Well you will be soon surrounded by your sleeping neighbors in the cars all around you. And you will be jealous!
[doublepost=1550141436][/doublepost]
Are you getting teary eyed? Be brave, it's only a god damn company.
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's Self-Driving Car Performance May Not Be So Bad After All
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well you will be soon surrounded by your sleeping neighbors in the cars all around you. And you will be jealous!
[doublepost=1550141436][/doublepost]
Are you getting teary eyed? Be brave, it's only a god damn company.
How else would the unpaid cheerleaders (we all know who they are) who troll and pervade every thread flying the Apple flag and dismissing any criticism be able to operate.
You're not wrong, but this also has nothing to do with a completely separate project to build a self-driving vehicle. Siri, IMO, suffers the curse of being "first to market". It was designed to work within certain parameters that Apple probably thought satisfied the requirements for it. But competitors who came later built "better mousetraps", often at the expense of some user privacy or security, and Siri just wasn't designed to do some of what they did.
For example, as I've played around with an Echo Dot, I've noticed that much of the real power of Alexa only comes from 3rd. party extensions Amazon allows you to download to your Alexa account and link up to it. I'm not sure Apple is willing to give that much control to people with Siri? If they don't, though? They shoulder the responsibility of developing all the things the 3rd. parties offer for Alexa, in order to offer the same feature-set. That's going to be a tall order.
Apple Maps was just poorly executed from the start. No excuse for that one, other than poor management and developers who accepted "good enough" instead of "excellence". I think it's come a long way - but Apple users were unfairly chained to using it, for full integration, while it was the inferior mapping product.
They might get the self-driving car thing right, though. They seem to have a lot of resources devoted to it, and a team that's separate from the people doing the rest of the iOS or OS X development. Too early to say?
For example, as I've played around with an Echo Dot, I've noticed that much of the real power of Alexa only comes from 3rd. party extensions Amazon allows you to download to your Alexa account and link up to it. I'm not sure Apple is willing to give that much control to people with Siri? If they don't, though? They shoulder the responsibility of developing all the things the 3rd. parties offer for Alexa, in order to offer the same feature-set. That's going to be a tall order.
Apple Maps was just poorly executed from the start. No excuse for that one, other than poor management and developers who accepted "good enough" instead of "excellence". I think it's come a long way - but Apple users were unfairly chained to using it, for full integration, while it was the inferior mapping product.
They might get the self-driving car thing right, though. They seem to have a lot of resources devoted to it, and a team that's separate from the people doing the rest of the iOS or OS X development. Too early to say?
180deg infrared & lidar coverage & computers to crunch that huge data, computers for redundancy, a local machine for navigation, a dedicated control systems computer to operate the car, a separate power system to run it...
And a mid-spec MacBook Pro is what, $3500?
lol is there a big market for hundred thousand dollar economy cars?
Ok, then Apple was "over-reporting", using their own "enhancements" to those rules. It sounds like Apple re-read the Rules, and decided to start only reporting what the Rules required.
But it sure doesn't mean that Apple "gamed the system" to make themselves look better; it just means they are no longer being "extra-careful" about what constitutes a "Reportable" Disengagement. I would imagine that they are still logging the other Disengagements; but are "filtering" that Dataset for the ones that meet the "must Report" criteria.
This is especially important, considering that, according to another MR Poster, one of the things that Apple does is have a "Lead Car" drive ahead of the Test Vehicle, with someone who periodically throws "obstacles" into the road in front of the Test Vehicle to "challenge" its response to same. Obviously, such a Test would "artificially" increase the number of Disengagements far above what would be reasonably expected in "real life". So Apple was absolutely correct in re-evaluating its Reporting criteria and re-submitting revised Disengagement Reports.
Last edited:
Let's face reality here, it doesn't matter which car company has the least "disengagements", none of them are even remotely close to a fully automated car which won't require a human driver. Even with the huge collection of high tech equipment piled on the roof, none of the companies can get even close to matching the human brain's ability to detect and classify obstacles.
On a related topic, Elon Musk is terrified of the singularity, but again, we aren't even close to having anything that is actually real AI. All we have is expert systems with zero real intelligence. Some of it appears to mimic intelligence by being extremely good at it's particular single task (eg playing chess or go), but there is no real intelligence, and certainly no self awareness or emotion.
The human brain is an extraordinary thing that we are not even close to fully understanding. It is capable of massively parallel, real time, decisions, that no computer can mimic. We are a loooong way off.
On a related topic, Elon Musk is terrified of the singularity, but again, we aren't even close to having anything that is actually real AI. All we have is expert systems with zero real intelligence. Some of it appears to mimic intelligence by being extremely good at it's particular single task (eg playing chess or go), but there is no real intelligence, and certainly no self awareness or emotion.
The human brain is an extraordinary thing that we are not even close to fully understanding. It is capable of massively parallel, real time, decisions, that no computer can mimic. We are a loooong way off.
Maybe it is because Apple is not designing/building to your criteria? By other metrics,
- iPhone is not the industry leader
- Mac is not the industry leader
- Apple TV is not the industry leader
- iCloud isn't the industry leader
- Apple Music is not the industry leader
- iTunes is not the industry leader
[doublepost=1550214480][/doublepost]
I thought this was humor - I doubt you could get away with doing this legally unless you were on a test track, which wouldn't require DMV reporting.
[doublepost=1550214537][/doublepost]
lol, you think Apple will release an economy car?
[doublepost=1550215282][/doublepost]
You are overstating a human brain capacity - our vision is rather imperfect, we wind up filling in a lot of gaps - often after the fact. We are trying to train these systems to be better drivers based on more information, and to not rely on flawed insights like "there's probably nobody in my blind spot, the roads looks empty in front of me".
I believe you are speaking of what is typically referred to as a generalized artificial intelligence, where a device which can learn new skills on its own. We are indeed a long way off on this - and honestly, I don't know if there is a good reason to pursue this outside of some sort of robotic helpers. What skills other than navigation and autonomous driving would you want a car to spontaneously start exhibiting?
Like I said, you are overstating the human brain's capacity. It is unique, and not something we can fully mimic. But when making intelligent machines targeting specific tasks, we can still learn from it - and quite frankly improve upon it.
Those examples you cite support my point actually, not yours, lets clarify though:
1. iPod/iTunes ecosystem used to be industry leader, no one could catch up, Zune failed, it took years for the competition to come close. You are right today's Apple Music isn't industry leader nowadays, another failed example of Apple losing vision and copying Spotify too little too late.
2. Macs used to be industry leader, it's arguable if to what extent it might be now, it's a fact it still leads in customer satisfaction, and the competition is constantly trying to copy and catch up to the build and quality (up to MBP 2015), but you are right Apple is failing now, look at MBP 2016 with keyboard fiasco and flexgate. I'm curious to see updated customer satisfaction from the MBP 2016-2018.
3. iPhone is/was industry leader. For a long time the competition was trying to catch up, Apple was ahead 2-3 years, now Apple is usually behind.
4. iCloud sucks and has always sucked coming from MobileMe and iTools, Apple was never industry leader in cloud services, it's a known failure even under Jobs tenure.
5. Siri was ahead of its time when it came out, it propelled everyone to copy it, it was industry leader, but once again Apple is sleeping, no Jobs, no innovation, Siri became caveman Siri.
The clear trend is Apple is lagging behind across the board, whereas in the past it used to lead, now it's severely out of focus.
exactly this, 56K miles is absurdly low, so low that it should not even be considered a serious effort.