Apple 'Reboots' Self-Driving Car Initiative Amid Project Layoffs and Closures

[vvswarup]

Spot on. Must also add there were cultural factors in technology when Jobs was at the helm yet he seemed less concerned with appealing to all demographics and establishing a fashion brand. He believed if you design a great product it will sell itself as opposed to developing products for profits sake. CEO's think solely in terms of profit and market growth, which has almost always proved short-sighted, leading to failure as a strong company that grows too fast without a truly solid product and market base will falter in the end. It's very similar to the startup mindset in Silicon Valley; most aren't concerned with developing a passionate product or service for the long-term. It's a "shake-n-bake" system based on short-term thinking - create something in a few months and pitch it to the highest bidder, rinse and repeat.

Cook is operating Apple in this similar mindset that many CEO's before have done with the false sense of security based on their current status and success. Yet such short sightedness and focus on growth lacks the vision outside their singular strengths and almost always backfires. The time frame may differ between corporations (differing factors such as market strength, stock value, market saturation, etc), but it always leads to the same road.

Jobs was less concerned about profit and more about making something unique, whether it was perfecting already existing technologies or developing new systems. He was headstrong, difficult, a perfectionist, narcissistic, and I'm certain more but it was never personal, it was his passion. When he passed many questioned Apple's future, alarmists especially yet many cautioned for more reason. It's becoming clearer that Jobs was the heart of Apple. Technology is a rapidly growing and morphing industry that requires someone who can look at the bigger picture as it evolves, see what others don't, and react quickly and appropriately. A road-plan won't last beyond a few months and Cook knows it. He's throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks instead of focusing on a specific target.

Steve Jobs didn't have the Midas touch. There are products that failed under his watch. MobileMe was one such example. Ping was another example. Also, his obsession with skeuomorphism was starting to look stupid. One need look no further than the old leather stitching pattern in the Find My Friends app. Jobs wanted the patter in the app to match the leather stitching pattern for his private jet.

You claim that Tim Cook is just interested in profit and market growth. I don't see a lick of evidence for this. Under his stewardship, Apple's R&D spending is higher than it's ever been. If he was engaging in short-term profit-making, this wouldn't be happening. He'd be spending like crazy on marketing existing products, thinking that that's what the problem was. While Apple has been conducting marketing campaigns on its products, Apple is not neglecting R&D spending.

I agree with your claim that Steve Jobs believed that to make a product, you had to start with a great product that customers would want to buy but I don't see any evidence that that thinking has changed under Tim Cook.

I find it ironic that people have made Steve out to be a perfect CEO-that he never made a wrong decision as a CEO-but those same people are so quick to question his choice of successor.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Every 2 year is supposed to be a redesign.

The iPhone 7 is a redesign. Even Apple has referred to it as "all new" so I guess you have to take their word for it.

I'm afraid it's myth, marketing and Apple fan sites that have you believe iPhone uses are 'wealthy'. It's most certainly not common knowledge! I see far far too many children and none wealthy people with iPhones!

I have heard multiple times around here that most Apple owners are wealthy. Now of course it might just be that the majority of enthusiasts on this forum are wealthy, but it's something that has been discussed many times.

That's one reason I was sort of surprised that Apple didn't try a second generation of the gold Apple Watch Edition because if you have a lot of wealthy customers the sales should be there.

Now I make about $50-60 K a year which as a single person in a rural US State makes a decent life and allows me to have a few things, drive a nice truck and own a modest 2 bedroom home. It would not allow me to own an ultra expensive Apple car (besides it would probably suck in the snow).

I understand that I'm probably poorer then most Apple enthusiasts so therefore my opinion about this stuff will be different.

 

[SvP]

Actually more of it probably comes down to return on investment. All automakers have terrible ROI compared to Apple. Even established automakers spend billions and billions simply updating a conventional automobile and then turn around and make a very small profit on each unit sold if they make one at all.

Tesla which was said to be a model for Apple has never turned a profit. GM relies on products like the Silverado pickup to support losses on a product like the Chevy Volt. If you really look deep into the auto industry it's a tough business. When your making money like Apple is why jump into something like that?

The sort of markup that Apple would need on a car to turn an iPhone like profit would be shocking. I understand it's common wisdom that Apple has customers that are rich compared to other brands of consumer electronic devices, but just how rich is rich? Are there enough people willing to spend $100,000+ on a car because of the Apple brand? Heck the biggest Apple fan I know in real life has a used 6 year old Toyota Corolla. lol

It was some dream Cook had and I'm sure more then a few board members didn't like the dream. Apple is much better off remaining a consumer electronics company. There might be an area outside of that to investigate, but automobiles are probably not the right place if they want to make huge returns on investment.

I think you're right about the ROI, but I don't believe apple thinks that way. They try to rethink thinks in such a profound way that it becomes obvious, though not always clear at first sight. Not having to figure out the tool that you use to get something else done; simplicity is hard to do. People pay for that because it's beneficial to them. Make it worth the money and they'll buy.

About being rich Apple fans: For example; I have had the new iPhone year after year with a yearly 120€ out of pocket expense. My MacBook Pro has cost me 500€ a year (each 3-4 years a new one). They hold value very well.

I'm sorry to say I'm pretty poor. But if I had not kept investing in proper stuff, I'd be even more stuck. It's a poverty trap, I think, to buy cheap stuff if you're poor. Buy solid stuff: well designed, fitted shoes will outlast the equivalent in worth of cheap ones.

I'm not saying there aren't blind followers, or that the Apple way is always better. If you have different goals and interests you pick different values and therefore different products; I just think apple's success gets attributed to the wrong things.

 

[DakotaGuy]

I think you're right about the ROI, but I don't believe apple thinks that way. They try to rethink thinks in such a profound way that it becomes obvious, though not always clear at first sight. Not having to figure out the tool that you use to get something else done; simplicity is hard to do. People pay for that because it's beneficial to them. Make it worth the money and they'll buy.

Jony Ive is that you?

In all honesty there are lot of good choices in the electronics/computer/phone market these days. Apple, Samsung, LG, HTC, Lenovo, HP, Dell etc. all have some nice products if your willing to pay for their better models. None of those companies are building junk unless you get down to the $150 smartphones or $300 laptops.

 

[SvP]

Jony Ive is that you?

In all honesty there are lot of good choices in the electronics/computer/phone market these days. Apple, Samsung, LG, HTC, Lenovo, HP, Dell etc. all have some nice products if your willing to pay for their better models. None of those companies are building junk unless you get down to the $150 smartphones or $300 laptops.

They're -willing- to build junk though. And a lot of what they do is "because it always worked that way". Example: ssd's in the shape and form of hdd's, cooling fans instead of changing internals, and lots of bays, docks, etc.

Some like that and I'm not judging them; I just think the other way is the future.

 

[EdT]

The iPhone 7 is a redesign. Even Apple has referred to it as "all new" so I guess you have to take their word for it.



I have heard multiple times around here that most Apple owners are wealthy. Now of course it might just be that the majority of enthusiasts on this forum are wealthy, but it's something that has been discussed many times.

That's one reason I was sort of surprised that Apple didn't try a second generation of the gold Apple Watch Edition because if you have a lot of wealthy customers the sales should be there.

Now I make about $50-60 K a year which as a single person in a rural US State makes a decent life and allows me to have a few things, drive a nice truck and own a modest 2 bedroom home. It would not allow me to own an ultra expensive Apple car (besides it would probably suck in the snow).

I understand that I'm probably poorer then most Apple enthusiasts so therefore my opinion about this stuff will be different.

Your spendable income vs cost of living probably puts you even or slightly above most who post here. You may not make as much money as someone in San Fransisco makes but the price of a normal house where you live isn't 1.1 million either. I live in the state south of you, and make about the same as you do. If that disqualifies my opinions on things then so be it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Apple's prototype car looked like a 1967 VW van. No wonder all the hired hands executives jump ship! They can tell they are in a completely different idealogy.

Apple never released any prototype cars. The only images we got were from people outside of Apple trying to imagine what a car made by Apple would look like. As usual with these desperate click-bait efforts, what they came up with was totally awful. Don't be blaming Apple for that.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

$10 billion a year in R&D and Apple can't keep the entire Mac line properly updated, creates an iPhone 7 that basically no different from the 6s or the 6, and has a failed vehicle project on its hands. If I didn't know better, I'd say Apple's best days are behind and it might be time to dump the stock.

Apple has become the next Microsoft. Everything is developed by committee. There is no passion. There are no more firsts. There is only iteration and supply chain management.

 

[apolloa]

The iPhone 7 is a redesign. Even Apple has referred to it as "all new" so I guess you have to take their word for it.



I have heard multiple times around here that most Apple owners are wealthy. Now of course it might just be that the majority of enthusiasts on this forum are wealthy, but it's something that has been discussed many times.

That's one reason I was sort of surprised that Apple didn't try a second generation of the gold Apple Watch Edition because if you have a lot of wealthy customers the sales should be there.

Now I make about $50-60 K a year which as a single person in a rural US State makes a decent life and allows me to have a few things, drive a nice truck and own a modest 2 bedroom home. It would not allow me to own an ultra expensive Apple car (besides it would probably suck in the snow).

I understand that I'm probably poorer then most Apple enthusiasts so therefore my opinion about this stuff will be different.

Trust me, iPhone owners are not wealthy millionaires, everyone from all walks of life have them, people on here say they are wealthy to make themselves feel more elite which is sad really.

 

[1041958]

We will see what Apple is looking to do when we see more of their vehicles on the road. It is the only way to get real world experience (like Google) dealing with us meatbags on the road at the same time.
Otherwise I wouldn't mind seeing Apple make an electric car. It would help get the other automakers off their collective butts and start making nice looking and performing electric cars.

I never said they lacked encryption. I said hardware encryption. Since the 3GS Apple has had dedicated hardware to handle this. On the 3GS it was literally a separate chip that sat between the processor and the storage. Now it's integrated into the SoC.

Samsung/Android uses software encryption. Which is why there's a performance penalty when it's turned on. It's also why Google mandates a minimum storage performance requirement (I think it's 50 MB/sec) before you can make encryption default to on.


As to what Apple is doing - nobody knows. I work in the automotive industry for a major component supplier. And even I'm baffled at what they might do. People say infotainment. I doubt it. Manufacturers are so stubborn and they want total control over how their own systems look and work. I have no doubt Apple could make a superior infotainment system with intuitive controls that doesn't look like a video game designer came up with it. Current systems are terrible looking and literally all over the map in how the work.
[doublepost=1473610293][/doublepost]

Trust me, iPhone owners are not wealthy millionaires, everyone from all walks of life have them, people on here say they are wealthy to make themselves feel more elite which is sad really.

Nobody says iPhone users are wealthy and the studies referred to don't claim that. What they DO claim is the average iPhone user has a higher education and makes more money than the average Android user. That's not the same thing as claiming they are wealthy.

Even so, this fact seems to really upset a lot of people.

 

[DakotaGuy]

They're -willing- to build junk though. And a lot of what they do is "because it always worked that way". Example: ssd's in the shape and form of hdd's, cooling fans instead of changing internals, and lots of bays, docks, etc.

Some like that and I'm not judging them; I just think the other way is the future.

The fact that we have enough money to buy premium products is great, but not everyone does so there is a market for those $150-200 prepaid smartphones or $300 laptops. I wouldn't be seen dead with one, but there is a market for those products. If nobody built that stuff we'd have a lot of people that would just have to do without access to certain technologies.

Samsung, LG, Motorola, HTC, etc. all have products that are of the same premium level as Apple and cost about the same, but they also build budget stuff. Does Samsung offering a cheap J series phone make the S series or Note series less premium? I don't so. That's sort of like saying GM offering a Chevy Cruze makes an $80K loaded Cadillac Escalade less premium.

Now how this deals with an Apple car is the fact that Apple would likely only build a a very premium car so full of technology most people couldn't even afford it (even Apple enthusiasts). Sales would be low and considering the investment it would take just to get it launched it would be a money pit.

They are way better off engineering infotainment systems and autonomous driving systems then entering into agreements with automakers. They are likely to make a lot more money going that route.

 

[apolloa]

Nobody says iPhone users are wealthy and the studies referred to don't claim that. What they DO claim is the average iPhone user has a higher education and makes more money than the average Android user. That's not the same thing as claiming they are wealthy.

Even so, this fact seems to really upset a lot of people.

Studies that ONLY apply to America then. Because no survey would tell you that in the UK. As I already said its all just marketing BS and rubbish shallow people come up with to make themselves feel more elite and important then rheu really are.

 

[1041958]

Studies that ONLY apply to America then. Because no survey would tell you that in the UK. As I already said its all just marketing BS and rubbish shallow people come up with to make themselves feel more elite and important then rheu really are.

Hardly. The average salaries of people (and their education) is proportional to the prices of things they buy. Whether it's phones, cars or houses. This is universal all over the world, not just in the US.

It doesn't mean you're wealthy if you drive a BMW (for example). Some people (I'd call idiots) buy BMWs just to look cool, and spend every dollar they make to appear wealthy while living paycheque to paycheque. Others who have lots of money still drive regular old Fords because they think it's stupid to spend money on an expensive car that depreciates in value. However, on average people who buy BMWs make more than people who buy Fords.

The average price for an Android phone is $200 (or less). For an iPhone it's 3X that. This is why the AVERAGE iPhone buyer makes more more than the average Android user. It's really just that simple.

No need for you to get all upset and condemn iPhone users as being snotty or elite over simple facts.

 

[SvP]

The fact that we have enough money to buy premium products is great, but not everyone does so there is a market for those $150-200 prepaid smartphones or $300 laptops. I wouldn't be seen dead with one, but there is a market for those products. If nobody built that stuff we'd have a lot of people that would just have to do without access to certain technologies.

Samsung, LG, Motorola, HTC, etc. all have products that are of the same premium level as Apple and cost about the same, but they also build budget stuff. Does Samsung offering a cheap J series phone make the S series or Note series less premium? I don't so. That's sort of like saying GM offering a Chevy Cruze makes an $80K loaded Cadillac Escalade less premium.

Now how this deals with an Apple car is the fact that Apple would likely only build a a very premium car so full of technology most people couldn't even afford it (even Apple enthusiasts). Sales would be low and considering the investment it would take just to get it launched it would be a money pit.

They are way better off engineering infotainment systems and autonomous driving systems then entering into agreements with automakers. They are likely to make a lot more money going that route.

The problem is not that there are cheap items; the problem is there's so much crap sold. I'm a knife enthusiast. My number one favorite knife costs 30€ (victorinox fibrox) My second favorite knife is 6€ (IKEA chefs knife). They're made by people who get what's needed for a perfect(ish) knife.

I wasn't kidding when saying I wasn't very wealthy. Money or budget is a valid restriction. But often the restriction is treated like a desired property. It's not. It's a restriction. Within that restriction, someone does what Apple does; you just have to find them and it's not by looking at specs you can.

People usually don't know what their true motivations are. They get narrated. Instead of a tool that helps you cut food without problems (like an in sharp knife or a slippery handle or a heavy knife) It means they're easily misguided (they look for the sharpest knife with a solid good grip handle that feels "solid") and that it's hard to find out what's best. So they buy a hard steel (sharp but not for long) knife with a wooden grip (slippery when wet and fat stick to it) and feeling solid (heavy after four diced carrots).

Look at milk foamers for a good example. Almost all of them have non-stick coating. Milk doesn't stick to steel; it sticks to. On-stick coating... the only reason it's there is to sell foamers: it will make you buy another one, and if you ask the salesman, he'll point you to a better non stick coating (don't buy it).

On top of that, competition forces marketing forward.

I'm not arrogant enough to say this is the absolute truth; but I suspect it's the "secret" to long term succes with the competition scratching their heads in confusion.

 

[EightBitJoe]

That's the lamest graphic accompanying a post I've seen to date, and there have been some real stinkers lately. Sumra and Rossignol are the worst offenders in this category.

 

[Zmmyt]

Worst. Guess. Ever.

Best.Idea.Eva

 

[MacBH928]

meanwhile, no news about updates macbook pro.

Now we know why they dropped "computers" from Apple Inc.

 

[Luscious]

History? Why are you being difficult? Every 2 years Apple has always redesigned the phone. They didn't this year. It might be the worst 2 year update ever. How can you not see that? Too much koolaid?

They didn't redesign the 7 because next year is the 10th anniversary of the original iPhone and they want to radically redesign the phone for that event.

Apple hasn't always resdesigned the iPhone every 2 years. The original iPhone didn't have 3G. It was Edge only. The next model, the 3G, that came out wasn't redesigned nor was the 3GS that came out the following year. The 2 year redesign cycle began after the 3GS was released.

If your buying the 7 your doing it with the understanding that it'll be next year that the phone receives a radical redesign. That's why I'm sticking with the 6s. I'll upgrade when they release the iPhone 8 next year if it's worth it.

 

[CFreymarc]

How so? We know the S and X were late, but is there proof the 3 is as well?

This is MacRumors. No need for "proof" is needed any statement made here. Take it as you will.

 

[RogerWilco]

They didn't redesign the 7 because next year is the 10th anniversary of the original iPhone and they want to radically redesign the phone for that event.

Yes, because self-serving anniversary worship is far more important than delivering solid, innovative products to your customer base on a reasonable schedule. Maybe Timmah will regale us with another company selfie where this time the employees are dressed and arranged as a giant iPhone.

 

[rGiskard]

- Custom image processing unit in their SoC. Fast enough to do 1080P 120FPS. No, Samsung doesn't have this either - their image processor/CPU isn't fast enough.

See, this is what currently bothers me so much about Apple. Apple could have upped the video capabilities with the new IPU, offering something like 1080p 240fps. But they didn't. They trickle out the updates to stay even or just a little ahead of the rest of the industry. Similarly they didn't offer OIS on the tele lens. Gotta save that for next year, right?

It's no longer "how do we make the best iPhone?" It's "how do we milk this iPhone thing for maximum profit?" Thus we get absurdities like removal of the headphone jack and proprietary wireless tech from Apple, and of course they'll sell more adapters too.

 

[apolloa]

Hardly. The average salaries of people (and their education) is proportional to the prices of things they buy. Whether it's phones, cars or houses. This is universal all over the world, not just in the US.

It doesn't mean you're wealthy if you drive a BMW (for example). Some people (I'd call idiots) buy BMWs just to look cool, and spend every dollar they make to appear wealthy while living paycheque to paycheque. Others who have lots of money still drive regular old Fords because they think it's stupid to spend money on an expensive car that depreciates in value. However, on average people who buy BMWs make more than people who buy Fords.

The average price for an Android phone is $200 (or less). For an iPhone it's 3X that. This is why the AVERAGE iPhone buyer makes more more than the average Android user. It's really just that simple.

No need for you to get all upset and condemn iPhone users as being snotty or elite over simple facts.

Your living in a dream world, I do not know of anyone who has an iPhone, and I know a fair few, who went to private high class education and earns higher wages, you can get an iPhone for free or very heavily discounted on contract. You are seriously confusing one culture and how they 'believe' they are elitist because they have an electronic device, with everyone else on the planet!

It is pure arrogant elitism and being a snob of you truly believe you are of a higher class then anyone else because you have an iPhone. It's so far removed from what is the reality it couldn't be any further from the reality, I see 10 year olds with iPhones and they sure as hell don't go to private schools and get picked up I'm daddy's limo or BMW or Mercedes or Audi etc etc etc

Stop believing the marketing spin. Oh and the Galaxy and Note series are the same cost as the iPhone and they are just as popular as the iPhone is!

 

[Tycho24]

Best.Idea.Eva

Yeah..
Except for- it's really, really, really, really, really, really, really NOT.
Look. iOS is cool(despite some flaws). Android (despite some flaws as well) is also cool. Should those two "merge" or something?? Of COURSE not!! That's ludicrous. Apple has a lot of ideas that they are pursuing on their own & don't need any help... they have an end-to-end plan, goals, etc. Similarly, so do Google. This is AMAZING for us as consumers!!! Two very competent (but different) choices in this space makes for a buyer's market.
Every manufacturer is trying to woo us by offering us better/faster/more! If it was all the same product we'd all suffer. Less competition = less innovation. FACT.
Tesla is well regarded & doing quite well... so is Apple!
I wish them both luck.
I do not think Tesla in any way, shape, or form "needs" Apple's self-driving software.
What would they do with their own?? Scrap it?? That would sure be a slap in the face to all their engineers/coders that have been working on it. Plus, Apple's simply CANNOT be as far along. So there's no "deal to be made" there.
Next- Apple doesn't "need" Tesla's car to put their software on. They are still a relatively low-volume company. They'd be MUCH better off trying to get their self-driving software in Uber's self-driving Volvo fleet... or in a fleet of cars operated by Didi Chuxing in China, that they just buttered up with a cool one billion dollar investment.

When people see two cool, but uniquely different companies, with different agendas, & different core competencies and want to smoosh them together into a "peanut butter and pickle sandwich"... that shows that they have a silly fairytale vision of what sounds "neato" in their own head- but is likely not remotely grounded in what is feasible, logical, or possible.
This is one of those cases... sorry.

 

[32828870]

Steve Jobs didn't have the Midas touch. There are products that failed under his watch. MobileMe was one such example. Ping was another example. Also, his obsession with skeuomorphism was starting to look stupid. One need look no further than the old leather stitching pattern in the Find My Friends app. Jobs wanted the patter in the app to match the leather stitching pattern for his private jet.

You claim that Tim Cook is just interested in profit and market growth. I don't see a lick of evidence for this. Under his stewardship, Apple's R&D spending is higher than it's ever been. If he was engaging in short-term profit-making, this wouldn't be happening. He'd be spending like crazy on marketing existing products, thinking that that's what the problem was. While Apple has been conducting marketing campaigns on its products, Apple is not neglecting R&D spending.

I agree with your claim that Steve Jobs believed that to make a product, you had to start with a great product that customers would want to buy but I don't see any evidence that that thinking has changed under Tim Cook.

I find it ironic that people have made Steve out to be a perfect CEO-that he never made a wrong decision as a CEO-but those same people are so quick to question his choice of successor.

I never claimed Jobs was perfect, in fact I made statements to the contrary. Jobs had many projects that fell flat, and some intentionally so as he was a smart chess player who saw the bigger picture and sacrificed certain things in order to keep the more important projects afloat. As for skeuomorphism, that was Forestall. Granted, those on the outside looking in might assume Jobs approved everything Forstall produced yet they would be wrong. After Forstall beat Fadell in developing Phone OS, now widely known as iOS, Forstall burnt more than a few bridges during his time. The anecdote regarding the stitching of certain apps matching Jobs' private jet is merely that, anecdotal. It has as much weight as a pile of feathers.

Jobs, Forstall, and Ive had more than a few quarrel's behind doors and if Forstall's actual design's had made it to development iOS would certainly not be in the position it is presently. He was managed. As per the contractual obligation(s) with Apple, he remained for a year after Jobs' passing but already had his hat handed to him well before. iOS 7 didn't happen over night. As Serlet, former SVP of OS X 10.4 - 10.6 Engineering during the Intel transition, Forstall remained in name only as iOS was already under the commission of others, one of whom being Ive.

As per your other claims, let me assure you as someone from the inside looking out, your remarks on Cook are as ironic as some of the statements regarding the misperceived irony of others. That, is situational irony.

 

[Tycho24]

Uber is already working on self driving vehicles. Why do they need Apple?

Uber is a company that so far has "built an app" (& an infrastructure)... that's about it.
Apple has been creating software for over 30 years.
I'm sure you realize that self-driving software will be more advanced & sophisticated than any other piece of software that has ever been written... it will be reliant on all kinds of AI, deep-learning, advanced pattern recognition, etc.
Obviously, these are HIGHLY specialized fields. There are not myriad amounts of people with expertise & experience at an EXTREMELY high level. A large majority of them were already brought on to Apple. Unless Uber feels confident that they could pull off a remarkably successful brain drain- it is a foregone conclusion that Apple is in a highly superior position to create a much safer and ostensibly "better" software system.
Especially, if it involves the creation of a communication protocol allowing for all cars to connect via a "grid network", so every single car that is self-driving knows the trajectory, velocity, and upcoming plans to turn, decelerate, etc. of every other self-driving car in the vicinity.
These type of projects may at 1st run, for example, as software services on a future iPhone. Perhaps, even non self-driving cars could be feeding their velocity/trajectory info into that "grid network", if the drivers are carrying an iPhone.
There are INFINITE possibilities of course... but all knowledge of these two companies point to the fact that Apple could deliver a superior self-driving software over Uber, imo.