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 Reportedly in Process of Acquiring Self-Driving Vehicle Company Drive.ai
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am well aware of that. I wasn't addressing every issue with autonomous driving, only addressing the issue with respect to mozumder's infrastructure claims. We don't need new tech. We need better roads and bridges.
What technology/equipment are you talking about? I don't think you understand what I mean by infrastructure. Infrastructure is our roads and bridges, electrical grid, water and sewage, etc. Our roads and bridges are in disrepair and in bad need of maintenance. They need to be better now, but they aren't. For autonomous driving to successfully make it to mixed human/auto driving and then to full autonomy that infrastructure is going to have to be dealt with. We've been kicking that can down the road for decades.
Well, they did try and buy Tesla so I could see why people think they want to get into that business.
Nah. I don’t care what a rumor says, I don’t see Apple wanting to invest their resources/money with Tesla. Teslas manufacturing is too inconsistent and not on par I would assume with what Apple would have expectations of in terms of quality by their standards.
Hopefully. That would mean the self-driving tech is good and safe enough to not need one.
I’m talking about things like beacons in roads or in signs to broadcast information to vehicles to assist in driving. Autonomous vehicles should be able to drive on any road without assistance, just like a human can do.
Twice???!!! ha ha ha. Try TEN times.
It will be called the CarPro and start at $400,000 for the base model, wheels sold separately... $10,000 per wheel. Luxury models starting at $750,000 ( Timmy will say just don't buy coffee for the next 250,000 days!)
Remember, Apple is now a fashion/lifestyle brand. Super High Prices are part of the experience.
Anyone else think the press photo is simply a parked vehicle with some diligently applied motion blur? 
Otherwise, that vehicle is going way too fast for city streets. Still photos of objects in motion (or moving backgrounds) haven't required long exposures for probably over 100 years.
Otherwise, that vehicle is going way too fast for city streets. Still photos of objects in motion (or moving backgrounds) haven't required long exposures for probably over 100 years.
Such seamless equipment on that car. If it wasn't for the advertising you'd never know there was anything different about that vehicle.
Why not go after Zoox and Nuro. They both have far better rankings. Apple's got enough money to make them an offer they can't refuse.
or Tesla.
That's not true at all. Airline crashes happen. Tesla crashes happen even more. Yet neither have been rejected--in fact, both are more popular than ever. The public cares about statistics, not isolated incidents. This is why stricter gun legislation hasn't been passed. Mass shootings may be more common now than ever, but overall gun murders per capita are actually on the decline despite a mass influx in gun ownership (talking USA here).
This is probably the most important point in your list. Poor weather conditions, glare, and/or poor lighting cause or contribute to the vast majority of all traffic collisions and accidents, and these are exactly the cases where (beyond a point) Autopilot or other autonomous systems will hand control of the vehicle back to a human...so of course there'll be far fewer accidents due to weather from Autopilot.
Last edited:
But technically, humans have assistive features on roads already: Signs, pavement markings, etc. Perhaps you mean that autonomous vehicles should be able to use the same assistive devices humans use? But it seems only natural that if roads were designed for computers they'd incorporate signals tailored to the computers just as roads aimed at humans employ human readable signals. *If* autonomous vehicles became common place, I'd expect a gradual transition as these automated systems could potentially be less expensive in the long run.
It’s foolish to think computers can solve infrastructure problems.
[doublepost=1559838001][/doublepost]
Yet I’m already proven right considering Tesla’s have a higher fatality rate than motorcycles.
You don’t really know if they tried to buy Tesla. It’s speculation. I’m aware of the story that they made an offer. Still, we don’t know for sure.
I disagree, the public actually doesn't care about statistics. If they did, seatbelt laws wouldn't be required, and mass transportation would have far more support. They care about perceived control and perceived personal risk. That perception seldom aligns with statistics. Airlines are held to a very hight safety standard and face intense scrutiny for every little incident. Gun laws in the US would become much stricter in response to public outcry were it not for a power gun lobby. I doubt autonomous cars will inspire that kind of passion or tolerate that level of regulation and scrutiny. Imagine all the cars of a particular model being taken out of service for months after an avoidable fatal incident while the software is redesigned. We expect this for aircraft because of the lack of control and perception of extreme danger, but I doubt we'd tolerate this response if a serious flaw were found in our autonomous vehicles even if more people were at risk. Logic just doesn't apply to the public.