Slashdot Mirror

Obviously the first applications should be self driving Buses, Long Haul 18 wheelers, Garbage Trucks, etc. etc.

Ford is a minor player in heavy trucks. The biggest trucks they make are class 7. Hotel buses, airport shuttles, dump trucks, box trucks, school buses (I don't think anyone is still making a Ford or GMC school bus, but I could be wrong), etc. The big players in heavy trucks in the US are Freightliner (Mercedes), Peterbilt and Kenworth (both owned by Paccar), International-Navistar, Volvo (Geely), and Mack (also Volvo/Geely). Ford worked with what they had, which is to say minivans (Transit). Autonomous minivans have the potential to absolutely destroy the city bus, as well as completely dominate medical and disabled transport. But as Ford has figured out, Class 5 AVs are still some way off.

Daimler, the world's largest truck manufacturer, is doing the long-haul trucking research, and has been. They have level 2 trucks now, and are working their way up. I predict that they'll be at level 3 for a long time, but I suppose that remains to be seen.

Obviously the first applications should be self driving Buses, Long Haul 18 wheelers, Garbage Trucks, etc. etc.

Ford is a minor player in heavy trucks. The biggest trucks they make are class 7. Hotel buses, airport shuttles, dump trucks, box trucks, school buses (I don't think anyone is still making a Ford or GMC school bus, but I could be wrong), etc. The big players in heavy trucks in the US are Freightliner (Mercedes), Peterbilt and Kenworth (both owned by Paccar), International-Navistar, Volvo (Geely), and Mack (also Volvo/Geely). Ford worked with what they had, which is to say minivans (Transit). Autonomous minivans have the potential to absolutely destroy the city bus, as well as completely dominate medical and disabled transport. But as Ford has figured out, Class 5 AVs are still some way off.

Daimler, the world's largest truck manufacturer, is doing the long-haul trucking research, and has been. They have level 2 trucks now, and are working their way up. I predict that they'll be at level 3 for a long time, but I suppose that remains to be seen.

Apple has always copied. Apple's strategy has never been of the innovator. The strategy has always been the fast follower strategy. They let other be on the bleeding edge and learn from their mistakes and come in with a much more polished, dumbed down and well integrated version. What this does is by the time Apple brings a product to market the market is ready for it but also frustrated with the incumbents and ready to accept fewer functionality for greater reliability and ease of use.
The Mac was a copy of Xerox PARC
Mac OS is a copy of Unix
The iPod was a copy of various cheap mp3 players
The iPhone is a copy of the Motorola Rokr - the first phone to play iTunes as well of various Windows Phone 6 Touchphones from HP
The iPad is a well put together version of countless Samsung tablets
The Watch is a copy of various Android gear smartwatches
Apple Pay is a copy of countless systems which have been there in Japan for almost 25 years now
The Homepod is a copy of Alexa, Google Home etc

Almost nothing Apple does is original . It just does it better and takes over a market.

You DO realize (of course you don't) that you defeat your own arguments.

There is a vast difference between a "Copy", which is a direct knock-off, usually inferior version of an original product, and an improved version of an original product. Dozens of companies do the former. It takes almost no expertise, and does nothing but cheapen the entire field. Apple does the latter, which is why, as you yourself have admitted, they do it better, and more often than not, end up taking over the field, at least until they themselves are copied by those whose only business-model is a race-to-the-bottom.

1. Apple didn't copy the Xerox Alto. It licensed some of the GUI concepts, then improved upon them.

2. MacOS is not a copy of Unix, it is a Certified Version of Unix. By contrast, every single Linux is a copy of Unix.

3. The iPod was not a copy of several MP3 Players (each of which was a copy of ??? The Sony Walkman???), it was an improvement upon the concept of an Portable Music Player, which is why is immediately trounced the others.

4. The iPhone copied nothing. It created an industry-wide paradigm-shift in the design of both smartphones and their UI designs.

5. Same with the iPad. Many others had tried and failed to create a usable tablet computing device. Apple showed everyone else the way it's done...

6. The Apple Watch is an improvement over others' failed-attempts to bring all the necessary pieces-parts together for a usable smartwatch. Everything before it is simply a bad joke, or a very limited-use toy.

7. Apple Pay is not original. But it is the first, or one of the first, that did not insinuate itself into the middle of the transaction-process, protecting the user's privacy.

8. The Homepod isn't out yet; so we really don't know what its capabilities will be; but it does seem like it is the coming-to-fruition of an idea that has been kicking-around the Apple Product Development labs for about a decade; so, who's copying whom?

By your logic, every single car is nothing more than a copy of the Benz Patent Motor Car. But would you really dare to call a Tesla or Ferrari a copy of this? :

https://www.daimler.com/compan...

What you are saying is just as "logical".

From 'E-mobility thought to the end: World's largest 2nd-use battery storage unit set to connect to the grid" (Nov 03, 2015)
http://media.daimler.com/dcmed...
"However, the battery systems are still fully operational after this point, as the low levels of power loss are only of minor importance when used in stationary storage."
The amount of productive use before a set recharging as part of a routine understood. The count of expected recharges is understood over time. So the later commercial use is understood for productive power output and over time.
The power output, charging needs can be predicted and factored in over time. Then recycling is offered.

As much fun as this would be I'm sure for 1800s transportation a horse would have been better.

As they say on some sites... [citation needed] I have never seen anything to indicate that road markings are detected any way other than visually on these vehicles.

From http://lmgtfy.com/?q=google+self+driving+car+road+tracking+mechanism&l=1:
These vehicles use an expensive laser mounted on the roof to map the car’s surroundings in 3-D and rapidly process this picture, reacting deftly to other cars and pedestrians.

I'm not sure whether you consider "laser" to be "visually", but it certainly isn't passive vision, which puts it out of the regular human range.

Mercedes uses multiple sensors including visual and radar. http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1210218-1-1210321-1-0-0-1210228-0-0-135-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html

Given that the first hit in my very first search gave me the first link, and a link on the first hit of the second search gave the second, I can't believe you've tried to educate yourself. You've made up your mind, and you don't want information. It can only confirm what you know, thus is a waste of time, or conflict, and we've seen here how you deal with conflicting information.

I honestly believe self driving cars are the future. I just don't believe for a second that any current generation computer system could handle driving as well as even the average driver.

And I think you've vastly over-estimated the abilities of the average driver.

I've never seen anyone who could think use [citation needed], and you've followed that observation. Those that can think will at least try one quick search first. And you obviously didn't, as the first search I tried gave the answer to the [citation needed]. First hit of first search. Too much trouble for you?