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 Invests $1 Billion in Chinese Ride-Sharing Company Didi Chuxing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hawaii's a state - they have access to the same technology as anyone in California, New York, London, etc. And I assure you, the average person in Hawaii is not lacking the comforts of modern life. And a nation that has a jeep driving around on Mars, probes exploring the farthest reaches of our solar system and leads the world in Nobel Prize winners can figure out what it needs to, when it wants.
The fact is US is behind other countries in some areas. You can explain it with political, traditional or any other reasons, but it won't change the fact. No one takes away the Mars rover but in some other areas other countries are more advanced and developed.
That's ridiculous. A lot of us millenials work harder and make more money than most of our parents. We're not all lazy fools voting for Sanders to get a free handout, even if that's what Sean Hannity or FOX News told you.
Haha
All this discussion about utopian Korea and China is very amusing.
Has any of you with these idealistic and foolish notions of the east ever lived in these countries for more than a year?
As my username gives away, i have and let me tell you, there's a reason why a large majority of well-to-do Chinese people (and to a lesser extent, Koreans) want to live in the United States. I would bet that over 50% of children of the fuerdai are being educated abroad, most of them either in USA or Canada.
If you've ever read about Los Angeles or Vancouver real estate markets, you'd understand how enthusiastic the Chinese (not Chinese Americans) are about immigrating to the western paradise.
All this discussion about utopian Korea and China is very amusing.
Has any of you with these idealistic and foolish notions of the east ever lived in these countries for more than a year?
As my username gives away, i have and let me tell you, there's a reason why a large majority of well-to-do Chinese people (and to a lesser extent, Koreans) want to live in the United States. I would bet that over 50% of children of the fuerdai are being educated abroad, most of them either in USA or Canada.
If you've ever read about Los Angeles or Vancouver real estate markets, you'd understand how enthusiastic the Chinese (not Chinese Americans) are about immigrating to the western paradise.
The auto industry is changing and cars will be computers on wheels. Tesla is leading the change and now technology companies like Google, Uber, etc are entering the market. Electric self driving cars are the future and Apple has to enter the market.
True that many Chinese are being educated abroad, most of them will come back to China once they're done with their education. A minority remain abroad but the vast majority return to China.
The real estate markets are not about immigrating to the 'Western Paradise' (an absolute oxymoron if you ask me), but about status symbol and wealth protection. They're buying real estate and investing abroad so they're not scrutinized by the CCP. And truthfully, wealthy Chinese may say they want to immigrant, but when push comes to shove, they wont. The vast majority of Chinese will stay in China, a minority actually move abroad, and those are the ones that buy into the whole Western propaganda and democracy illusion.
What it comes down to, is that many Chinese want the benefits of living abroad in a Western country, but the prestige of being wealthy in China. They want the benefits of both worlds.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. You and I have different definitions of what it means to be advanced and developed.
Just like the U.S is incredibly behind on train technology. Japan, China, Germany are all among the top in high speed train technology. U.S is also behind on nuclear technology. China and France are the only two countries actively developing new nuclear reactors. The U.S lags other countries in certain specific fields. Really, what technology does the U.S have? Facebook? Instagram? LMAO... Pathetic.
For leading the world in Nobel Prize winners, and the best use of technology to advance your society is Facebook? Yeah, thanks, but not thanks. Seems like an absolute waste of talent and resources if you ask me.
So no, no one has to agree to disagree with you. You should just learn to admit when you're wrong, which has been twice now.
By the way you define it, yes, America is behind. We don't build land based nuclear power plants, we don't build high speed rail. No discussion, you are right. Where I'm coming from is that it doesn't matter because if it was a priority, we would. I find it silly to think that you believe if we didn't want to build land based nuclear power plants, America, who has multiple nuclear powered vessels cruising the seven seas, lacks the know-how to do so if it wanted to. At the very least, every country in the G20 has the same level of technology or could with little effort, obtain it. And I'll take that bet against Facebook and the other pathetic American companies and how they will ultimately influence technology and the world any day.
[doublepost=1463291704][/doublepost]
If that was the impression I gave, I apologize. What I mean to say is that some countries will always be ahead of other countries on things they prioritize. Throughout our history you could always find something another country was better at. The top 20 plus countries in the world can all point to advantages in tech and it doesn't matter because in the agregate, they are all relatively EQUAL.
You may very well be right about that, it would certainly make a lot of sense. Autonomous vehicles are definitely well on their way, and when they explode onto the scene (who wouldn't like to relax, leisurely enjoying a cup of coffee, while catching up on their email or the news on their morning commute, rather than getting stressed out with the rush hour traffic), those then at the forefront of this new transportation mode stand to make billions.
Apple initially specializing in transportation services rather than pursuing auto sales would indeed seem a brilliant move as not only would it eliminate distribution channel complications for now, but even more excitingly, the potential for growth in the 'transportation for hire' area is phenomenal.
And your final observation is even more on the mark. First there's the obvious advantage of entering the huge market that is China, early on. And equally important, not only are the traffic problems in China's large cities dwarfing our own traffic woes, but their society being less litigious could definitely be a big advantage and save a lot of headaches as glitches and problem areas that will surely crop up with this new technology, could be prohibitively expensive if introduced stateside first. These inevitable navigation bugs will have to be addressed and rectified before large scale domestic introduction, which also allows time for the legal areas of concern in the US, re liability amongst others, to be resolved first.
Last edited:
I don't see how an Apple Car could ever beat Google's self driving technology.
Google literally knows more about the world, and how people move around it, than Apple does. Dont underestimate what a huge advantage that is. They have so much more expertise in the area of data science, machine learning, etc. that Apple simply can't compete with. It's why Google Maps is still so superior to Apple maps. That trend likely won't change for at least another decade, if at all. That gives Google a truly enormous advantage over Apple. Google likely won't try to make a car directly, they will simply sell the autonomous driving computer to existing companies like Toyota and Ford. It's the smart route. So not only will Google's self driving cars perform better, but they will likely be cheaper too.
A self driving car is the kind of problem Google was born to tackle. An Apple car seems like.....a desperate hail-mary pass from a bunch of clueless Cupertino MBA's trying to copy what Google has been doing for a long time now.
If the Apple car is to have even a slight chance of success, it will be if Apple manages to partner up with Google and build the car & software, while letting Google handle the hard stuff.
[doublepost=1463307198][/doublepost]
Mapping requires incredibly advanced machine learning and information management, stuff that Google will likely always beat Apple at. This is what Google does best. Google Maps is still way ahead of Apple Maps, and that means a Google self driving car will be way ahead of any Apple Car
Google literally knows more about the world, and how people move around it, than Apple does. Dont underestimate what a huge advantage that is. They have so much more expertise in the area of data science, machine learning, etc. that Apple simply can't compete with. It's why Google Maps is still so superior to Apple maps. That trend likely won't change for at least another decade, if at all. That gives Google a truly enormous advantage over Apple. Google likely won't try to make a car directly, they will simply sell the autonomous driving computer to existing companies like Toyota and Ford. It's the smart route. So not only will Google's self driving cars perform better, but they will likely be cheaper too.
A self driving car is the kind of problem Google was born to tackle. An Apple car seems like.....a desperate hail-mary pass from a bunch of clueless Cupertino MBA's trying to copy what Google has been doing for a long time now.
If the Apple car is to have even a slight chance of success, it will be if Apple manages to partner up with Google and build the car & software, while letting Google handle the hard stuff.
[doublepost=1463307198][/doublepost]
Mapping is very much not a problem you can "just throw money at". That's the kind of thinking that led the initial launch of Apple maps to be such a giant disaster.
Mapping requires incredibly advanced machine learning and information management, stuff that Google will likely always beat Apple at. This is what Google does best. Google Maps is still way ahead of Apple Maps, and that means a Google self driving car will be way ahead of any Apple Car
Last edited:
That's not how technology works. Most technology is protected by patents, and other IP law. Information is not as free as you think, and countries (as well as companies) safeguard these to keep their comparative advantage. So, America could research this itself, but in reality, it would just license the technology from French companies. This is why England just signed a deal for China to help build a nuclear power plant. Sure, England COULD design and build a start of the art nuclear power plant, but the time, effort, and manpower to do so is not worth it when you have the French and Chinese saying 'Just give us the money, and we'll do it for you.'
Key Quote to support my point: "The Bradwell project is planned to include a Chinese-designed reactor." This clearly just invalidates every single point in your post.
Every country in the G20 can IMPORT the same level of technology or with very little effort IMPORT technology. It's not like G20 countries all domestically develop their own technological abilities when they need it. They just import technology they need and export technology they developed.
You really, really need to feel China is advanced and everyone else is slowly descending into some Mad Max world, don't you? What you described is called comparative advantage. In a free market if two companies can build something to equal specs, but another company bids lower, the lower bid wins. Your assumption is flawed: England doesn't have to import the tech. They have it. China has a comparative advantage in costs which does not mean (bringing us back to how our discussion started) China is more advanced and better at tech that the UK.
China was begging for help in 1964 as it was stuck in the bronze age in a state of collapse. The U.S built china and loaned it billions! china has no native patents that anyone wants! They but the or try and build on top of what the west has already created. nations build themselves natively the are not built by other advanced nation that have something to be proud of.
The U.K should never let a nation that murdered 87 million with the west money that has a trillion dollar fakes industry the kills it's own people and others buys up companies and moves it back to china, help it build a nuclear reactor, something else that china didn't invent.
[doublepost=1463348087][/doublepost]
The U.K. transferred tech and money to china, what has china made advances in? Tell us!
Lol... I always love it when people get worked up over China. Makes me smile and laugh. But in any case, you're actually right. The U.S license U.S Nuclear technology to China starting in 1985 and continues to do to this day. Particularly interest:
So, basically, U.S nuclear companies (i.e Westinghouse) lobbied U.S government to allow it to export its technology to China. In the agreement, China is allowed to improve upon any technology Westinghouse imports, so long as China markets its as a Westinghouse reactor. China took U.S technology, improved up on it, and is now exporting it.
I'm going to imagine you're going to absolutely rage at that fact, which brings joy to my life.
No. Many countries have different levels of advancement. Generally speaking, China lags, but it is ahead in a few areas. First, autonomous cars and ride-hailing apps, which it can easily compete with Uber and Google, and is. But, it's also very advanced in nuclear technology, with the help of the French.
But, let's be more careful with semantics. Sure, England DOESN'T have to import nuclear technology, but it DOES. Why? Because NO English company currently owns the technology to build a reactor design that is competitive with what the French, Russians, or Chinese can build. China, and French companies own the IP to the most advanced nuclear reactor technology in the world. England does not. This is a fact.
Look at the number of Generation III Reactors. None are designed or developed by English companies. Like, I get where you're coming from of 'England COULD develop its own nuclear reactor' but it wont. Because, again, no English company owns any nuclear technology that is competitive with what foreign companies offer. Especially the French, Chinese, and Russians.
Challenge to you: Show me at Gen. 3 reactor designed solely by an English company, and I will admit that you are right, I'm wrong, and will delete my account and never speak again.
I've never really been a fan of the Chinese government...but I think you are being led more by your emotions than facts when it comes to China. China has made a huge number of incredible advances, scientific leaps, economic, etc.
The biggest problem with China is that they are still so dependent on exports. And when the world economy enters in to a slump (like the past year or two), China is very vulnerable. Even worse is their blatant protectionism, preventing companies like Apple and other American companies from competing fairly.
I disagree. Apple Maps are already far better in my area, so it's literally a problem you can solve with more mapping vehicles on the street. Data crunching behind mapping is a solved problem.
what's the problem? Apple have billions overseas that they cant bring back without halving it. Uber will NEVER be big in China because the authorities wont allow it. (Not to mention the issues they have politically in Europe etc..). Apple gets to show it "loves" China, which makes the authorities feel happier. It's not like Apple are really going against an American company being that Uber has zero chance over there. Can anyone think of a better way to spend money that you cant bring back home?
Alright, accepting no UK company currently owns Gen. 3 tech, if one of their companies bought a French or Chinese reactor company, what would really change? Does that mean the UK is suddenly even more advanced? I say no. Whether they throw money at researching, leasing, contracting, or outright buying the tech makes little to no difference. Once you've passed a certain point in development, it is meanless whether one country can do 'X' better than another country that does 'Y' really well, with regard to saying one country is more advanced than another in the same grouping. Globalization has flattened the world. If I'm creating a company as an American, one of the most wealthy and powerful nations one earth, what is my technical advantage over a competitor building a company from Estonia when we both have access to pretty much the same tools? My country's advantage is that if needed, it has the resources, research facilities, and the expertise to surge into any given field. Other than that, we are equals.
I'd say the issue with the US is that it won't do something even "if needed". US is riddled with monopolies, lobbies and corporate interests. Even outright good ideas like more accessible health care meet a huge oppression. Hard to imagine why cheap and unlimited mobile internet isn't "needed" or a fast city or interstate public transit system. US may be the leader in the number of Nobel prize winners, experts and available resources but they are not used as they could be.
I actually don't disagree with you. Technology is pretty fluid, at the right price. If you're saying 'My country's advantage is that if needed, it has the resources, research facilities, and the experience to surge into any given field' I would argue so does China. The irony is that China is throwing money into a lot of theoretical research. It's second only to the U.S. I think you're way over estimating the ability of the U.S to 'surge into any field' while simultaneously downplaying China's ability to do the same.
An interesting question: If China and the U.S had a 'Space Race' (or something similar, such as getting the first man to Mars) who would win? Naturally you'd say the U.S, but I think it's that knee-jerk reaction that the U.S is automatically superior that blinds you to the current state of China's development, and it's ability to 'surge into any field' and hold its own against the U.S or other OECD country. China may not win, but it would sure be a much closer fight than you give credit for.
People, please stop the I'm-older-than-you-therefore-more-informed-and-closer-to-the-truth perspective. It's just dumb.
(Actually, using your age as an a “argument” might lead to leave you in an uncomfortable and even embarrassing position, as @Analog Kid already demonstrated to you.)
The fact that I'm just getting to my thirties it's irrelevant, the same way it is the fact that somebody here spent a few months in China.
It looks like a lot of people in this thread will have to do themselves a favor and look up “logical fallacies” on Wikipedia. And while they are at it, do some research on China and communism.
Does yourself a favor and open Google Maps some day. It's literally not even a competition, it's objectively superior in nearly every way.
I will repeat again, just throwing resources and money might make your map functional. But Google also has a LOT of expertise in machine learning and data analysis, which is why Google's turn-by-turn directions are usually better.
Think about it: maps is exactly the type of problem Google excels at, and Apple thinks they can just hire a few people and throw money at the problem.
Google has a lot of experts in deep learning, like the people from Deep Mind. That's a gigantic advantage. They are also doing pioneering research in quantum computing. Apple simply can't compete on this type of problem by adding extra vans.
And maps get better when people use them. Google Maps has a LOT more users. This is why Google Maps traffic analysis is also way more accurate than Apple Maps.