Please focus on Mac hardware. Please focus on giving me the hardware tools to work and play on the macOS platform. Continue improving your mobile devices. Consider adding and improving only those things that will continue to make my business and leisure tasks smoother, simpler, and more enjoyable.
I'd rather you didn't take focus from the things you've traditionally done well to do something that's never been in your wheelhouse. If you want to get involved with automobiles, work with the industry to improve my life while I'm riding along in the autonomous vehicle, but please don't try to build the autonomous vehicle. I'd prefer you wait until the market is saturated with terrible implementations so you can learn from others' mistakes and come along with a much-improved offering.
But for now, just give me and my fellows Macs we can depend on for everything, a reliable mobile experience that doesn't throw out the habits we gained on the previous iteration, and the tools to make great software for your platforms.
Reminds me of this classic comment on Macrumors when the iPod launched [1]:
Sounds very revolutionary to me. :mad:
hey - heres an idea Apple - rather than enter the world of gimmicks and toys, why dont you spend a little more time sorting out your pathetically expensive and crap server line up? :mad:
or are you really aiming to become a glorified consumer gimmicks firm? :mad:
Well, that guy was right to be worried. Apple made extremely successful consumer products, but where are their servers?
You could rightly argue that it's better for apple to focus on other stuff than servers, but it most definitely wasn't better for the people who depended on their server hardware and software.
Didn't people said the same thing about iPhone, that Apple would fail if they enter in the already oversaturated phone market and they should stick with what they do best instead?
As a fellow Mac user, I get it. Especially after the (to put it lightly) dry spell that was 2016, I understand wanting Apple to focus on the Mac and on making their current devices best-of-breed. And given what we just saw at WWDC, I'm inclined to think they're moving in that direction again.
But the way Tim is framing this, they're looking at it as an AI problem. He doesn't go into the feel of driving or the wonderfully bad user interfaces of current cars, he describes it as "the mother of all AI projects." So while this is "something that's never been in [their] wheelhouse", they're approaching it from the AI side. And AI, given WWDC, is something they are very much trying to make their wheelhouse. And it sounds like they're doing it in a very Apple-like way: work on the hardest problem they can, then take what they've learned and apply it.
Even if they don't make a car, or even a driving platform they can sell, the AI things they'll learn will show up in Siri, iOS, and everywhere else.
So yeah, I want them to focus on Mac hardware. But I also want them to learn and grow. And I think they might, might, be starting to do both.
Did we watch the same WWDC? macOS is in maintenance mode no mater how they try to mask it and still somehow I keep experiencing more bugs with every release. At least they are going to update their hardware this time around huh? Is that what passes for "being focused on macs" these days? Last year was like they completely forgot about us, this year they are throwing us breadcrumps.
EDIT: Since I keep getting the same replies, I'm gonna edit it here too:
1. When you are in maintenance mode and you still manage to introduce more bugs than you are fixing then your are doing something wrong (usually that's a result of limiting the budget of a department and as a consequence hiring less experienced developers)
2. Every new feature the last few years has been ported from iOS and without much care. I still can't believe they have yet to make Siri and Spotlight one unified product (at least make Spotlight more powerful, I can't even set a timer with it).
And to add to this, being in maintenance mode doesn't have immediate effects. If Apple continues like this somewhere down the line macOS is gonna end up quite behind (and a big mess due to points 1. and 2.)
I prefer macOS being in maintenance mode instead of becoming bloated with new but unimportant features especially given the 16 GB limit. The lack of hardware refreshes wouldn't have been horrible if Apple's hardware was easily upgradable like pre-retina models
"... given the 16 GB limit." Can you explain that? I mean, as a 64bit operation system, that doesn't jive. Are you talking about physical memory in machines that are being sold now? I've swapped out tons of memory and never heard about this. - this isn't a jab either. I seriously am not sure what you mean. (no insult intended)
Its limited because they are using low power LPDDR3 ram, which its limited to 16GB. LPDDR4 doesn't have this limit, but isn't supported by intel on Kabylake.
> "... given the 16 GB limit." Can you explain that?
They are referring to the fact that Apple portables ship with soldered memory and max out at 16GB while PC manufacturers are shipping systems which support 32 and even 64GB in laptop/mobile workstation form factor.
So they are referring to the physical memory (RAM) limit of Apple devices, not any logical limitations of the OS.
Couldn't disagree more. The macOS it its current iteration is a platform. With that platform you have a stack. Within that stack you support unward / downward functions depending on what you want. Just take a look at what Tridium does with their Niagara AX automation platform and the world of IoT and energy and you'll see what Apple most likely is iterating towards. https://www.tridium.com/en/products-services/building-automa...
1. When you are in maintenance mode and you still manage to introduce more bugs than you are fixing then your are doing something wrong (usually that's a result of limiting the budget of a department and as a consequence hiring less experienced developers)
2. Every new feature the last few years has been ported from iOS and without much care. I still can't believe they have yet to make Siri and Spotlight one unified product (at least make Spotlight more powerful, I can't even set a timer with it).
>But the way Tim is framing this, they're looking at it as an AI problem. He doesn't go into the feel of driving or the wonderfully bad user interfaces of current cars, he describes it as "the mother of all AI projects." So while this is "something that's never been in [their] wheelhouse", they're approaching it from the AI side. And AI, given WWDC, is something they are very much trying to make their wheelhouse.
I agree, but I think their approach is flawed. A car is more than an AI with wheels and a seat. Tons and tons of engineering expertise goes into making a roadworthy car, and even more goes into making a truly good car.
Apple quite simply does not have automotive engineering experience, and the jump from computers to iPhones pales in comparison to the jump from consumer electronics to automobiles.
Cook has never struck me as a man with a vision. I think this is just Keeping up with the Joneses.
> I agree, but I think their approach is flawed. A car is more than an AI with wheels and a seat. Tons and tons of engineering expertise goes into making a roadworthy car, and even more goes into making a truly good car. Apple quite simply does not have automotive engineering experience, and the jump from computers to iPhones pales in comparison to the jump from consumer electronics to automobiles.
I agree with you, and I think Cook and Apple do to! The article just says they're focusing on "an autonomous system." When asked if they were going to commit to a full automobile:
> "We’ll see where it takes us," Cook said. "We’re not really saying from a product point of view what we will do."
In other words, they're not making a car, just the AI for it.
Granted, Apple rarely makes 'components'; they make Products. It doesn't really jive with the Apple we know to make part of something without making the _whole_ thing. But I think these comments from Cook are telegraphing that they are--at least for right now--just making a component.
edit to clarify: Based on this and previous rumors, I think the "Apple Car" project (that totally existed, no joke!) has been refocused on the autonomous AI project. Cook and Mansfield realized that a car was big and complicated, and the market was inevitably moving toward self-driving cars. In realizing that without the self-driving component, they wouldn't have a car at all, they refocused the project to see if they could even build such a component. Once they have that, they'll go from there.
+1 - AI is becoming fundamental to our computing experiences whether it's in a car, on your phone, or on your desktop. Good AI is probably the next big leap in usefulness on any device, whether it's a car or a desktop. So it makes sense for Apple to focus on it now, in order to make their devices better in the future. That said, Apple is big enough to have multiple focus areas, just because this is a focus to them doesn't mean they don't have other teams properly focusing on the Mac or iOS.
fundamental <--- not true. It's becoming an enabler, yes. Fundamental, no. Plus AI is terribly subjective, unfortunately. It's neither thought producing or augmentative to the process - but that's my OWN 2c on it. However, it _is_ important from an enabler for technology to be more "natural" to the way we interact with our technology.
We regret to inform you, but you are a part of a market niche known as "power users". That niche is but a small part of our customer base, and like all other big companies in the industry, we no longer care about you.
Don't be sad about gradually losing useful tools - enjoy the new, shiny toys instead.
Many of the current "power users" are also "trend setters". If those users start switching away from Apple then it's going to be a big hit to Apple's brand value (and their ability to sell middling products and high prices).
I used to think this was true in the tech world, but I don't think it is, at least not in the last 10-15 years. If power users were trendsetters, there'd be a lot more people running desktop Linux these days. I think the time in which the most dedicated and enthusiastic computer users reflected the leading edge of the rest of the market is long gone, unfortunately.
However, I do think turning off power users is a great way for the company to shoot itself in the foot when it comes to recruitment. They really depend on a certain degree of enthusiasm to get the kind of engineering talent they want to get, much more so than money or the work environment or perqs. If they no longer inspire that enthusiasm in as many people, it'll make it that much more difficult to bring good people together to do whatever they want to do next. Unfortunately the general trend seems to be a long, slow transition from being the BMW of the computer industry to being the Chipotle of the tech industry. I'm sure all the metrics favor being Chipotle (and gosh do they love metrics), but that doesn't do anything to help make Chipotle a desirable place to work at that draws all the best talent.
This is a mantra that's been repeated whenever "pro users" feel like Apple is neglecting them, but there isn't actually any evidence that this is true. It may have been true at one point in the 90s, when Apple's customer base was much smaller, but today it sounds more like a jilted ex trying to guilt someone back into a relationship.
I'm still waiting to see this effect in action from when Apple supposedly threw away the Final Cut Pro 7 userbase over night. That was back in 2011, 6 years should have been plenty of time to see this play out. Or perhaps the movers and shakers in Hollywood don't have as much influence as they thought.
I disagree. I naturally ask advise from people who I know to have extensive domain experience. That is, I ask my plumber buddy about the best water heater to buy. I ask my realtor buddy, where are the homes selling the most. and so on.
I get asked all the time about buying laptops. I used to recommend Apple, but it has become very difficult to do so for a myriad of reasons. Lately, I have found that most people can get by with a chrome book after looking at their requirements.
Can you explain a bit further? MacBooks have always been premium laptops. Are you saying low end laptops are able to serve basic needs better than a few years ago? I agree with that, and take it to be a sign of a mature market, not a failing of Apple's.
Are they though? Not saying you're wrong, but that's a giant assumption without data to back it up. That Mac sales are still up year over year suggests to me that the complaints of pro users (which lets face it, date back to 2010, when the cheesegrater Mac Pro was getting long in the tooth) have had little or no impact on sales.
Rest assured that you are not losing pro tools, instead you are getting new ones, we work dilligently to provide you with the best Uber like cars so you can be the best Taxi.
I don't get why people keep making this argument; they never strayed outside of their core computer business, they just committed genocide against buttons and added a big battery. They made a massive design innovation, not a huge technological shift.
I dunno; Google's foray into self-driving cars made sense in part because they already had so much experience with 360-degree cameras and spatial mapping and managing international fleets of vehicles, not because they "do computers."
Apple's claim to automotive relevance seems to be the idea that they could somehow worm their way into the supply chain of ordinary car manufacturers. As in, Ford, Toyota, Tata, etc. would all have the same iDrive system. To me, this is not only hopelessly naive, but utterly contrary to Apple's consistent insistence on controlling every aspect of their ecosystem.
This pivot does not seem like a savvy business move to me. It seems like they see a big market and want to be part of it regardless of their actual...ugh...synergies.
It's 100% genuine. Obviously Apple has been very successful following this path, but I'm much less happy with Apple 2017 than I was with Apple 2007, and it all stems from the iPhone.
In an alternate universe where Apple doesn't launch the iPhone, do you think the company would still be nearly as relevant in 2017? Getting annoyed at Apple for embracing mobile in 2007 is a fools game - if they hadn't made the iPhone, one of their competitors would have gotten close enough eventually and drastically reduced Apple's stature in the industry. Complaints like these remind of the Mac OS 9 holdouts when OS X was so obviously the future.
The comparison to Mac OS 9 makes no sense. Apple was dying in the late 90s. The OS was extremely obsolete and the whole company was on the verge of falling over. They needed a big change to survive, and that was OS X, which suddenly gave them a modern OS and made their computers popular in many segments which had previously completely ignored them.
Apple was doing just fine in 2007. OS X was in great shape. They had recently transitioned from the faltering PowerPC CPUs to x86, which revitalized their hardware offerings and opened up a world of new possibilities for users to dual-boot or virtualize other OSes. Their market share was pretty solid, and their share of PC profits was quite high.
You say "stature in the industry" as if there's a single "the industry" that encompasses both PCs and phones. If Apple hadn't done the iPhone then maybe Microsoft or Nokia would have done better, but so what? That wouldn't affect Apple in the PC market. Wikipedia says the top five PC makers are Lenovo, HP, Dell, Asus, and Apple, and as far as I know Apple is the only one with a substantial smartphone business.
Of course Apple wouldn't be nearly as relevant overall in a world where they never produced the iPhone. I don't care about that. I see no reason why the Mac wouldn't be about as relevant in the personal computing space, which is what I care about.
In any case, I'm not just annoyed at the existence of the iPhone, but the nature of it. If the iPhone had been a Mac-like open platform instead of this walled garden bullshit, all of my complaints would go away. I have no problem with mobile per se, I have a problem with pervasive vendor-controlled code signing, not getting root on my own devices, etc.
> Of course Apple wouldn't be nearly as relevant overall in a world where they never produced the iPhone. I don't care about that. I see no reason why the Mac wouldn't be about as relevant in the personal computing space, which is what I care about.
Most of Apple's APIs and tools run on and build for both Mac and iPhone. Without the iPhone, Apple would have to pay for that from just what they made from the Mac, so improvements to macOS would come slower than they do now.
The pace of Apple's API improvements don't seem to be particularly related to their cash flow, and the pace of improvement on the Mac has not noticeably increased since 2007 (I'd argue it has actually decreased) so I don't buy this.
> improvements to macOS would come slower than they do now.
I'm starting to wonder how many people here even remember what Apple was like 10 years ago. The way macOS has "improved" under Tim I think "the slower, the better". One of the best WWDC moments this year was when Tim announced a maintenance release.
The only real improvements I'd suggest is switching back to NVIDIA across their entire product line and offering 32 and 64GB in MBP. I kind of struggle to think what else they could improve. Do you have any concrete suggestions?
I do agree that autonomous cars are a money pit not worth pursuing right now.
Are you insinuating that they can't do both? They're certainly working on the things that you're asking for. Maybe not at the pace and direction that you personally want but they're not stagnating, either. They've already said they'll have a new Mac Pro out next year. They've introduced a new iMac Pro. They're investing heavily into AR/VR.
They're big enough to do a lot of different things. It's like asking Microsoft to focus on Windows and Surface instead of putting in effort into their Hololens. Again, why can't they do both?
Well they certainly aren't doing both at the moment. All of the Mac hardware updates have been so heavily "form over function" that they aren't very appealing to people that just need to get shit done. My 3 year old Macbook Pro is still very fast, and since I use most of the ports on a regular basis it's arguably more useful than the new Macbook Pro.
Apple's company and team structure is very different from the more common organization model adopted by Microsoft, Google and others. It's a "functional organization", where teams and people are organized by expertise and not products as such. [1] That's why Apple, at least to the rest of us outside, seems to be struggling to make new Macs and not paying adequate attention to certain things even though it has so much cash (in other words, not being able to work on multiple things in parallel when things get tougher). It's not an easy problem to solve without making sweeping changes in how the company is organized and works. Is it frustrating for some classes of users? Of course, yes! But it cannot be wished away just by external pressure and commentary.
Hmm, I'm all for Apple's entry into the autonomous car sector. The more players the better in my opinion. Autonomous cars have the promise to reduce congestion, asthma rates, and lives lost to car crashes and they'll be a tremendous boon to major metropolitan areas when they're ready for full scale deployment.
Apple's the richest company in the world and it seems like they are actually focusing a bit on the MacPro and some of the other pro offerings power users need.
I'm also confident with the amount of money they have, they can certainly do both.
I don't think this needs to be a zero sum game (they can improve macOS' many problems and also work on self driving AI), but your point stands. Apple doesn't seem to care about certain classes of users.
How is this going to play out for Apple? Ideally, they'd want to make all the hardware, software and services. Just one model at first.
Yet that was too much of a stretch. So they are focusing on autonomous driving systems which would have to integrate with third parties' dumb cars.
I could see Google or Microsoft executing such a strategy. Not Apple though. They'd need to control all the parts.
Only Tesla can make the car that Apple would be proud of, but couldn't make on their own. So I predict that Apple acquires Tesla for its brand, products and heir-apparent.
Would Apple buy a big already established large player ? Their style is more like buying a tiny player, integrating it and rebranding their expertise under Apple flag.
I was thinking that Lotus would have been the type of Apple candidate and on the market for acquisition. That's basically starting the same road as Tesla, 15 later - seems a bit late for that. Volvo is another company that would align nicely with Apple design goals, but similarly they have progressed along too well.
Maybe brand like Saab that has still retained enough engineering capability, had some traditional car design know how ( interior design like seat, ... ) that can quickly (i.e. Apple need a fully autonomous car in the next 10 years top) be capitalised with Apple own know-how into a decent Tesla, VW, BMW, Volvo 2025 competitor ?
As both a Lotus fan and an Apple fan, I'm not sure their goals are at all aligned. Lotus is singularly focused on a "pure driving experience" and their cars are minimalistic (very few driving aids, very little noise insulation, thinly padded seats, firm suspension damping) by design. They only recently adopted automatic transmissions in their "flagship" car (the Evora). I really don't think an autonomous Lotus would be "a Lotus".
I would be shocked if any current or potential Lotus owner would be interested in a "automated Lotus". That being said, I think the number of "current or potential Lotus owners" is a vanishingly small market, so it may not matter.
> Would Apple buy a big already established large player ? Their style is more like buying a tiny player, integrating it and rebranding their expertise under Apple flag.
Except for Beats, where Apple bought an established large player and left them under the Beats brand
Tesla's current market cap is 61B, compared to Ford's 45B. There's a lot of growth expectation baked into that price already. No matter how much money they burned on trying to make a car, it will pale in comparison to trying to buy Tesla.
Imagine the lost opportunity if they don't screw it up, too, while you're at it. Although historically stock usually does drop on such momentous occasions, even if everything goes well.
Then again, imagine you are Walmart right at the point that Amazon was moving from selling books to selling everything. The same logic could easily apply.
I think it's too early to know how it will play out but I suspect comparing car manufacturing to phone and computer manufacturing is like comparing apples to... well, you get the idea.
If Apple bought Tesla, it would end up being the biggest tech boondoggle in history. The money is in licensing the software for autonomous cars, not the car itself.
Hopefully Tesla would never sell to Apple. I think Apple makes some good products, but I hate how closed their ecosystem is. Tesla has open sourced it's patents, which strongly goes against Apple's philosophy.
Not that I believe that Apple would ever consider buying Tesla, but if they did make an offer, it would not be up to Tesla but to its shareholders to accept or reject the deal.
What I got from the previous reports is that Apple thinks that self-driving tech isn't that far off and that it's going to be a major differentiating element. They probably want to get this tech right and then build a car around it.
That would make sense. But they seem to be adrift on the technology right now.
Apple is off its game when it talks to investors about how it's going to deliver revolutionary tech. It goes well for them the other way: deliver-shock-and-awe.
Maybe they will start selling cars. Take a Toyota / Ford / GM chassis and they do the interior and setup the autonomous systems. Like what they do now with their phones.
Given their market cap they could in theory try to buy Tesla, though I'm not sure if they could succeed at this. Surely would be a good way to use their cash hoard from abroad in case there should really be a tax holiday that will allow US companies to repatriate their overseas money in a tax-free way.
Interestingly, I saw a white "Apple Maps" branded van in my city recently, with four (Velodyne?) LiDAR heads on the roof, one on each corner, along with cameras in the center. Such a system would produce way more LiDAR data than they need for routine mapping, but perhaps enough to build a database for autonomous driving. I live far from Silicon Valley, so they must be confident that data will be useful eventually—enough so to justify the cost of driving around the country and storing an immense volume of LiDAR data.
While detailed LIDAR data is valuable for self-driving vehicles, you can also put it to more mundane uses. For example detecting where the kerbs are relative to the mapping vehicle; and detecting whether that featureless concrete-coloured thing the cameras captured was a barrier or not.
Apple is very good in coming into a market that has existed for a while and applying their design principles. I don't usually associate them with cutting edge technology.
Autonomous cars haven't existed for a while so I'm a bit skeptical Apple will be able to deliver something trustworthy.
This assumes Apple is going to release the car before autonomous cars become an established market. Apple probably could have released HomePod back in 2014 around the time Alexa was released. They chose to watch the market unfold and enter when they felt was right.
There's no reason they can't be working on a car that won't be released for 5+ years, after the market has matured.
Apple typically doesn't announce that far out, though. They usually announce when their products are much closer to market, once they've got a device or two built and in hand that they can show off (like the recent HomePod and iMac Pro).
Granted, earlier this year we saw them meet with Apple-centric press to tell them "don't worry, we're building another Mac Pro, just not in 2017", but those present pointed out how un-Apple-like it was to make such an announcement.
That's exactly my point - there is no working demonstration. This could be 5+ years away for all we know.
If Tim Cook unveiled the new car today, som62345's concern would be valid.
For now, we just know it is an area of interest for Apple and they may one day release a product.
Perhaps the more interesting part of this is that this is the the second time since Steve Job's death that Apple has revealed an area that is working in before unveiling the product.
The fact that Apple is repeatedly referred to as "The iPhone maker" makes me a little sad.
Anyway: except for the obvious answer "money" I don't really see why Apple feel the need to compete in the autonomous car market. Is it because Samsung makes cars?
It may make you feel better to know that the Apple Store was called "the iPod store" by kids and most people visiting before the iPhone was released. To be called "the iPhone maker" is really a testament of the ubiquity of their product. This is a good thing, and if Apple became known as the "the autonomous car maker" would be a huge achievement for them.
I don't see it as Apple trying to compete, but Apple attempting to serve their customers a better end product that ultimately make all other Apple products better in the process. For example, I get into my Apple car environment and so does the rest of my Apple ecosystem. It'd be nice for Siri to say, "I've prepared your documents for you to review for your 10am meeting, enjoy your ride."
Almost their entire profit comes from iphones. I think it's fair to refer to it as "the iPhone maker". Most people have heard of Apple only in relation to iPhone.
I disagree. It might be what they are most talked about now, but I think most people are familiar with their history. Steve Jobs, the old macs in schools, iPod, iMac, etc.
Maybe because everything is bundled and platformized. If Google release self-driving car software, they may force to use their entertainment and UI systems for cars too. Then it means better integration with Android and Google cloud services (i.e. maps and related services), interoperability with Google's home automation. At some point iOS may become isolated from this infrastructure completely.
I feel like there is a race right now to be the first serious autonomous car maker because the nature of highways and infrastructure is such that it's hard to compete with what is already there. They want to set the standard and be positioned to profit accordingly.
Imagine it's the other way around. I'm sure Apple has been working on car tech for far long than Samsung, but Samsung has been working on it because Apple is.
While Cook is mentioning it officially today, as you know they have been hiring countless people from the auto industry for many many years as they work on the tech. AI is integratal to Apple across all their product lines so makes sense to also do AI for autonomous systems such as a car. Apple isn't saying they will build their own car necessarily, they are saying they would build the underling tech for the car, that they would then presumably license to luxury car makers.
"In the early 1990s, Samsung's Chairman Kun Hee Lee recognised the automotive industry as the culmination of several others. For the Samsung Group, this would allow to leverage resources and technologies from the entire group including Samsung Electrics and Samsung Electronics."
Why does Apple need to get into automation of any sort? As I see it, Apple is about making devices that consume your time, whereas automation is about making devices that free up your time.
More automation benefits Apple inasmuch as the less time people spend on tasks like driving, the more time they have to spend using their iPhone/iPad/Mac. But they are still very different problem domains, and it's not clear to me how most of Apple's strengths in creating consumer-friendly electronics will help it in automation, when the whole point is to eliminate human interaction.
It seems like Apple would be better off just investing some of its cash pile into a plethora of automation startups. Let those startups concentrate on automating everything, while Apple concentrates on capturing all the free time it opens up for people.
Why not try ? their chances aren't worse than some of the car companies doing so.
Altough since their skills are in design, if they design a car/shuttle(even with a human rider) that multiple people ride together, AND enjoy that experience - they would have something big on their hands.
After reading all the speculation about Apple's car project for so long, I'm actually a little underwhelmed hearing their plans. I'm not surprised at what they're doing, but there has been so much secrecy over nothing. I wonder why they kept it so close to their chest.
In the interview, Tim Cook says nothing about working on cars. He recognizes that a new core technology is needed for autonomous systems, but doesn't say anything to imply they're working on a car.
Along with Cook recently saying humans should be involved in decision-making, there are some very interesting AI-related statements coming out of Apple these days.
Apple, like Tesla, share the same valley space in Southern San Fran. Elon Musk has eluded to this as well, as a reality in the very near future. To be perfectly frank, it's a natural fit for these two to be on the same vector and with the OS developer cycles with Apple after iterations with Darwin / Unix - which oh ya BTW runs some of the NASA space junk we have floating around - is the natural fit for Tesla. Maybe .. just maybe we see the Apple OS running Tesla cars in this fashion. I mean, it's almost obvious that these two are dating. I think the rest of the world maybe ignores it, but to me .. it's damn near obvious what the collaboration is, possibly already.
Honestly if Apple disappeared tomorrow someone else would manage to fill this car gap just fine. But if Apple disappeared tomorrow who would fill the gap their computer hardware and OS left?
Windows is getting slowly better but I don't think it will ever truly manage to be as slick as OS X. Especially when the passionate Windows insist on using an 8 year old OS and devs insist on writing software using the same systems and libraries they were using 15+ years ago.
To me Apple is only valuable as a computer company, an Apple car would just be a toy for the super rich.
I do wonder if this project came about as a way to keep talent in the building?
Yeah I agree with you, Apple is only valuable as a computer company - they should have just stuck to computers. They should have never wandered off into making mp3 players and cell phones which are just toys for the rich.
"Just stick to computers" is exactly what they did; they just put a new interface on them to make the smartphone. A CPU is an application processor is a CPU. Apple's pioneering innovations have always been with regards to design, not really technology.
Going to be interesting to see how the final regulations are written and which company benefits the most. By this I mean this whole area is will pretty much the Wild West. There are initial regulations governing the requirements of such work but they are by no means final. An example of how favoritism towards manufacturers works in this area is the 7500 tax rebate for battery equipped cars. It was practically carved out to meet the requirements GM had for the first generation Volt. GM also played a big factor in how DRLs were regulated, they wanted to save money on the the voltage converter so a higher limit was allowed.
I think Apple is seriously in need of direction and good vision. I never believed that Jobs had such immense impact, I thought that he as a excellent leader was providing vision and guidance but also using a lot of other smart people like Jonathan Ive and Cook to create excellent products. To me, it seems that without him others are lost and just doing 'what is right' is hard for them.
Wish them the best, but they need to get their core business right (said he who types this on 6 yrs old Macbook Air)
I'm convinced one of the issues with Tim Cook era Apple is failure to focus. Trying to do too many things at once is what leads companies to be mediocre at all of them.
"... it comes from saying no to 1,000 things to make sure we don't get on the wrong track or try to do too much. We're always thinking about new markets we could enter, but it's only by saying no that you can concentrate on the things that are really important." - Steve Jobs
I can't see any sustainable competitive advantage in autonomous car tech.
The iPhone has strong network effects and a luxury brand. But auto driving tech is strictly a commodity - if the next Ford Focus comes with a "Powered by Apple" label nobody will pay more than if the label read "Powered by Google".
I would pay less for a car labeled "Powered by Google", I don't know if that counts? If I'm going to be datamined while it works and left stranded with a device that I can use for 20 years yet only gets 3 years of updates, then I want that car maker to pay me to use it, not the other way around.
But powered by Apple? Meh. For many people it still means "but I'm not using anything by Apple".
In terms of its products, Apple is already essentially a luxury automobile manufacturer today, it just happens to be a luxury auto manufacturer that makes laptops rather than cars. They make expensive, high grade physical products whose quality and status help people of means define their personal brands and lives in ways that bring joy and function. That's indistinguishable from the role of a BMW or Audi or etc.
Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are all much better equipped and positioned to build amazing AI. It's that Jony Ives chassis, exterior, and interior that that would set the automotive industry on fire.
Good point (normally I'd just upvote you but that doesn't do as good a job of communicating you'd influenced the opinion of the person you were responding to)
I have a theory that the drop in Apple's software quality over the last few years can be attributed to the 'top' internal talent moving to this project. It would be a great career builder and since it requires a big investment there would be demand from up high to have the best talent in place, even at the expense of other projects.
Drop? I updated from 10.10 to 10.12 on my 13" MBP only recently, and it is worlds better. Likewise I've found iOS 10 to be the most stable ever, even as I do more and more on it. I have experienced some recent bugs (couldn't download any apps for a while), but they got resolved fairly quickly.
Yes, you have people arguing there's been a drop in software quality, it seems to have been a great click-bait topic in 2016 particularly.
Apple has been focusing on it for many many years, but the news today is that Cook himself has admitted it is a focus rather than they his limited past remarks such as that they are watching the space.
> Cars will be a service...and that clashes with what Apple stands for
Someone should get a memo over to the App Store, Apple Music, Apple Pay, iTunes, iCloud and other services teams. They only brought in like $7 billion of revenues last quarter [1].
Apple is a luxury brand. They would likely be making a luxury car. People would buy it, among other things, for trendiness, prestige and social standing.
They're around 1/3 to 2/5 of smartphones in the United States [1] and about 1/5 worldwide [2]. (About 2/5 of people, worldwide, own a smartphone [3].) Meanwhile, Apple captures something like 90% of global smartphone profits [4]. High-end margin leaders sell luxury products.
I'm not sure you actually read the article you linked. The focus is on delayed purchasing of cars, not an outright lack of ownership. There's no way I'll ever be using a rental service when I have to constantly worry about having a stroller, diaper bag, car seats, and so much more. I don't see the issue of family mobility solved anywhere in the horizon by "cars as a service."
The article says it may be delayed but it also says this.
> Some critics are skeptical that millennials will ever catch up. Prolonging car-buying, they say, means fewer cars purchased during one’s lifetime, a problem for the auto industry.
and
> millennials are looking for cars from manufacturers that integrate seamlessly with their smartphones and sync with other technology
Which actually is in line with what Apple is doing. Either way, I agree it's not a stupid move.
Prolonging car-buying, they say, means fewer cars purchased during one’s lifetime, a problem for the auto industry.
I bought my first car when I was 36. Compared to friends who got their first car when they where 18, the main difference is that I've bought 1 fairly nice new car in my life and they've bought 1 fairly nice new car and 5 pieces of crap. By the time we're both 65 we'll probably have spent about the same total amount of money buying cars in our lifetime.
Parents are a pretty large market, I could imagine being able to call a car with car seats and other fixed items.
I'm also expecting costs to come way down when you no longer need a driver, and people are willing to trade some inconvenience for significantly reduced costs.
The market for self driving cars will be enormous, regardless of whether individuals own them or use them as a service. It's a field they would like to disrupt, and it's massive. What clashes with Apple, exactly?
I'm not the person you're responding to, but my impression of Apple is that pride-in-ownership is a large factor in their success. They have tended to eschew function and utility in favour of form and integrity.
Transport-as-a-service will commoditise the industry. Apple may change, of course. But if they follow their usual pattern, I agree with your parent that lack of owner-pride could challenge Apple's unique selling proposition.
Still, as you said, the market is huge. Even if I'm right, Apple can sell to owners, who'd become proud-though-minority road users.
Transport-as-a-service with your own car. I guess if you end up spending more time in your car, because why not if it drives itself, you my as well be in a nice car which you own. Judging by the look of "shared stuff" currently shared cars will be made from the ugliest plastic imaginable.
That article makes no argument that younger people are less likely to (eventually) buy a car. 27 year old me had no plans of ever getting a license and saw no point in owning a car. 10 years later and what do you know, I have a drivers license and own a car.
Please focus on Mac hardware. Please focus on giving me the hardware tools to work and play on the macOS platform. Continue improving your mobile devices. Consider adding and improving only those things that will continue to make my business and leisure tasks smoother, simpler, and more enjoyable.
I'd rather you didn't take focus from the things you've traditionally done well to do something that's never been in your wheelhouse. If you want to get involved with automobiles, work with the industry to improve my life while I'm riding along in the autonomous vehicle, but please don't try to build the autonomous vehicle. I'd prefer you wait until the market is saturated with terrible implementations so you can learn from others' mistakes and come along with a much-improved offering.
But for now, just give me and my fellows Macs we can depend on for everything, a reliable mobile experience that doesn't throw out the habits we gained on the previous iteration, and the tools to make great software for your platforms.
--d