companies may do whatever it takes to avoid a massive shock to their traditional businesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCrz
Look up lawsuits against car companies and compare that to lawsuits against consumer electronics companies. Your solution is that Apple will work with government and insurance companies to enact laws regarding autonomous cars. Well, there are laws now about non-autonomous cars and car companies get sued all the time—why hasn't the government and insurance companies fixed that yet? You make it sound like it's easy.

Here's what you need to know about law: The biggest consumer lawsuits are from personal injury/death—lawsuits involving things that have no pricetag (life and health). Apple will be entering a war zone. Add to the fact that Apple is always under attack because it's top dog (look at every product launch—everyone wants to be the first to find a flaw whether it's antennas or bendability or whatever).

Going from iPods to phones was a tiny step compared to going from consumer electronics to automobiles. That's a huge leap. Why not go into space exploration? By your logic it should be successful since they they were successful going from portable music players to cell phones.

I agree that the auto industry is ready for a huge overhaul. Apple is not the company to do it. There are way too many fanboys on this site who think that success in another consumer electronics field means Apple can tackle anything without any thought as to what it may be.
If they wanted they could, they do have the funds and some talent however that kind of thing doesn't happen overnight.
Tesla and Space X are great examples of how to transform money from e Commerce to automotive and aerospace "success", while milking government funds.
Now to actually release a vehicle to the market that will live up to the Apple Brand standards or customer minimum expectations they may need to burn a good chunk of their cash and there will always be trade offs to secure a reasonable time to market.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.