Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You just described most cars for sale now. You want heated and ventilated seats? Pay extra. Powered lift gate? Additional cost. You want Sirius XM radio after the first three months trial? Pay up. You want Sirius to to stop calling you three times a week to ask if you're absolutely sure you really don't want to subscribe? Too bad.

That's just the American car market where you have to pay extra for things that come as standard on most European cars. The American car industry operates like it's still the 1960's. This explains why they haven't made a truly great car since the 60's.

Even the American muscle cars of the 70's and 80's were just poorly made pieces of metal that just happened to make a load of admittedly great sounding noise. They were absolute crap to drive and most even started to rust before they left the factory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lemon Mac
Making bets that things will never happen is a very bad idea - you have to wait for the end of time to win, and can lose at any point until then.
The bets time frame is a "couple of decades" not the "end of time". I only know for sure it won't happen within decades, because I'm pretty sure it will never happen. Self-awareness is not an easy thing to program into a computer. It's probably easier to train dolphins to drive our cars for us.
 
Well... No car companies seriously consider developing e-cars prior to Tesla.
A falsehood, the very first Porsche P1 back from 1898 was an all electric car. Since then in every decade there were numerous attempts to make this propulsion economic viable.

porsche-ev-2.jpg
In fact, GM developed the program and killed it in the end. Whether science fiction or not, it's inevitable current petrol combustion car would be a thing of the past.
For that case we already have wood gasifiers and biodiesel. There will always be something to burn cheaper than money, which is what drives a Tesla. Heaps of burning money!
 
Dying breed? Ha! Car enthusiast aren't even close to being a dying breed. As long as Porsche makes that lovely flat six, Ford's bonkers new Voodo V8, Yamaha's screaming V-10, Merc's AMG injected madness, Nissan's bullet proof V6... and that's just engines. We are in the heyday of power coupled with efficiency.

For some, driving is an experience in and of itself. Dying breed.

"Reports of our death are greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain hammering his 350hp Focus RS
You completely missed his point. Car enthusiasts is not what they're suggesting is a dying breed.
 
The bets time frame is a "couple of decades" not the "end of time". I only know for sure it won't happen within decades, because I'm pretty sure it will never happen. Self-awareness is not an easy thing to program into a computer. It's probably easier to train dolphins to drive our cars for us.

The hardest part is just having sensors that properly detect everything relevant in the environment. A lot of researchers have poured a lot of time, effort, and money into computer vision over the past two decades, and I think this nut is cracked about now.

Once you've done that, you just apply a path finding algorithm. Tons already exist for video games.

Making a self driving car wasn't the easiest thing, but it's done now.
[doublepost=1460994858][/doublepost]
Tesla Model 3 is NOT a self driving car! Your argument becomes less focal. Your credibility is not great when you make statements like this, no matter the point.

Your source is...?

Mine is this: Musk said in January 2016 that the company was 24-36 months from having their cars be 100% self driving. Historically, Tesla attaches hardware to their cars about a year before they send out free software updates that utilize the hardware. Which means that somewhere between January 2017 (8 months from now) and January 2018 (20 months from now), Tesla will be having 100% self driving hardware in their cars. The same window of time they're planning on launching the Model 3 in.

So it might not be self driving when it's first delivered, but it will be via software updates within a few months of delivery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smacrumon
That's just the American car market where you have to pay extra for things that come as standard on most European cars. The American car industry operates like it's still the 1960's. This explains why they haven't made a truly great car since the 60's.

Even the American muscle cars of the 70's and 80's were just poorly made pieces of metal that just happened to make a load of admittedly great sounding noise. They were absolute crap to drive and most even started to rust before they left the factory.
I'm so jealous that Europeans get their satellite radio, automatic transmission, powered lift gates, and heated seats for free!

Wait.. I just checked a the French website of Audi, and it turns out, options AREN'T free. It's not the paradise you are trying to sell.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: smacrumon
The sky isn't falling. But it's poor design, ugly design. Missteps like these will need to be eliminated for success.

If you think for a second the camera protruding must be a technical necessity.
For most people with cases that's not even an issue.

Objecting to the antenna bands showing where they are is also a personal taste.

None of it impedes functioning.

Again for klutzes like me with a case on my 6S no issues.
 
I don't think anyone with no vision could so happen to be involved in the space and solar business. ;)
Having a vision is exactly the root problem here. The car that envisions a road where there is in fact an open drawbridge, either crashes into the bridge or drives into the water and drowns its occupants. The secret to safe driving is sensing and accepting reality as it is, not making up an alternative reality and calling it a vision. There is a famous quote of former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt: "He who has visions should go see a doctor!" America already tried reusable rockets, that's what the Space Shuttle program was all about. In reality the shuttles needed long intensive repairs after every flight and were way more expensive and dangerous than one-time use rockets. Trying the same thing again with SpaceX is not a way forward, but the definition of insanity. We've tried electric cars, let them rest.

QS_0ffa066544814611b1e526075c06ba2a.jpg
 
You are ridiculous. Nikola Tesla died 1943 and never said anything about self-driving cars. Elon Musk makes science fiction like statements twice a day without ever backing them up. He could as well say, the technology may not be ready today, but before the end of next year, we'll be able to beam me up Scotty. At least that wouldn't require a self-aware AI.

He sure does make a lot of science fiction sounding statements. Things like there will be compelling electric cars. Things like a private company will make rockets that connect to the ISS. Or that we'll be able to pay for things online without visiting a bank or writing a check. Or that we'll be able to collect energy from the sun. Or that rockets will someday be reusable.

Oh wait. He did all of that.

We have a tendency to believe Musk because he has a tendency to be correct. He's sometimes off a bit when estimating how much time or money something will take - by up to a factor of 33%.

The Model S will start at $50K with incentives. Well, no, it starts at $64K with incentives - off by 30%.
The Model S will ship in 4 years. It took just under 5 years. Off by 25%.
The Model X will start at $75K without incentives. Actually, it was $83K. Off by 11%.
The Model X will ship in 3 years. It took 4 years. Off by 33%.
Land a rocket in 2016? Nailed it.

His next predictions are:
- Falcon Heavy delivering people to the ISS in 2017.
- Model 3 will be $35K and deliveries start in 2017.
- 100% self driving car by the end of 2018.
- First 100 people on Mars in the mid 2020's.

Maybe the Falcon Heavy will take until 2018.
Maybe the Model 3 will take until 2018 and cost $45K.
Maybe self driving will take until 2020.
Maybe we won't land on Mars until 2030.

Even if that's the case, it seems odd to question him. He makes outlandish predictions and makes them come true.
[doublepost=1460996250][/doublepost]
Having a vision is exactly the root problem here. The car that envisions a road where there is in fact an open drawbridge, either crashes into the bridge or drives into the water and drowns its occupants. The secret to safe driving is sensing and accepting reality as it is, not making up an alternative reality and calling it a vision. There is a famous quote of former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt: "He who has visions should go see a doctor!" America already tried reusable rockets, that's what the Space Shuttle program was all about. In reality the shuttles needed long intensive repairs after every flight and were way more expensive and dangerous than one-time use rockets. Trying the same thing again with SpaceX is not a way forward, but the definition of insanity. We've tried electric cars, let them rest.

QS_0ffa066544814611b1e526075c06ba2a.jpg

It's not the same thing though. You tweak the variables.

The Space Shuttle discarded its boosters. The Falcon 9 and Heavy recovers them.
Electric cars died because of the number of companies involved which had mixed interests (namely, to have gasoline based cars be successful). Tesla controls nearly everything about their cars - nobody involved has mixed interests.

Also, your sensors don't work if they don't sense what's around them. That hasn't been the case with Tesla or Google.
 
No auto-drive technology because it's still in development? Tesla have this in all models of their cars RIGHT NOW and it seems to work pretty solidly more than 75% of the time. Why would Apple release their long, long awaited car and have it not be as good as other technologically-minded cars on the market? Considering you can bet they're gonna price it higher than what most people can afford, I'd love to believe Apple would create an affordable electric car - which is the way the market is going - but I don't think they will.
 
"progressive thinkers" ??? Does that mean they think the same thoughts as Apple with the same mistakes, or they all are limited in their thinking ?
 
He sure does make a lot of science fiction sounding statements. Things like there will be compelling electric cars. Things like a private company will make rockets that connect to the ISS. Or that we'll be able to pay for things online without visiting a bank or writing a check. Or that we'll be able to collect energy from the sun. Or that rockets will someday be reusable.

Oh wait. He did all of that.
No he didn't. All these things existed decades if not centuries before him. They are only not in broad use, because they are UNECONOMIC. And he hasn't even improved their economics, only tricked people to burn more money, because he told them the breakthrough invention is right around the corner.

#endofnextyearfallacy
Fotolia_12664812_XS.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: neander
Who'd buy one? When I buy a car, it's not based on tree hugging crap like economy, efficiency and how green it is, which is what Apple's effort will be.

When I buy a car it's based on (but not limited to) the following:

The history of the brand
Power
Speed
Sound
How much fun I am going to have driving it

I agree, but I don't think those things aren't mutually exclusive. So far, only Tesla seems to understand that electric cars don't need to be slow, ugly, cheap-feeling cars. GM's Bolt or Volt or whatever it's called is a perfect example of a car that very few people actually want. Even those people who do buy it are basically taking a nasty pill that they think will make the world better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve121178
Please don't let any of the German car makers have anything to do with the Apple EV car design, look at that horrible BMW i3. But I still think Apple making their own car is a myth.
 
The hardest part is just having sensors that properly detect everything relevant in the environment.
You know what's relevant in the environment? Everything - dust, smoke, fog, rain, snow, ice, sand, leaves. In England it's even raining cats and dogs. To differentiate you need a concept of the whole world. We don't even let humans drive until they are of age. Eighteen years of preparation. What stops a self-driving car from driving right into a tornado? Nothing. It will never know what's what.
 
Sorry, I'm not onboard with this car thing. I'm more concerned about what Apple seems to be not doing when it comes to its' professional products like the Mac, Mac Pro and Final Cut.

They are getting out of that business. very few customers for pro-level computing products. The problem is Apple's history of dropping support for products. By an Apple car only the find Apple stops making cars five years later.
 
If Apple builds a car it will only be for the elite.

No, they just might go with a completely different business plan. Perhaps they will offer "Transportation As A Service". This means you do not BUY a car at all. You subscribe to a service that allows you to drive any of the cars in Apple's car pool. In other words it is a car sharing service that working in some very small area. As Apple builds more cars the area of service could expand. This allows Apple to build cars but without ned for a dealer network. Apple would keep ownership of all the cars they make. There would be an Uber-like app that some how connects you with the nearest car.

Car sharing really works well if you have self driving cars, so the empty car can drive to where you are. Like a driverless Uber. I suspect this is Apple's long term goal.

Starting a car company is hard because at first you only sell a few hundred cars, then a few thousand but you need a network of mechanics and dealers and warranty repair service locations and so on. Tesla solved that problem by charging $100,000 per car. I think Apple might solve it by NOT selling cars but keeping ownership of the cars.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.