Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Scales Back Its Ambitions for a Self-Driving Car

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 434 posts

Re: Apple Scales Back Its Ambitions for a Self-Driving Car

#41

Post by objclxt »

nadim wrote: post #34

More proof Apple is done innovating. This is literally a story about giving up, in the NYT. Can we have SJ back please?

> More proof Apple is done innovating.

It's literally the opposite of that. They spent billions of dollars on R&D in a new market segment. Just because you cancel the project or decide it's a failure doesn't mean a) you didn't learn anything, b) you didn't get any tech out of it, and c) it's not innovation.

You cannot be innovative if you are not prepared for your efforts to fail. If Apple was "done innovating" they wouldn't be taking massive bets like this at all.

Re: Apple Scales Back Its Ambitions for a Self-Driving Car

#42

Post by freehunter »

jamestimmins wrote: post #20
slackoverflower wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that you don't want self driving cars to happen or you don't THINK it will happen? I, for one, am super excited for self driving personal vehicles and will be glad to see the eradication of mass public transportation like trains and buses.

There's a strong case to be made that this isn't a desirable outcome in a lot of areas. Trains and buses are much more efficient at moving people than individual cars, even if they're self-driving. I'm also extremely excited about autonomous cars, but neither desire nor think they will replace mass transit. edit: As a few people have mentioned, my suggestion that "trains are buses are much more efficient" is dubious.…

Trains are great at moving people to train stations. Buses are great at moving people to bus stops. Cars are great at moving people to their homes and businesses.

When millions of Americans live in rural or suburban areas, what do you think is easier? Extending rail and bus routes to within walking distance of every house, or convincing everyone to move to a city? The answer is neither, and that's why cars exist.

Here's one that isn't a trick question: is it more efficient to build a rail line to my office and have a train run there or to have individual cars drive there? I don't know the answer for sure, but considering you may possibly need 15 trains filled mainly with people who don't work there converging on one location or 15 cars with one person each who does work there converging on one location, I'm almost willing to bet 15 electric cars would be more efficient than 15 trains.

There's a certain density requirement that mass transit needs that doesn't always exist. That's why we have cars.

Re: Apple Scales Back Its Ambitions for a Self-Driving Car

#43

Post by valuearb »

mypalmike wrote: post #15

If Apple were truly serious about building self-driving cars, they would buy one of the big 3 US auto manufacturers. It could buy all 3 with cash and still have one of the largest hoards of cash ever accumulated.

Why would a high margin, high ROE, low capital requirements business like Apple invest in a low margin, poor ROE, high capital requirements business like a car maker?

Besides being a poor investment that would lock up lots of their capital, it would also create a ton of management distractions.

If they are serious about building self-driving cars, they are probably making a huge mistake. Cars have been a poor business model for quite a long time. Licensing automonomous tech seems like a far better business model.

Re: Apple Scales Back Its Ambitions for a Self-Driving Car

#44

Post by segmondy »

Apple really is a one hit wonder. Outside of computing devices, phone, tablets, laptops, (let's throw in desktops & watches) They really haven't been able to build and innovate much since Jobs. I was short on the idea when they announced a self-driving car. Without a major change and internal culture shock, they are going to stay on this course, hit peak cash extraction until they start mortgaging cash quickly. The only thing that has been pretty interesting has been AR. Innovation dilemma is strong.

Re: Apple Scales Back Its Ambitions for a Self-Driving Car

#45

Post by chrismealy »

kartD wrote: post #3

"But people within the industrial design team including Jonathan Ive, Apple’s chief designer, believed that a fully driverless car would allow the company to reimagine the automobile experience, according to the five people." Ah Jony Ive, first he ruined iOS 7 and now this constant need to tinker with things that work fine. I love the hardware design but please leave the software and HID bit alone... of course YMMV P…

I miss the textures a lot. All the flatness makes the UI too harsh.

Re: Apple Scales Back Its Ambitions for a Self-Driving Car

#46

Post by BoorishBears »

segmondy wrote: post #44

Apple really is a one hit wonder. Outside of computing devices, phone, tablets, laptops, (let's throw in desktops & watches) They really haven't been able to build and innovate much since Jobs. I was short on the idea when they announced a self-driving car. Without a major change and internal culture shock, they are going to stay on this course, hit peak cash extraction until they start mortgaging cash quickly. The o…

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not

Re: Apple Scales Back Its Ambitions for a Self-Driving Car

#47

Post by mozumder »

freehunter wrote: post #42
jamestimmins wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a strong case to be made that this isn't a desirable outcome in a lot of areas. Trains and buses are much more efficient at moving people than individual cars, even if they're self-driving. I'm also extremely excited about autonomous cars, but neither desire nor think they will replace mass transit. edit: As a few people have mentioned, my suggestion that "trains are buses are much more efficient" is dubious.…

Trains are great at moving people to train stations. Buses are great at moving people to bus stops. Cars are great at moving people to their homes and businesses. When millions of Americans live in rural or suburban areas, what do you think is easier? Extending rail and bus routes to within walking distance of every house, or convincing everyone to move to a city? The answer is neither, and that's why cars exist. Her…

And streetcars are great at moving people that last mile.

Take that road in front of your office, and just put rails in it.

If your local government can pay for a road in front of your house, it can pay for a streetcar. This applies to dense areas as well as rural areas. Rail lines actually cost less to maintain than roads, and they cost YOU less because you don't have to buy and pay for a car.

And you don't have to fear dying in a crash every time you set foot inside a streetcar, like you do in a car.

Re: Apple Scales Back Its Ambitions for a Self-Driving Car

#48

Post by plicense »

ctdonath wrote: post #39
mypalmike wrote: post #15

If Apple were truly serious about building self-driving cars, they would buy one of the big 3 US auto manufacturers. It could buy all 3 with cash and still have one of the largest hoards of cash ever accumulated.

Over the decades I've noticed how businesses need to recognize and focus on their core competencies - if they don't, they die. Everything must feed that core, and undue distractions are lethal. Occasionally there's a need to pivot , which is deliberately stepping from one competency to another, but that is rare and difficult. Apple's core is to build small computers; everything else they do (music, video, cloud servi…

I definitely wouldn't call AWS, Echo from Amazon occasional. I think companies come in all shapes and sizes - some focus 90% on their core, some try to spend more time and diverge out to other business segments. Its upto Apple to figure out what to do and what would make it successful.

Re: Apple Scales Back Its Ambitions for a Self-Driving Car

#49

Post by mozumder »

hossbeast wrote: post #37
jamestimmins wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a strong case to be made that this isn't a desirable outcome in a lot of areas. Trains and buses are much more efficient at moving people than individual cars, even if they're self-driving. I'm also extremely excited about autonomous cars, but neither desire nor think they will replace mass transit. edit: As a few people have mentioned, my suggestion that "trains are buses are much more efficient" is dubious.…

"Trains and buses are much more efficient at moving people than individual cars, even if they're self driving" Dubious claim that needs evidence. I think you're underestimating the potential throughput gains from autonomy. As just one example, speed limits can probably be greatly increased when you take the realities of human reaction times out of the equation.

How much energy does it take to move 500 cars?

How much energy does it take to move one train?

That's your answer.

Re: Apple Scales Back Its Ambitions for a Self-Driving Car

#50

Post by freehunter »

mindcrime wrote: post #24
CaptSpify wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does the tech industry focus on self-driving cars so much? It's absolutely never going to happen, ever. It's already happened.

For the "happy path" case, in good weather, etc., sure. But that's the first 90%. The second 90%, dealing with all weather conditions, all traffic conditions, arbitrary road hazards, crazy road conditions, etc., might take a lot longer. To the point that it's not crazy to say "it'll never happen". That said, I do think we'll get there eventually, as I think we'll get to AGI (or even ASI) eventually. But I can't prove…

There was a day when I booted my computer, I'd have to run a few commands and enter a few keys and insert a diskette. If, at that point, you told me I'd one day have a computer that boots itself and starts programs by itself upon booting to the point where a reboot would be indistinguishable from merely turning the monitor on and off, I may have laughed at you. But here we are, in an era where when my Mac reboots I can open the lid and be looking at the same CNN article as before it rebooted.

I'm not trying to say self driving cars are as easy as building a modern OS, however difficult that may be. I'm trying to say, in the area of how advanced computers can become in a very short period of time, humans have historically been incredibly, actually laughable inaccurate.

Anyone who says "computers will never X" deserves to be shunned into nonexistence. Literally all of the proof is on the other side of their argument. Historically, computers have always been able to do exactly what humans have claimed they could not do. It's only a matter of time.

Post reply on HN