Slashdot Mirror


Apple Says It Is Working On Self-Driving Cars (theguardian.com)

For the first time, Apple has said that it is indeed working on technology to develop self-driving cars. The company confirmed late last week its previously secret initiative in a statement to the U.S. highway regulator. From a report on The Guardian: "The company is investing heavily in the study of machine learning and automation, and is excited about the potential of automated systems in many areas, including transportation," said the letter from Steve Kenner, Apple's director of product integrity, to the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The letter offered no details of the project, instead highlighting the "significant societal benefits of automated vehicles," which it described as a life-saving technology, potentially preventing millions of car crashes and thousands of fatalities each year.In a statement to Financial Times (might be paywalled), a spokesperson for Apple said, "We've provided comments to NHTSA because Apple is investing heavily in machine learning and autonomous systems. There are many potential applications for these technologies, including the future of transportation, so we want to work with NHTSA to help define the best practices for the industry."

16 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. Apple products.... by Charcharodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ....and I still don't care.

  2. Overpriced by MitchDev · · Score: 5, Funny

    Overpriced cars that only drive you where you want to go if your destination is within the Apple walled garden....

    1. Re:Overpriced by haruchai · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid of their translucent model: I couldn't yank-off on the way to work.

      That's not the kind of "self-driving" they're interested in

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  3. Misleading title by kwerle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The very first line in the linked article:

    Apple has said for the first time that it is working on technology to develop self-driving cars.

    And in more detail:

    The company is investing heavily in the study of machine learning and automation, and is excited about the potential of automated systems in many areas, including transportation,” said the letter from Steve Kenner, Apple’s director of product integrity, to the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

    The difference is that they have not said they're making cars in the same way they do not make TVs. But they do make hardware/software that will drive your TV - so to speak.

    Just as auto makers can make 'carplay' http://www.apple.com/ios/carpl... compatible cars, you can imagine they might one day make 'carpilot' compatible cars.

  4. Please, God by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't let Samsung start making cars.

    --
    They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    1. Re:Please, God by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      Pretty sure they already do... well, at least construction equipment, which, I would think, would have to be even higher quality and adhere to way more regulations than a consumer grade car.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:Please, God by ranton · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, Renault Samsung Motors already exists, and Samsung just bought Harmin International. So even if you don't own one of their cars, there's the chance your car stereo will soon be made by them.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  5. Re:Yearly upgrades! by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most people call those leases.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  6. proudly going out of business since 1976! by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apple : "We have so much money we literally don't know what to do with it anymore."

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:proudly going out of business since 1976! by MikeMo · · Score: 3, Informative

      He didn't exactly "prop them up". Microsoft bought $150MM shares of non-voting stock (which they sold at a huge profit). Apple didn't need money at the time, they needed legitimacy, which this investment provided.

      In return for this, Apple dropped a multitude of patent-infringement lawsuits against Microsoft (which Apple appeared to be wining), and licensed those technologies to Microsoft. These were not related to Microsoft's anti-trust issues, nor was the existence of Apple. It's OK that Microsoft was a monopoly - monopolies are legal - it's the abuse of the power the monopoly gave them.

  7. No investment opportunities big enough by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Apple : "We have so much money we literally don't know what to do with it anymore."

    That's alright. Neither do Google or Microsoft and a few others. They simply can't find investment opportunities large enough and profitable enough to do anything with their piles of cash. So the pile keeps growing. Eventually I expect it to attract a dragon or something.

    Really they should be paying it back as dividends if they can't figure out what to do with the money.

  8. Won't work by dcavanaugh · · Score: 2

    Non-replaceable tires, headlights, etc. Rest assured, Apple will find some way to kill the value proposition. That's all they do these days.

  9. Hey Slashdot: by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Slashdot Editors / owners / etc.:

    o Please stop supporting paywalled sites.
    o Please stop supporting sites with closed comment sections.

    These things are bad for the web and the web's denizens -- of course not for the ethically crippled sites themselves, as we are their product, and both payment up and dissent down are multipliers to their bread and butter.

    The paywalled sites are monetizing the news, and that almost always makes for biased reporting.

    The closed comment sections make for echo chambers, and that creates an environment where fake news and agitprop flourish.

    Same thing to my fellow slashdotters: if you support bad actors in bad behaviors, they will naturally persist. So think about that before you click through the next time someone thrusts a paywalled or comment-bereft site in your face.

    Thanks for reading.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Hey Slashdot: by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      The paywalled sites are monetizing the news, and that almost always makes for biased reporting.

      I agree that it is a waste of time linking to a paywalled site, but what evidence do you have that a paywall almost always makes for biased reporting. To me that sounds like a very biased claim.

      If you wanted to push an agenda by making biased claims, wouldn't you be more likely to make your reporting available to more people by publishing it for free? If you wanted to make a news site that was less reliant on keeping advertisers happy (which might then colour your reporting) wouldn't charging to view the articles keep you more independent?

    2. Re:Hey Slashdot: by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      When you trade money for news, you tend to get the news that makes the most money. It's human nature, unless controlled by regulation. Just as corporations, utilities, colleges, all mostly get financially out of hand unless regulated, because people are mostly naturally greedy. There's scant sense of fairness, and gross excess of "take the market for all it can bear."

      Look, news is all mostly biased anyway. Biased by what they cover and what they choose not to cover; by the editor's influence; by the publisher's influence; by the advertiser's influence; by the stockholder's influence; by ridiculous "equal time for superstitious nonsense" policies (because the news consumers are bewildered, so in order to get their money, they are pandered to), etc. I'm just not going to actually pay for more bias.

      It's a complete waste of time to put a paywalled link in front of me. Not going to click it if I know what it is; not going to stay if I am snookered into clicking.

      For news, here's what I want: facts and relevance to actual news. Not the Kardumbians, not some actor's opinion, not breathless reporting of some lab result as if it was tech coming down next Friday, Politics, cover the candidates and what they say. Even handedly. Don't leave some out (Sanders, cough) don't over-cover some (Trump, cough), don't report bland, content free remarks as if they were incoming legal doom (Clinton, cough)... you get the idea.

      Simple enough, you'd think. Just do a good job. But they don't. Okay then, fine. But expecting me to pay for that crap? Not happening. They oughta pay me for having to fact check every goddam thing they write and speak about.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  10. Dateline 2025 by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dateline 2025: Apple has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Mitsubishi and Ford over alleged violations of Apple intellectual property. The claim is that both Mitsubishi and Ford are infringing on Apple's patents on autonomous vehicles in that the Mitsubishi Allgonica and Ford Frobnulator have rounded corners and four wheels. Spokesmen for Mitsubishi and Ford were unavailable for comment.