Apple Reportedly Seeking LiDAR Sensors With 'Revolutionary Design' for Self-Driving Vehicles

[AustinIllini]

I don't know what Apple wants in the car business but this might be a good time to think about buying someone else to move forward more quickly. With the purchase of Tesla, they would provide the financial backing Tesla needs to continue. They would want to remain hands off for a few years to allow the company to continue as is but partner on technology to learn and at some point combine. Shareholders should ask that Tesla focus on quality and on getting full autonomy to the existing fleet sooner than later, they are already delayed to the point some original buyers are ready to trade cars without ever using the feature they paid for. Some of the early buyers paid 2 years ago. In this bracket of cars, many owners are ready for another new car.

Honestly, that's a bad idea. The layoffs would be insane at Tesla. For one thing, neither company is all that good at actually building cars.

Apple would be better off making an exclusive contract with Honda or Toyota, who actually have the ability to make quality cars for an affordable price. Infused with Apple's technology, you take the poor Tesla build quality out of the equation.

 

[Not-Sure]

Can produce a 'revolutionary' autonomous vehicle but can't produce a charging mat?

They are unable to produce a Mac Pro... and they are supposed to be the best on that, go figure.

 

[MozMan68]

Wonder why Apple is still chasing this unicorn..

Money.....and data...

 

[meaning-matters]

Can't wait for the Jony Ive video on "revolutionary LIDAR sensors" ...

Then shows a design with a massive, asymmetrically placed, bump.

 

[Romeo_Nightfall]

Isn't a more logical conclusion that they are doing this for purely the software side of things?

They are already using it for Maps.

For all the crap (rightly so) Maps got when it was launched, Apple has been using this tech for all mapping over the past 5 years. Every self driving company out there will pay a fortune if they can figure out a way to get LIDAR data from more vehicles. I always imagined Apple partnering with FedEx, UPS, or USPS in the US to equip their vehicles with LIDAR data gathering to keep Maps up to date as well as create the most complete self-driving software out there.

This will only help FedEx/UPS move into automated delivery vehicles.

Nonsense, (not) sorry

Mapping is a solved problem, people just don’t know. Every Tesla or other auto pilot car maps the world. This ridiculous apple or google cars mapping the world will disappear soon.
The thing is, this mapping data needs to be unified, apple is the worst company to do this - google is evil, so maybe a big chance for a new player - hope so!

 

[MozMan68]

Nonsense?

You are repeating exactly what I said...they want the LIDAR hardware smaller so they can add to 3rd party vehicles so they DON'T have to have vans everywhere.

As far as Apple being the best to gather/share this data, I'm not sure, but I just want better mapping software and I prefer Apple to others from a UI and privacy perspective.

 

[blacktape242]

here we go again.

 

[aliensporebomb]

Self driving cars. Something nobody really wants. I understand the attraction of having an auto pilot to take you to the hospital if you're too incapacitated to drive and you're losing blood or something but beyond that there's been too many incidents with self-driving vehicles that resulted in death. I suppose the same could be said for human piloted vehicles too but....

 

[MozMan68]

Self driving cars. Something nobody really wants. I understand the attraction of having an auto pilot to take you to the hospital if you're too incapacitated to drive and you're losing blood or something but beyond that there's been too many incidents with self-driving vehicles that resulted in death. I suppose the same could be said for human piloted vehicles too but....

Seriously?

Check your safety data. One of the main benefits IS safety.

They won’t replace human driving 100% anytime soon, but I’m looking forward to the option.

 

[w5jck]

I can see developing collision avoidance systems for human-driven vehicles, although I'm not sure a company like Apple is the one I would trust to do so as that is way out of their comfort zone a field of expertise. That is also true for Google and the other high tech, computer/internet oriented companies. Better to let the car manufacturers lead the way. As far as autonomous vehicles, I'm still not comfortable being on the same roads with them, and for good reasons. AI tends to mean Artificial Ignorance with a lot of these tech companies, and given the crappy user interfaces many of them have developed, I remain skeptical of their abilities to ever produce reliable autonomous vehicles. I'm not convinced auto manufacturers can produce them either. On the other hand, collision avoidance has already been in use for several years in many automobiles, and I would rather see improvements in that area rather than attempts to have an autonomous vehicle that will likely end in bad wrecks.

 

[macduke]

LiDAR seems a lot like hydrogen fuel cells - it's smoke and mirrors being thrown up by companies that are lagging behind. Make it sound like you're not lagging behind by saying that you're trying to go do something else.

The premise that LiDAR is necessary to drive a vehicle is so obviously BS. Humans have been driving vehicles well enough for over 100 years with nothing more than two cameras. Humans can drive vehicles remotely with nothing but cameras. Having LiDAR can certainly assist with driving a vehicle, just as radar and sonar can, but it's obviously not required despite every company that isn't Tesla (or Comma AI) insisting that it is.

I think the point is to make it better than human drivers though. As I understand it, LiDAR can sometimes pick up things through foliage at the edge of the road, such as a deer, and can sense things through tinted windows such as cars breaking ahead. The brain computes depth data based on stereoscopic vision. AI/CPU power isn't yet at the level of the brain, so LiDAR helps cheat that for human level depth perception and takes it to another level of performance. In low contrast situations, it could also have an advantage, such as on really foggy days, pouring rain, dust storms, near twilight, etc.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Can produce a 'revolutionary' autonomous vehicle but can't produce a charging mat?

No one else has been able to produce what they were trying to accomplish with the AirPower either.

 

[jeyf]

riding a motorcycle has all the risk associated with it as a self driving car
and
the motorcycle is much more fun

rumor:
Apple Inc is going to model the control system after the Boeing 737 flight system

 

[BvizioN]

Humans have been driving vehicles well enough for over 100 years with nothing more than two cameras..

And "spectacularly" killing 1.25 million people worldwide every year (more or less)
Yes, I hear you.

 

[I7guy]

Hmmm. I thought according to some MR posters, Apple could manage its way out of a paper bag and yet here is more fresh evidence there will be an Apple car.

 

[prasand]

Hah...yes...I am a maps geek, but I believe that they are intrinsically linked. While Maps is more of a consumer product designed to drive more hardware sales, it seems clear that Apple is using it as a stepping stone to much bigger things including being the leader in support for self-driving vehicles.

The relevance to Maps, I think goes even further. Like, augmented reality gaming data, where people see objects in the exact same and relevant real-world orientation. People standing behind a Pokémon for example, would actually see its back in the real world environment in a precise location, overlaid with real world objects obstructing their view (like telephone poles, or trees in the location). Gaming applications alone would see Maps data hit critical service mass. But Apple Glasses is where it’s at.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Seems the entire auto industry, except Tesla, has (for years now) hinged their future of auto driving to LiDAR sensors which are having trouble getting from physically spinning devices over to cheap solid state sensors. Tesla uses a combination of visual cameras and radar sensors.

Tesla also uses a suite of ultrasonic sensors around the perimeter of the vehicle.
[doublepost=1555518942][/doublepost]Apple will never ship a viable self-driving car. Never. It's not in their DNA. At Apple, perfection really is the enemy of good.

 

[Wiesenlooser]

I really don’t see Apple only developing the self driving hardware. This would be so Apple un-like.

 

[NMBob]

I wonder what these cars look like with night vision or infrared goggles?

 

[jeyf]

I really don’t see Apple only developing the self driving hardware. This would be so Apple un-like.

way back years ago; before the Apple Inc's 40year old midlife crisis Apple used to try combine both hardware and software

now a days Apple is just high priced and somewhat dangerous

wish Apple the best on any, even small, new product introduction. Never know.

I think Apple should move into banking or buy the rights to the PG13 movie Frozen #3

 

[pianophile]

Self driving cars. Something nobody really wants.

Clearly you don't want them, but others do. The tech is immature, but one day insurance companies will charge more if your car isn't self-driving, and most people will enjoy the extra time to, say, look at their phones.

 

[HVDynamo]

Self driving cars. Something nobody really wants. I understand the attraction of having an auto pilot to take you to the hospital if you're too incapacitated to drive and you're losing blood or something but beyond that there's been too many incidents with self-driving vehicles that resulted in death. I suppose the same could be said for human piloted vehicles too but....

What makes you think no one wants self driving cars? I think your assumption here is wildly misguided. There are many many many people would prefer to just hop in a car and tell it where to go, then sit and text/read/whatever they want to do while it drives them there. Now, I really enjoy driving so I'll be a bit sad the day you have to use a self driving car, but that day is likely very far out yet. But even given that, I find self driving a fascinating technology and there are times I would love to have it as an option. Additionally, the number of accidents caused by self driving cars vs humans is only going to end up with humans being the cause of more accidents. Humans are stupid and don't have great response time, or they just have to text for some stupid reason. Self driving cars will ultimately make the roads more safe by at least an order of magnitude. Sure there will still be deaths sometimes, but sometimes it can't be avoided. It will still be safer. I think the reason you feel that there have been too many incidents with self driving cars is because everyone fears not having the control, so the press capitalizes on it and heavily reports every single self driving car accident, meanwhile 100's of other accidents caused by humans have happened and not been publicized at all.

 

[deeddawg]

No-one asked for self driving cars. Why is this being pushed on us?

WE WANTED THEM TO FLY.

The average person on the road has difficulty enough managing two dimensions.

Pretty sure giving them a third dimension to worry about wouldn't end well...

 

[cmaier]

Yep! I was going to say this exact thing until I saw you already posted about it.

The interesting thing for Tesla is, by going the route they've gone, they're either going to remain on top with self-driving capabilities, OR they're "betting it all" on the wrong horse.

From what I've observed on the Tesla side, so far? They have some real challenges with using radar, because it picks up a lot of false reflections and "noise". (You commonly see reports from Tesla owners about their car suddenly "phantom braking" while driving along on the interstate. Often, this happens as a big semi truck is passing you in the lane beside you. The car seems to pick up some false radar data that makes it think the truck is about to cross in front of you.)

I know at least with the older "Autopilot version 1" on a Tesla, even the lines it draws on the dash to indicate how close you are to a curb or other nearby object will kind of "jump around". You can be pulled up just behind a vehicle at a stoplight, with nobody moving, and it may drift back and forth, indicating several inches of movement. Or as you're slowly pulling in to your garage to park and you watch it count down the number of inches of space between you and the front garage wall? It isn't perfectly linear. It gives good info, but clearly hops around a bit.

I have a pre-autopilot Tesla and they gave me an autopilot version as a loaner while my car was in the shop. This was around 6 months ago, and I don’t know which version it had. But it was awful. Pretty sure the autopilot wanted to kill me. It kept veering off into the shoulder on the highways here, etc.

 

[techwhiz]

Honestly, that's a bad idea. The layoffs would be insane at Tesla. For one thing, neither company is all that good at actually building cars.

Apple would be better off making an exclusive contract with Honda or Toyota, who actually have the ability to make quality cars for an affordable price. Infused with Apple's technology, you take the poor Tesla build quality out of the equation.

Magna Steyr in Germany is an independent auto maker that builds under contract for BMW and also Toyota (new Supra).
They could have someone like that build a car without sinking money into manufacturing at low volumes and have high quality.

As far as LIDAR, the company that comes to mind with solid state sensor is Velodyne Lidar.
Also a mix of vision and radar gives you the best coverage.
Lidar and cameras allow you to see items that are invisible to radar, like people.
Radar can give you a picture of what an object is made of to help with avoidance.
If a box of nothing is in the road, do you swerve and risk accident or do you run it over?
You will only know that there are no heavy metallic objects in the box with radar. Vision systems tell you nothing about the density of the box or what's in it.