Apple's Car Project Shifts Towards Autonomous Driving System Under Mansfield's Direction

[Quu]

There is no rush for them to enter this market. Just like there wasn't any rush when they entered the phone market. When they enter it they should make a substantial splash. Simply releasing a car that you have to drive yourself when everyone sees self driving as the near future differentiation between car companies would be silly.

So personally I think they should wait until they have worked out self driving and only then release a car with full autonomous driving, even if it doesn't come out until 2021 or 2023 or 2026.

Either that or just buy Tesla

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Still have no idea why Apple is bothering to do anything with cars.

We already have a number of useful driver aids, which evolve from year to year. We will never have fully autonomous driving.

Given Apple's long history of flakey software updates, it will be a long time indeed before I entrust my life to Apple software.
[doublepost=1469733149][/doublepost]

Instead of two pedals, one for braking and the other for gas. Apple can do what they did with the mouse and make the pedal do both. Perhaps just a tap once for gas, tap twice for brake. Swipe your foot for a casual smooth ride or use you toes to pinch and zoom when you want to get closer (zoom) to the object in front of you. Force tap (depending on if you force tapped once or twice will give you a more aggressive start or stop).

Yep.

And for manuals, tap thrice on the pedal to change down gear, four times to change up.

 

[satchmo]

A properly autonomous car can have anyone in any seat, regardless of driving experience or knowledge.

Having a steering wheel in an autonomous car would be like giving passengers a direct way of controlling a plane from their seat.

For the same reason, I'm not so sure that manual brakes will be in the car... maybe some kind of emergency brake, but probably not anything like a normal brake pedal.

Most autonomous cars currently in development have a steering wheel for the reasons I mentioned. Sure, in an ideal scenario, it's all flat screen displays and voice activated controls. But until we get to a point where it's 99.9% fail safe, I don't see why having one for emergency is so bad.

 

[peterdevries]

Vastly different? Really? You mean they don't have to be manufactured, sold, and serviced? They don't need hydraulic, suspension, steering, safety, and electrical systems?

Please tell me more about these vast differences.

You know that much of the complexity within combustion cars is within the cars and many of the components are produced by independent producers. Of course the other components are also produced by independents, but they are on the whole less complex than the engine parts. It is much easier to build a manageable and smaller supply chain around a tesla-like car than a BMW.

Also factor in that companies like Tesla do not have dealerships and service their cars centrally (and servicing is also easier with non-combustion cars).

It is not only the production, but the entire business model that should be adapted.

[doublepost=1469732014][/doublepost]

By losing vast amounts of money.

You don't know the financials of Fisker and neither do I. We do know the financials of Tesla and they are currently non profitable. However, I argue that Tesla is building capacity, a market and the supply chain to be profitable at a level of sold cars that is markedly lower than a combustion engine producer needs (which is around 1 million cars!). We should not view Tesla as a dead company yet. The company is struggling with fulfilling demand and product quality is considered very high. The challenge for them is to grow and build capacity at a rate that is at the right balance with demand to become profitable, as opposed to growing capacity too fast in order to outpace demand growth, which could quickly kill them.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Everyone jumping on the "Self-driving car" bandwagon seems to be underestimating the complexity of understanding and handling the infinite unpredictability of the real-world. Particularly since people's lives are at stake in a moving vehicle.

I wouldn't want one.

Right. Besides, it will be Apple Maps data doing the guidance. So it will need to be a waterproof car for us here in Florida (several times, Apple has dropped the pin right into a waterway. If an autonomous car drove right to the pinned location, the car better have an oxygen supply. The good news is that if the car ships without a 3.5mm headphone jack, it will apparently be able to be waterproof)

All

 

[CFreymarc]

This is a hell of a bet. This entire self-driving car market can come crashing down in a series of class action lawsuits based on consumer libability. While Apple PR is fantastic, will they be able to address Ralph Nader and company who have already spoken out against self driving cars?

 

[BornAgainMac]

All my driving games on the Mac/PC use a keyboard and mouse. I have no problems driving with a keyboard and mouse in a real car.

 

[drew0020]

Apple logo superimposed on a BMW steering wheel.

They could have at least used the M-Sport wheel. It is much better than the sport steering wheel!

 

[drewyboy]

Apple and Tesla should work together. Their company values align probably more than any other brands I can think of in the tech space. They are both forward thinking and have a creative spirit.

Except Tesla is actually delivering on complicated sh*t. I do not want Apple's bugs showing up in my car, especially when it took them how many years to figure out how to finally do daylight savings right?

It's really hard to compare the realities of the two companies since one ACTUALLY is doing something to change the world while the other just says they are. How has your iPhone made a global impact for the good? It's an entertainment device.

 

[baryon]

Every time in the past when Apple did something successful (Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad), they were pretty much the first to successfully do it. The iPod, for example, wasn't the first modern mp3 player, but was definitely the first "awesome" mp3 player that became popular. Same with the iPhone and the iPad.

With the electric car, we already have a popular, "awesome", and successful company doing it, Tesla. This has never really been the case before with anything that Apple really succeeded at. Tesla is to the modern car what Apple was to the iPod and iPhone. This is the first time that someone has really nailed it before Apple, which makes me wonder if the Apple car will just be really similar to a Tesla with some less significant differences. I'm sure that if Apple makes this car, it will probably be great. But I doubt it will be as revolutionary or legendary as any other successful Apple product has been. It might just be an alternative to Tesla.

One thing is for sure: the Apple Car will be expensive. Personally I wish electric cars became as cheap as possible so that everyone ended up getting one eventually. That would be the only way it would benefit the environment. If only rich people drive electric cars, then who cares? Rich people could afford fuel anyway, so it won't benefit them. Rich people are only 1% of the world, so it won't benefit anyone. It's the poorer people who would benefit from a car that has low maintenance costs that runs on fuel that's almost free. And since there's more poor people than rich, it would also benefit the environment more to make a cheap electric car. Tesla is high end, and Apple will be high end. Who will make a cheap car?

 

[Karma*Police]

Does anyone else find the choice of picture for this article to be ironic?

An autonomous car could look a lot like a normal car. It'd still have seats, doors, windows. It'd still need to be aerodynamic. It'd still probably have at least a brake peddle, so you could feel you were in control and could stop it if something bad was happening.

The steering wheel, however, would almost certainly be gone.
[doublepost=1469729511][/doublepost]

Further, there's nothing that Apple can bring to the table for Tesla, besides maybe brand awareness. But I think Tesla is managing to build up their own brand and following pretty well. Give them another 2-3 years and I think Tesla might be as big of a name as Apple was a decade ago.

Apple has cash, Tesla doesn't. Apple also has tons of users Tesla can tap into. Demographically, they're probably going after the same market.

That said, I'm all for Apple building their own car, but only if it addresses a need that's not being fulfilled. A self-driving car is not it. Battery powered car is not it. A new, completely rethought and reimagined interior and UI that turns the industry on its head? Now that's worth looking forward to IMO.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Most autonomous cars currently in development have a steering wheel for the reasons I mentioned. Sure, in an ideal scenario, it's all flat screen displays and voice activated controls. But until we get to a point where it's 99.9% fail safe, I don't see why having one for emergency is so bad.

Google doesn't want a steering wheel. It's there for legal reasons. They've said they'll remove it as soon as it's legal to do so.

Tesla has repeatedly said "wait and see" every time they've been asked what the inside of the Model 3 will look like (they've said the prototypes that have been driving around do not have anything resembling the final inside for the Model 3). I'm expecting the final design will ditch the steering wheel entirely. Time will tell. Elon Musk has said the reveal for the final design, inside and out, and all the other details about the car, will be later this year. Based on a promotion they have going on right now (refer a friend, get a chance to go to the unveiling event) that ends in mid-October, it's expect that the reveal will be in late October.

 

[smacrumon]

Except Tesla is actually delivering on complicated sh*t. I do not want Apple's bugs showing up in my car, especially when it took them how many years to figure out how to finally do daylight savings right?

It's really hard to compare the realities of the two companies since one ACTUALLY is doing something to change the world while the other just says they are. How has your iPhone made a global impact for the good? It's an entertainment device.

I agree with a number of your statements. I do also believe that Apple does have a necessary creative spark and necessary drive to move things forward. That said, Tesla is walking the talk and doing it well.

 

[agsystems]

Why in the hell would they get into autonomous driving?! That will put an even larger target for litigation on their back than they already have! I'm sure attorneys and insurance companies would have a field day going after Apple whenever there's an inevitable "glitch" with the autonomous driving system. This just seems like potentially risky behavior on the part of a company with a boatload of cash that many people would love to get their hands on.

Exactly - you are going from someone dropping a call - to someone dying

This will radically change someone's portfolio - going from a predictable service/phone business to a risky investment (with accidents, recalls, regulations, etc)

 

[britboyj]

I've met Mansfield, he's a great and very smart guy, but I still can't see an Apple Car (rather than a tight integration with carmakers) being worth it at all for Apple.

 

[J InTech82]

Smart direction, very similar to how Apple approached the phone market, they partnered with Motorola learned a lot about what goes into making a phone released 2 crappy iTunes supported Motorola ROCKR phones and a couple years later iPhone was born.

I see the same direction with the car.

I've been this for a long time now. They are beta testing with CarPlay and are also collecting map data from CarPlay as well, which is now on more than half of the shipping vehicles on the market.

 

[ChazSch]

Hey Siri, drive me to the Mustang Ranch

 

[duffman9000]

Until Maps can find local targets reliably, I'm not going to trust this with my life. Siri, drive me to my doctor X office for my appointment. Siri, why are you trying to drive to Africa????

 

[IJ Reilly]

You know that much of the complexity within combustion cars is within the cars and many of the components are produced by independent producers. Of course the other components are also produced by independents, but they are on the whole less complex than the engine parts. It is much easier to build a manageable and smaller supply chain around a tesla-like car than a BMW.

Also factor in that companies like Tesla do not have dealerships and service their cars centrally (and servicing is also easier with non-combustion cars).

It is not only the production, but the entire business model that should be adapted.

Yes, and I was going to mention that very thing. So the question is whether (assuming you believe the rumors) Apple would design a car as a clean-sheet exercise, from the wheels up, or outsource many of the systems. Which sounds more like Apple to you? Either way this a is highly nontrivial exercise, but much more so if they are starting from scratch. I am also not convinced that it is necessarily easier to build an electric car than an ICE car. The batteries alone are a substantial issue and ICEs are very much off-the-shelf technology. Electric motor reliability has been an issue. Regenerative braking systems are relatively new technology. All of this before getting to manufacturing, let alone sales, delivery, and servicing. It's a massive lift, especially for a company that has never attempted anything of the kind before.

You don't know the financials of Fisker and neither do I. We do know the financials of Tesla and they are currently non profitable. However, I argue that Tesla is building capacity, a market and the supply chain to be profitable at a level of sold cars that is markedly lower than a combustion engine producer needs (which is around 1 million cars!). We should not view Tesla as a dead company yet. The company is struggling with fulfilling demand and product quality is considered very high. The challenge for them is to grow and build capacity at a rate that is at the right balance with demand to become profitable, as opposed to growing capacity too fast in order to outpace demand growth, which could quickly kill them.

I know Fisker went bankrupt, and that's plenty. Whether the new owners can do anything with the company is by no means certain. I don't view Tesla as a dead company by any means, but what they have done is demonstrate the difficulty of creating the economies of scale required to make a profit in the auto industry. At this point I would also not consider them to be an unqualified success in terms of product quality. They've had lots of issues on that front, enough that Consumer Reports took the Model S off their recommended list. They've been dealing with a lot of early motor failures too.

 

[Bluestrike2]

Does anyone else find the choice of picture for this article to be ironic?

An autonomous car could look a lot like a normal car. It'd still have seats, doors, windows. It'd still need to be aerodynamic. It'd still probably have at least a brake peddle, so you could feel you were in control and could stop it if something bad was happening.

The steering wheel, however, would almost certainly be gone.
[doublepost=1469729511][/doublepost]

Further, there's nothing that Apple can bring to the table for Tesla, besides maybe brand awareness. But I think Tesla is managing to build up their own brand and following pretty well. Give them another 2-3 years and I think Tesla might be as big of a name as Apple was a decade ago.

For a fully autonomous vehicle, yes. But given the prevalence of small backcountry roads, private roads, dirt and unmarked roads, parking in grass for concerts/events/etc. and all sorts of other categories that are hard to predict and develop for (though learning algorithms can and will adapt to them over time), it's unlikely that we'll see fully autonomous vehicles without the option of manual overrides for a while. The exception would be specialty vehicles (taxis, etc.) for urban-only usage and, at some point, vehicles marketed primarily to urban customers (think along the lines of Google's prototype vehicle).

It makes very little sense to delay autonomous vehicles for very specific edge cases that can be side-stepped by including manual overrides. Plus, they could always get creative and do something along the lines of a retractable steering wheel and controls to give people the best of both worlds for the time being: manual control when you need it, and lots of accessible space for the driver when you don't.

Finally, from a marketing standpoint, manual controls will likely have a profound effect on consumer adoption rates. Without them, lingering fear and concerns would at the very least make many consumers more hesitant. To what degree, we don't know yet; there's not really a lot of applicable market research available on the subject right now. The first fully autonomous vehicles will want to avoid that just to become common-place.

 

[Gasu E.]

I couldn't agree more. I'd also add that while some self-driving/assisted-driving vehicles may appear in the "real world" in the next several years, we haven't even begun to fathom the complexity and problems inherent in a mixed self/assisted/manual-driving environment. It's going to be a bloody mess (pun intended).

This is why mixing automated and manual driving has been abandoned by Google. Google, not Tesla, is the company to watch in the autonomous space. That's because Google is motivated by bespoke fleets (in their case, for mapping) rather than consumer preferences. Watch Amazon and Uber as well. All of them are motivated to get rid of drivers altogether, not make them happy. Tesla will never have the nerve to take the wheel out of the driver's hands.
[doublepost=1469737003][/doublepost]

Really...unless is Apple outsourcing everything: Manufacturing, sales, financing, service recalls, etc.

A few recalls could get insanely expensive and you can't drop support for cars like you do with phones.

There's a benefit of software-only. No recalls, just upgrades.

And lawsuits, of course.

 

[falainber]

Finally. Mountain gave birth to a mouse.

 

[Gasu E.]

Except Tesla is actually delivering on complicated sh*t. I do not want Apple's bugs showing up in my car, especially when it took them how many years to figure out how to finally do daylight savings right?

It's really hard to compare the realities of the two companies since one ACTUALLY is doing something to change the world while the other just says they are. How has your iPhone made a global impact for the good? It's an entertainment device.

It depends on your perspective. Tesla has helped a handful of rich westerners spew out a bit less green house gas, in theory having a tiny impact on global warming. Nice concept; maybe it will actually have an impact some day. Smartphones, specifically the ones that have evolved from the iPhone, have actually enabled millions of people in the developing world to have access to practical real-time information that has materially improved their lives.

This is a hell of a bet. This entire self-driving car market can come crashing down in a series of class action lawsuits based on consumer libability. While Apple PR is fantastic, will they be able to address Ralph Nader and company who have already spoken out against self driving cars?

I hadn't realized Ralph Nader needed addressing. I've sort of been ignoring him since he got W elected.

 

[sirdir]

erm... Apple licensing it's software to other manufacturers? Sounds totally like Apple.

 

[2013.1]

____________

Driverless Uber is the future.

I have no idea how Apple will fit in that future.