Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Has Dismissed More Than 200 Employees From Project Titan, its Autonomous Vehicle Group (cnbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the selfdriving-dream dept.

Apple has dismissed just over 200 employees this week from Project Titan, its stealthy autonomous vehicle group, CNBC reports. From the report: An Apple spokesperson acknowledged the layoffs and said the company still sees opportunity in the space: "We have an incredibly talented team working on autonomous systems and associated technologies at Apple. As the team focuses their work on several key areas for 2019, some groups are being moved to projects in other parts of the company, where they will support machine learning and other initiatives, across all of Apple," the spokesperson said. "We continue to believe there is a huge opportunity with autonomous systems, that Apple has unique capabilities to contribute, and that this is the most ambitious machine learning project ever."

58 comments

  1. Give It Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Drivers are required.

    1. Re:Give It Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dell is always hiring repair tech drivers.

    2. Re: Give It Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah well, they probably should have checked the proposal for errors. Too bad

    3. Re:Give It Up by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      This is what it really is. We are not ready for self driving cars, the infrastructure isn't in place to support them. For self driving cars to be reliable the roads will need to be specifically designed to support them.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    4. Re:Give It Up by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      For self driving cars to be reliable the roads will need to be specifically designed to support them.

      And exactly what technological innovations are we lacking that prohibits this from being accomplished?

      Your cell phone works because we've put up towers all over, you have electricity because we've run wires, GPS works because there are satellites in space, etc. We're not going to give up on self-driving technology just because some infrastructure needs to be put in place to make it work.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    5. Re: Give It Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lack of centralized traffic control.
      Every vehicle must have a transceiver that will participate in sharing vehicle data, receive and execute instructions to force a vehicle follow a certain path.
      Vehicles must become personalized bus/metro services, without exception.

    6. Re:Give It Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't even fix potholes. Why would they bother with self driving infra?

    7. Re:Give It Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self driving cars can't come soon enough IMHO, because of all the assholes glued to their phones while driving. If you want to run into the wall at 75mph, its your business. I would say the sooner the better. Unfortunately you will take some innocent person with you and stop all the traffic in the process. The older I get the more I wonder how humanity did not kill itself yet.

    8. Re:Give It Up by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      And exactly what technological innovations are we lacking that prohibits this from being accomplished?

      There is none. In fact with today's level of technology if we where to design and build roads for self driving cars it would be stunningly simple.

      What I'm saying is the the current infrastructure in place we are not ready for self driving cars. We are trying to do this the hard way, which is to teach computer cars to drive like humans. With the current level of technology will not work. There are two many variables for the cars to analyze and do it safely 100% of the time. I can get in my car and drive two miles down the road and the road conditions will change completely. We are not ready for this.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  2. The most ambitious machine learning project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...this is the most ambitious machine learning project ever.

    Wait until RealDoll perfects the small-talk subroutines for their A.I.-equipped "companionship" dolls. Simulating female bitchiness such as being able to make crazy links between totally unrelated events is going to require massive amounts of processing power.

    1. Re:The most ambitious machine learning project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...this is the most ambitious machine learning project ever.

      Wait until RealDoll perfects the small-talk subroutines for their A.I.-equipped "companionship" dolls. Simulating female bitchiness such as being able to make crazy links between totally unrelated events is going to require massive amounts of processing power.

      .

      The "shutthefuckupbeforeIhavetosmackyoubitych" patch will reduce the need for processing power, just as it does in the real world.

    2. Re:The most ambitious machine learning project by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      ...this is the most ambitious machine learning project ever.

      Wait until RealDoll perfects the small-talk subroutines for their A.I.-equipped "companionship" dolls. Simulating female bitchiness such as being able to make crazy links between totally unrelated events is going to require massive amounts of processing power.

      Solving the problem of creating crazy links between disparate ideas has been solved for over a decade.

    3. Re:The most ambitious machine learning project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do we make a left here because there's a sale at Macy's versus There is less traffic down this road subroutines have been known to hang the CPU at intersections

    4. Re:The most ambitious machine learning project by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Sounds like we should be expecting a #androidmetoo campaign in about 20 years when the fembots become self aware and sue their owners for abuse.

  3. I think Apple is waiting to se the space shake out by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Apple I smart I think to not build a whole car, integration into car systems is the better idea for Apple.

    I'm just not sure how Apple could bring anything extra to the driverless car space, which has quite a lot of players of all kinds feverishly working to deliver results.

    Maybe after that area has solidified they might find some way that makes sense to enter, but for now sitting back and waiting is a good idea.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  4. Ruleset by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Driving (anywhere on the surface of the Earth) cannot be defined with a reasonably finite set of rules, period.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Ruleset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been saying for over a year that fully autonomous vehicles -- as in, you get in, tell it where you want to go, and you NEVER have to touch a control -- won't be here anywhere soon, and we'll only get semi-close with a lot of infrastructure spending to create AV-only highway lanes, etc. Any halfway competent programmer who drives on public roads could tell you this. The pathological cases are numerous and nasty, with no real-world acceptable way to handle them short of "pull over, turn on 4 way flashers, and alert the driver to take over".

    2. Re: Ruleset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This project was cancelled over a year ago. I wonder why anybody is even still talking about it. Everyone left for greener pastures. I doubt they could rehire at this point. People have other commitments.

    3. Re:Ruleset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rules really aren't complex. "Don't hit things. Don't fall off a cliff."

      Even one in a million cases could be handled by an AI. And if it couldn't on day one, all AI cars will constantly be observing and improving their ability to deal with one in a million cases. Even if you don't think AI will be perfcectly able to handle every contingency, they don't have to be perfect - they just have to be better than humans, and humans are shitty drivers who can't keep their eyes off their phones.

      I have no doubt that fully autonomous vehicles will be here soon.

    4. Re: Ruleset by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      Clearly it wasn't cancelled. More likely, Apple changed direction.

      I suspect they initially wanted to build the whole car, but after several years of exploring the idea, it seemed impractical and not likely to yield the level of profit margins Apple is used to. So I think they reconfigured the project to offering just the self-driving hardware and software to existing car manufacturers.

      I think at this point they've taken the research as far as it can go and, as you suggest, recognized the (current) insurmountable problems with full automation.

      I think that a fully automated SDC would require either realtime AI processing or a significant infrastructure upgrade, or possibly even both. And the cost model doesn't seem to be there yet, as the sensors are still ridiculously expensive for the average consumer.

    5. Re:Ruleset by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      "Don't hit things. Don't fall off a cliff." - unless they're birds that aren't afraid of your car, or rain/snow/fog is fooling your sensors

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

      “These things will not be functioning in anything heavier than a light rain”

      I truly wish they would come sooner rather than later, and I support all of the testing and development they're doing, but it will still be quite a while.

    6. Re:Ruleset by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "Driving (anywhere on the surface of the Earth) cannot be defined with a reasonably finite set of rules, period."

      So, why are we giving 16 year olds keys to cars with often only a few hours training?

      And are you telling me an algorithm can't be created that simulates the sense nearly every animal in existence possesses? Sure, it may not work in rain, snow, or some conditions; but if it worked half the time it would be a boon to humanity.

      --
      Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
    7. Re:Ruleset by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Apparently after they wash the Waymo cars they have to get on top and wipe off every ... single ... drop so that it will work reliably.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:Ruleset by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Because we accept 16 as the age of driving because in our experience most 16 year olds understand all they need and are capable of driving. What I'm telling you is that there is no algorithm that can run on the car (because any wireless connection would be too slow) and identify that animal within the 0.001 seconds it needs to in order to make the correct decision.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:Ruleset by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What I'm telling you is that there is no algorithm that can run on the car (because any wireless connection would be too slow) and identify that animal within the 0.001 seconds it needs to in order to make the correct decision.

      You do realize that in 0.001 seconds, a human literally cannot possibly even see that animal? If we saw anything, it would just be a blur. And we certainly wouldn't have time to think about doing anything about it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Ruleset by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      LOL. Maybe they could create a tiny little robot arm next front of each "eye", and when you wake the car up, it could "rub its eyes".

    11. Re:Ruleset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm telling you is that there is no algorithm that can run on the car (because any wireless connection would be too slow) and identify that animal within the 0.001 seconds it needs to in order to make the correct decision.

      There are areas where a human typically outdoes a computer but, seriously, reaction time isn't one of them.

    12. Re:Ruleset by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      "Driving (anywhere on the surface of the Earth) cannot be defined with a reasonably finite set of rules, period."

      So, why are we giving 16 year olds keys to cars with often only a few hours training?

      They drive better than the current crop of AIs.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    13. Re: Ruleset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither would AI. The car is going to hit the animal regardless. AI will not stop that.

    14. Re:Ruleset by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      If, by what you mean as reaction time, is the time to make a decision to react using on board sensors and processing, I am not disputing that a computer will be faster no contest. However, if you actually read what I wrote, I am concerned about the time it must take the car to make a decision. Is Google even close to recognizing a *still picture* of a duck from a dog from a cat from a beaver using their entire datacenter within the time the car will need? how does this datacenter get fit on board to the car so that this decision can be made in real time? Keep in mind that there are thousands of samples a second; so it will need to search through it's entire database of 'world objects' at least one thousand times a second, on board, in a car. Good luck. Just try not to hit or kill anything please.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    15. Re:Ruleset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Following rules" is not a simple task. It becomes complicated very quickly in a system that has rules that control the activation or deactivation of other rules, but the system has to be able to handle this or risk becoming a toaster in the worst possible situations.

      For example, this seems like a simple rule: "Stay on the road." So the car has some way of detecting where the road is, the road needs to be below the car, sometimes there are lines that indicate which way the road is oriented. Eventually the car even has rules for driving on gravel roads, but it has some rules that make it preferable to drive on a paved road when that is an option. Then one day the car is taken to a music festival where people are instructed to park their cars on the grass. Okay, so more rules about driving on grass to cover those corner cases. But now there are special cases where the primary rule of "stay on the road" has been deactivated, and there needs to be a way to switch those rules on or off based on the situation.

      When you turn your self-driving car back on after the music festival, how does it determine which set of rules should apply? Was there some kind of error that put the car on the grass, maybe a sensor malfunction? Or maybe the car is in one of the many test modes that they use at the factory, this is a simulation that has more strict rules, or less strict rules, for navigation. How does the car get the information it needs to resume driving? Remember that this whole technology was premised on the idea that a self-driving car would take the hassle out of driving, but now the car has to depend on a human to possibly drive the car back to a safe place to resume self-driving.

      This technology requires what Dreyfus calls a Theory of Practical Activity, The cars will have to situate themselves in the world, and that will require an understanding of what is currently around them and their own previous situations. It will require intelligence. And if we could build a system capable of such intelligence, why the heck would we use it for something as mundane as driving a car?

    16. Re:Ruleset by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Is Google even close to recognizing a *still picture* of a duck from a dog from a cat from a beaver using their entire datacenter within the time the car will need?

      If it is flying in the general direction of your windshield, I don't care if it is a duck or a dog or a cat. The car had better stop. Being able to identify objects is not necessary. What is necessary is the ability to classify objects as something that will cause damage when hit or not, along with the ability to determine whether those objects have the right of way or not.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    17. Re:Ruleset by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Which they can't do either.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    18. Re: Ruleset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla proves this all the time.

      https://twitter.com/nextgenroadster/status/1083984982970912768

    19. Re:Ruleset by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      True, but it is orders of magnitude less complex if the only things you care about are how the object is moving (i.e. does it have significant mass), whether it is big, and whether it is a person.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  5. Re:I think Apple is waiting to se the space shake by Patent+Lover · · Score: 0

    They could sure bring rounded corners and twice the price to the table.

  6. It's OK, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were all replaced with robots.

    1. Re: It's OK, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only hire proles for second level management. For some reason they thought it would be cheaper that way. Then they found out proles expect back pay checks and low creepiness factor

    2. Re: It's OK, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can just stick the Apple logo on a random car and it will be selling like hot bread.

      Then 5 years later they can add revolutionary cruise control for a premium and everyone will be applauding.

    3. Re: It's OK, though by PPH · · Score: 1

      And then sue all the other car makers for using rounded corners.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Not Surprising by TexasDiaz · · Score: 1

    I bet the employees that were laid off were part of a company they bought to specifically address autonomous driving, and no employees that were actually hired by Apple itself to work on Apple-related projects. Such is life when your company gets bought out by a monolithic entity, at that point you're pretty much expendable. Sure, I'm betting some (like software devs or hardware experts) were able to shift, but not everyone's roles are that movable.

    1. Re: Not Surprising by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      There's at least a fifty percent chance that you're 100% wrong.

  8. Achievement Unlocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other words, they now have enough patients that they won't be completely left out of the market by whatever company manages to get their car systems sold. No need to spend the next 80% to complete the last 20% of the way there.

  9. Re: I think Apple is waiting to se the space shake by cormandy · · Score: 1

    Donâ(TM)t forget planned obsolescence so you have to replace your car every few years. Or how about really thin cars so you have no choice but to buy a case for it if you are to survive an accident.

  10. Milk and use them, then dispose of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Milk them for all they're worth, when all their knowledge and experience is in the designs, the software, the engineering, they're no longer useful -- someone else can take over. American corporate greed.

    1. Re:Milk and use them, then dispose of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the Personnel department is now the Human Resources department. To today's corporations, humans are resources to be found, exploited, drained of all use, and thrown away when the dry empty husk is all that's left.

  11. No iCar by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Good. I don't want an iCar

    1. Re:No iCar by aberglas · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The iCar that only runs on iRoads might be somewhat limiting.

  12. Apple speak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love love the way Apple talks. Information with obfuscation!

    "...this is the most ambitious machine learning project ever." for Apple!

    They are behind on the Machine Learning and AI. Mostly they don't have heavy investment in data collection and data mining.

    Best for them to buy a company or two to add to the companies they already bought.

    1. Re:Apple speak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya cuz that worked out so well with siri.

  13. Re:I think Apple is waiting to se the space shake by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the distant past Apple would pay people to work on new ideas in case they came up with something new they could sell - the ATG. Most of Apple's new tech came from there and they made money commercializing those ideas. They trimmed non-product research when they had money problems. Steve claimed that all necessary research would happen within the product groups, but he knew well that kind of R&D doesn't generate new markets - this was reasonable as he was cutting the company back to four products, but it wasn't until the iPod group came onboard that they had something new.

    Does Apple do anything new these days? Every product release seems to be a slightly faster, slightly thinner, slightly bigger-or-smaller version of the same products they've been selling since Steve was a vegetarian, from what I've seen.

    Whether or not they're the richest company in the world this week, it wouldn't kill them to try some new stuff. Unfortunately they no longer have a leader, they have an efficient manager in charge. Does Tim even trip?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  14. Need to look harder... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Does Apple do anything new these days?

    The letting go of people from this car group is proof they do.

    Just because this did not work out does not mean they do not have other ideas under way that might.

    FaceID, the Apple implementation, was very new (who else was doing 3D face auth in mobile profile before that) and just was released last year... cut them some slack man! Can't have something new and amazing every year.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: Need to look harder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They bought that from primesense

    2. Re:Need to look harder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry the correct answer is NO.

      apple is too busy catching up to what other companies where doing 3 years ago to do anything new.

    3. Re: Need to look harder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or stole it, Its hard to keep up with apples acquisitions and thiefs.

  15. Re:I think Apple is waiting to se the space shake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical apple strategy. Let the real tech companies figure out the tough stuff; then we will come in and steal their ideas and patents.

  16. Re: I think Apple is waiting to se the space shak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, coming up, gay n1gger colors - pink, space pink, and rose gold pink.

  17. Re: I think Apple is waiting to se the space shake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Donâ(TM)t forget planned obsolescence so you have to replace your car every few years. Or how about really thin cars so you have no choice but to buy a case for it if you are to survive an accident.

    Yes.. and after the fist iCar is launched... Apple and ALL of their fans will claim that Apple invented the car and the driverless car and the self-driving car... it is actually 3 products in one... all 3 are pending invention by Apple