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

[1041958]

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!

Wow, so upset over me explaining a simple truth about economics. In this case, "Income Elasticity of Demand."

To put it in simple terms: A person who sees their income rise will continue to buy NORMAL goods as you always need certain things (like toilet paper). This person will buy buy fewer INFERIOR goods as they now have additional income and don't need to settle for cheap stuff. And they will buy more LUXURY goods because they can now afford them. Not all poeople will follow this exactly (like my example above about a wealthy person still driving a Ford). But overall the market will follow this.

And this is why the average iPhone buyer has a higher salary and education compared to an Android buyer. A Galaxy S7 or Note 7 buyer would also have a higher salary and education than the average Android buyer.


The fact you're going on a huge rant about elitism is telling of who you are. As does your comment about private schools or kids with daddy's BMW. You sound like someone who's mad at people who are better off or have more money than you. Such a waste of energy. There's always someone higher up the ladder than you and others who are lower than you. Don't be jealous of those above and don't **** on those below and you'll enjoy your life a whole lot more.

 

[juannacho]

The worst thing Apple did in all of this was letting it be known that they were looking at 'something to do with cars' at all. From now on anything they do will look either half baked or grossly naive.

Looking at the annual leaks of what the next iPhone will be (and it always being totally correct) just makes me think Apple aren't very good at keeping secrets!

I kinda miss the olden, pre internet days when the first you knew about a companies new product was when it appeared in the shops!

 

[Zmmyt]

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.

Still think it's a great idea. Tesla got an amazing infrastructure and amazing technology, why not build on top of that?

 

[nt5672]

I just don't understand Apple's thinking when it comes to competing in the automobile world. . . . . . . .

This is really simple, it puts Tim Cook on a bunch of TV programs and magazine covers. What else matters?

 

[kdarling]

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.

Most people didn't know they were paying more than $200.

Over 90% of iPhone sales have been in countries where there is a subsidy program, which hides the real cost behind an upfront price of anywhere from free to about $200. People didn't really think that they're paying the retail price, because it was hidden in their monthly payments.(*)

Japan was a perfect example. It's a well off, technically advanced thinking, nation, and yet the iPhone barely sold there for the first couple of years. Then the major carriers started giving them away for "free" with a contract, and boom! iPhone usage jumped to 50%.

Moreover, at least in the US, a fifth of used iPhones are sold to help pay for the next one. People with money don't rely on selling old phones to get a new one. They give them away or put them in a drawer.

(*) Now, with subsidies gone and monthly device loan payments pointing out the real cost, fewer people are choosing iPhones (or any high priced phones), as has been predicted for years.

 

[Tycho24]

Still think it's a great idea. Tesla got an amazing infrastructure and amazing technology, why not build on top of that?

Because you CAN'T if it's not your company.
What are you even talking about?????!
You can't co-opt any company you want.
Tesla has their own plans, people, culture, etc.
This is not a "corporate raider" situation... Apple can't storm through the gates & say:
"We want you to conform to our plans!". What leverage would they have? Why would Tesla bend to their will?
You aren't making any sense.
I mean I could say: "Apple has a great customer service department; why shouldn't Tesla build on top of that?"... it would make the same amount of sense (NONE!).
How can you "build on the top of" what is not yours??
As I said- seeing two awesome companies & immediately jumping to: "ooh, they should merge!" without any consideration of the "why would they?" & "what possibly would be in it for them (both parties equally)?" is just childish daydreaming.
It's like saying: "I like the Bulls... so they should move to my little hometown!"
Ok, that would be cool for you- but if you could come up with no reason WHY they really would; certainly you'd have to put that in the "wistfull fantasy" department, yeah?
You haven't said one thing substantive. Elon Musk (rightly) thinks highly of his company's intellectual property. Why would he choose to become a cog for Apple? They each will go their own way. There simply does not exist the opportunity for them to both keep their corporate identities & work together in a large or meaningful way.
If you have even the vaguest understanding of these company's missives, this must be clear.
Yeah, I'll pipedream with you: it'd be super cool to see Tim & Elon working side by side, in a perfect world, where that was feasible.
But.... we live in this one- where it simply is not.

 

[1041958]

Most people didn't know they were paying more than $200.

Over 90% of iPhone sales have been in countries where there is a subsidy program, which hides the real cost behind an upfront price of anywhere from free to about $200. People didn't really think that they're paying the retail price, because it was hidden in their monthly payments.(*)

Japan was a perfect example. It's a well off, technically advanced thinking, nation, and yet the iPhone barely sold there for the first couple of years. Then the major carriers started giving them away for "free" with a contract, and boom! iPhone usage jumped to 50%.

Moreover, at least in the US, a fifth of used iPhones are sold to help pay for the next one. People with money don't rely on selling old phones to get a new one. They give them away or put them in a drawer.

(*) Now, with subsidies gone and monthly device loan payments pointing out the real cost, fewer people are choosing iPhones (or any high priced phones), as has been predicted for years.

And yet none of what you said changes the facts I posted. Namely that the majority of Android phones sold are low end and that the average iPhone buyer makes more than the average Android buyer. How people buy them is irrelevant.

So I'm having a hard time understanding the relevance of your post.

 

[69650]

Market research suggests otherwise, to say nothing of the already proven demand for semi-autonomous functionality that's already been deployed for years now (ranging from relatively simple adaptive cruise control functionality to Tesla's Autopilot). People drive because they have to. It's stressful, and it eats up otherwise productive time you could be using to work on something else. And it's dangerous; we might accept it implicitly and not really give it much thought (or assume that it'll be somebody else in a fatal accident), but the evidence is clear.

Self-driving cars effectively tackle almost every single downside people have listed about driving for decades. They have constant, 360 degree awareness of their surroundings. They track everything relative to them and compare their inputs to data derived from millions of miles across all other vehicles (and billions of simulated ones) while algorithms are constantly refined. As they become more and more common, the sheer amount of data and collective experience will be mind-boggling. What's learned from one car will be applied to all others. No single human will ever be able to come close to developing that sort of experience on their own. And on a commercial level, self-driving trucks will have a profound impact on logistics for, well, literally moved in a modern economy.

More advanced self-driving cars will allow drivers to focus on other tasks. Watch a movie, read a book, or take a nap? Giving drivers those options is the eventual end goal with fully autonomous vehicles.

Even if the initial rollout is slow because of human caution with something 'new', there are going to be a hell of a lot of factors putting intense pressure on consumers to purchase self-driving cars. Government regulators, car and life insurance companies, manufacturers, safety advocates, and more are all going to push to incentivize self-driving cars. If initial prices are higher, it's a pretty safe bet that there will be some significant tax incentives out there. Traffic accidents alone have a huge economic impact, to say nothing of the productive time lost to commutes. Compared to most tax incentives, self-driving car incentives have a pretty strong financial argument going for them. And if most models offer optional manual controls, there's very little reason why someone *wouldn't* want to consider one.

What market research? What people say and what they do are very different. The only numbers that matter are how many people buy one of these cars and nobody can accurately forecast that.

I would never trust a self-driving car because it's a computer and computers fail. Apple can't even get iCloud to work properly so why on earth would I trust Apple with my life. People have died recently trusting their Tesla to drive itself. This is never ever going to be mainstream and Apple are wasting billions on a pipe dream.
[doublepost=1473639946][/doublepost]

Unproven demand? That is insane. Of course the demand will be there. What is unproven is if these cars can actually be made. But if you can get a self driving car, of course you want that. Taking a nap after work on your hour commute home will be fantastic. As will watching TV or just having a beer. No more drunk driving. No more dumb kids dying in car wrecks because they are terrible drivers. Heck, just no more deadly mistakes by normally careful drivers. Heck, it won't just be that there is demand, the features in driverless cars will probably be a requirement.

Letting drivers sleep at the wheel while their car drives itself is the most dangerous insane thing I have ever heard.

 

[ErikGrim]

What happened to the Segway? Other than killing the inventor.

Last I heard Dean Kamen was alive and well.

 

[TallManNY]

What market research? What people say and what they do are very different. The only numbers that matter are how many people buy one of these cars and nobody can accurately forecast that.

I would never trust a self-driving car because it's a computer and computers fail. Apple can't even get iCloud to work properly so why on earth would I trust Apple with my life. People have died recently trusting their Tesla to drive itself. This is never ever going to be mainstream and Apple are wasting billions on a pipe dream.
[doublepost=1473639946][/doublepost]

Letting drivers sleep at the wheel while their car drives itself is the most dangerous insane thing I have ever heard.

We all sleep in cars while someone else drives. If the computer can drive better than a human then it will become commonplace. I don't know if the sensors can get good enough to do the analysis. But the simple decision of accelerate, brake or turn left or right (basically just four options) isn't that complicated. Computers have been able to drive "cars" since Pole Position was released in arcades decades ago. Sensor precise enough to give that computer the right data is very complicated. But one Tesla accident isn't proof that it can never be done. And remember it doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be significantly better than the far from perfect human drivers.

I think it can be done. But maybe it can't. We shall see. And apparently, judging on what Google, Tesla and Uber are doing right now in 2016 we are going to find out in just a couple of years.

Now Apple might not be the company to develop these cars. That is a different issue.
[doublepost=1473648852][/doublepost]

Most people didn't know they were paying more than $200.

Over 90% of iPhone sales have been in countries where there is a subsidy program, which hides the real cost behind an upfront price of anywhere from free to about $200. People didn't really think that they're paying the retail price, because it was hidden in their monthly payments.(*)

Japan was a perfect example. It's a well off, technically advanced thinking, nation, and yet the iPhone barely sold there for the first couple of years. Then the major carriers started giving them away for "free" with a contract, and boom! iPhone usage jumped to 50%.

Moreover, at least in the US, a fifth of used iPhones are sold to help pay for the next one. People with money don't rely on selling old phones to get a new one. They give them away or put them in a drawer.

(*) Now, with subsidies gone and monthly device loan payments pointing out the real cost, fewer people are choosing iPhones (or any high priced phones), as has been predicted for years.

And now you can buy an iPhone for no money down and just a dollar a day payment plan. It isn't that much. Though I'm with you that the market for phones that cost a dollar a day may dwindle as good enough phones cost fifty cents a day. Or maybe a quarter a day. But everyone wants a smartphone and folks like that phone to have iOS.

But let's see. The 6s sold like crazy. Heck, the 6 sold in the tens of millions in 2016. I have no idea why that happened. But the thing kept selling. The 5s still sold even after the SE was released.

And Apple can lower the price for its phones if demand drops. It is starting to get serious service revenue. With the current iPhones all being powerhouse computers, each phone will be effective for years. And therefore will be a revenue source of some sort for years.

 

[Zmmyt]

Because you CAN'T if it's not your company.
What are you even talking about?????!
You can't co-opt any company you want.
Tesla has their own plans, people, culture, etc.
This is not a "corporate raider" situation... Apple can't storm through the gates & say:
"We want you to conform to our plans!". What leverage would they have? Why would Tesla bend to their will?
You aren't making any sense.
I mean I could say: "Apple has a great customer service department; why shouldn't Tesla build on top of that?"... it would make the same amount of sense (NONE!).
How can you "build on the top of" what is not yours??
As I said- seeing two awesome companies & immediately jumping to: "ooh, they should merge!" without any consideration of the "why would they?" & "what possibly would be in it for them (both parties equally)?" is just childish daydreaming.
It's like saying: "I like the Bulls... so they should move to my little hometown!"
Ok, that would be cool for you- but if you could come up with no reason WHY they really would; certainly you'd have to put that in the "wistfull fantasy" department, yeah?
You haven't said one thing substantive. Elon Musk (rightly) thinks highly of his company's intellectual property. Why would he choose to become a cog for Apple? They each will go their own way. There simply does not exist the opportunity for them to both keep their corporate identities & work together in a large or meaningful way.
If you have even the vaguest understanding of these company's missives, this must be clear.
Yeah, I'll pipedream with you: it'd be super cool to see Tim & Elon working side by side, in a perfect world, where that was feasible.
But.... we live in this one- where it simply is not.

Of course only they let you.

 

[69650]

It does have to be perfect because otherwise very few people will buy one and the more fatal accidents the more likely that governments around the world will ban it from their roads.

Imagine the scenario: an Apple Car fails and causes a multiple car crash with several fatalities. The lawyers would be queuing up with their class action law suit claiming Apple directly caused the deaths through their faulty software.

Some of the driver aids developed during this process will filter into everyday cars but the fully autonomous self driving car were you can fall asleep and let the car drive itself is never going to happen.

 

[Tycho24]

Of course only they let you.

Lol, ok buddy... great chat.
And really fun idea.

 

[kaneda]

Elon was right! Think of all them fools who left Tesla for Apple! I hope he don't let them back!

Yeah, Tesla autopilot is not doing too great either.

 

[linkgx1]

Honestly, it doesn't make sense for Apple to buy Tesla. Apple would honestly be too limiting for Tesla. Maybe Google could, but not App.e

 

[Tycho24]

Most people didn't know they were paying more than $200.

Over 90% of iPhone sales have been in countries where there is a subsidy program, which hides the real cost behind an upfront price of anywhere from free to about $200. People didn't really think that they're paying the retail price, because it was hidden in their monthly payments.(*)

Japan was a perfect example. It's a well off, technically advanced thinking, nation, and yet the iPhone barely sold there for the first couple of years. Then the major carriers started giving them away for "free" with a contract, and boom! iPhone usage jumped to 50%.

Moreover, at least in the US, a fifth of used iPhones are sold to help pay for the next one. People with money don't rely on selling old phones to get a new one. They give them away or put them in a drawer.

(*) Now, with subsidies gone and monthly device loan payments pointing out the real cost, fewer people are choosing iPhones (or any high priced phones), as has been predicted for years.

Forbes (2015):http://www.forbes.com/sites/amitcho...id-decreases-to-254-says-report/#28c07fef385e

You misunderstand his point ENTIRELY.
The average cost of an iPhone is $687; $254 for an Android.
WITHOUT ANY SUBSIDIES!!!!
Make more sense now?

 

[kdarling]

You misunderstand his point ENTIRELY.
The average cost of an iPhone is $687; $254 for an Android.
WITHOUT ANY SUBSIDIES!!!!
Make more sense now?

Nope, because very few people are buying iPhones (or any phone) for $600+ UPFRONT without a subsidy.

The overwhelming majority are paying from $0 up to about $200 upfront, and the rest is hidden from them in monthly fees. Heck, look at all the people who actually thought that $100 or $200 was the full price. The reason why iPhone sales are dropping is because now it's becoming more clear to people how much they're paying, and they're looking closer at other options.

Thus my point was that the claim that "(The higher price proves) the AVERAGE iPhone buyer makes more more than the average Android user", just cannot be inferred from ASP alone... since the overwhelming majority of AVERAGE iPhone buyers don't see that higher ASP upfront.

 

[dysamoria]

This may end up being an historic waste of resources at Apple. Future documentaries and biographies will tell... I hope they abandon this initiative very soon and stop wasting resources on a market that has nothing to do with their business. More importantly, I hope they stop diluting their business.

Hopefully someone with vision will eventually take over and focus the company again, but I'm not holding my breath, and I've no idea who that visionary could be when CEOs just get pulled from other CEO positions in the business world. Apple's not had great success with non-Jobs leadership. What CEO out there knows technology AND believes in a user-focus for it? Being a leader in this business generally means focusing on numbers and marketing, not focusing on the actual product. The last media event made me question why I spend the time to sit through these long Apple-self-indulgence marketing festivals...

 

[kyleh22]

Elon Musk has already hinted that he wants nothing to do with Apple. His vision and philosophy for SpaceX, Tesla and SolarCity are light years ahead of any company peddling Chinese made gadgets. Plus, Google Maps is at the heart of autonomous driving.

It would obviously be in the form of a hostile take over. They would have no say in the matter.
[doublepost=1473793650][/doublepost]

I can't even begin to describe how asinine it would be for Musk to have bought SolarCity for that reason. Tesla doesn't need SolarCity to make it unattractive to Apple/Google. When SJ was alive, everyone said Apple was overvalued because without Steve Jobs, Apple would be nothing. That may be true, but I ask them this: What is Tesla without Elon Musk?

And however critical Steve Jobs' brilliance was to Apple's success, Apple remains one of the most profitable companies out there without him. With Elon Musk at the helm, Tesla's ambitions are growing in the face of mounting costs and no clear path to profitability.

Tesla is very attractive to apple. It is clear Apple hasn't had much success with a car. Plus apple is lacking a strong visionary.

With SolarCity on Tesla's balance sheet, a Hostile Takeover has become much more expensive for Aapl/Goog
[doublepost=1473793785][/doublepost]

You should it wouldn't make it more attractive to Apple? They have huge solar farms for their data centers, and that is one area of tech that needs to improve for the betterment of everyone.

Having solar polar be more ubiquitous would be awesome.

It would be great but SolarCity isn't in the business of innovating solar, they are in the business of buying peoples roof space and selling electricity back to the home owner. SolarCity's business model is not very attractive to the customer.

 

[npavkovic]

It's really for the best. They've been at it for some time now and haven't figured out that a self-driving car doesn't need rear view mirrors.

 

[robbyx]

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?

For sure. I've been drinking the Apple Kool Aid for 35 years, much much longer than most of the newbie Apple fans who get upset about stupid stuff. News flash, Apple has been killing off ports and peripherals forever. As for the design, I don't give a ****. Did they produce a fantastic product? Looks like it. I was playing around with my friend's 7 Plus last week (he works for Apple) and the camera was excellent. The portrait feature is every bit as good as it appeared. The new processor screams. It's water resistant. I don't need new for new's sake. I need a great phone.

 

[zahuh]

For sure. I've been drinking the Apple Kool Aid for 35 years, much much longer than most of the newbie Apple fans who get upset about stupid stuff. News flash, Apple has been killing off ports and peripherals forever. As for the design, I don't give a ****. Did they produce a fantastic product? Looks like it. I was playing around with my friend's 7 Plus last week (he works for Apple) and the camera was excellent. The portrait feature is every bit as good as it appeared. The new processor screams. It's water resistant. I don't need new for new's sake. I need a great phone.

You should go work at Apple. You'd fit right in being excited about the same stuff every year acting like it's different.

My first Mac was in 87. I think you have a few years on me but we're the same. What's happening now feels a lot like when SJ got fired in 85. Too many similar models. Innovation slowdown. No next big thing. Just holding on to what is selling.

 

[BrianKonarsMac]

Elon was right! Think of all them fools who left Tesla for Apple! I hope he don't let them back!

First thing I thought of too - hopefully they can figure out what they're doing and get somebody with some vision in the place soon. If I were in that space, I would be quite leery of Apple moving forward.

 

[robbyx]

You should go work at Apple. You'd fit right in being excited about the same stuff every year acting like it's different.

My first Mac was in 87. I think you have a few years on me but we're the same. What's happening now feels a lot like when SJ got fired in 85. Too many similar models. Innovation slowdown. No next big thing. Just holding on to what is selling.

I can't disagree that the product line feels kind of dull these days but I don't blame Apple for that. No one has exciting products. Samsung adds gimmicky features and calls it innovation. We're crossing a tech plateau. Change will be incremental and derivative until the next big thing comes along. Just like those many long years between the first Mac GUI and the touch interface. That was what, 20 years waiting for the next big thing? It would be different if there really were innovative products coming from other companies, but there aren't any. I don't understand why people hold Apple alone to such an unrealistic standard.

 

[maxsix]

I can't disagree that the product line feels kind of dull these days but I don't blame Apple for that.

I don't understand why people hold Apple alone to such an unrealistic standard.

It's easy to explain. Apple's incessant hype creates high buyer expectations.

Apple hasn't peaked, nor have Samsung, Google and others. The Cupertino Company has simply found it easy to slack off on innovation, knowing the Devotees won't push back. Now addicted to coasting while profit taking over the last few years, they posture, pontificate and tell the faithful what they want to hear.

The technique is working brilliantly.