Is this the result of the old, "Every company that gets big enough also becomes an investment firm." or does Apple really think autonomous cars fit into its portfolio of technology?
I actually think cars are a good fit for Apple's strengths. Apple is good at user interface and hardware engineering.
1. User Interface
You'd be hard pressed to find an object which most people own that has a more complicated UI than a car. Steering wheel, pedals, buttons everywhere. Probably well over 100 separate features. I think there's tons of room for Apple to create a better experience here.
2. Hardware Engineering
Cars, much more than personal computing devices, rely on hardware engineering. Granted, most of the big engineering issues in cars have been handled, but there will be plenty of new hardware to be engineered as cars transition to full autonomy.
Sleek UI and hardware is nice, but for autonomous vehicles AI is essential. You can have the best car in the world in other respects, but without AI it's not self-driving.
Apple hasn't shown that it's particularly good at AI or mapping. Siri and Apple Maps are distant runner-ups. If it weren't for name brand awareness, I doubt anyone would be paying attention to Apple's self-driving project versus the field of competitors.
Apple may have enough money to brute force their way to a spot in the rankings, but it hardly seems like a natural fit for them.
We are a long way off from 100% autonomous cars. In the meantime, human-car interaction is ripe for improvement.
And regarding Apple Maps and Siri: we'll see what the next few years holds. It's always useful to keep in mind that Google had a huge head start. There's a difference between being incompetent and being behind. Apple is rolling out new maps this fall; we'll see how they do. Remember, there was once a time when Apple didn't know how to do web services. I think the last few years has shown that they figured out whatever it was they needed to figure out.
Generally speaking, there probably isn't another company that is better than Apple at engineering management. Google and Amazon may be better in some areas, but they're probably also worse in others. Remember, this is a company with the best mobile processors in the world—by a long shot—despite not having even been in the processor business 10 years ago. They also deployed a brand new file system to a billion devices with basically no issues.
We're talking Apple's self-driving car project, though. It's in the title. There's no indication Apple is trying to get into non-self-driving cars. Nobody said Level 5 (100% autonomy) is necessary, but presumably they're at least aiming for substantial autonomy, e.g. Level 4 as others are pursuing.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with regards to Apple web services. People outside the Apple ecosystem are not using iCloud, and even many Mac users prefer alternatives.
Google did have a huge head start on AI and maps, true, but we're not grading on effort here.
> You'd be hard pressed to find an object which most people own that has a more complicated UI than a car.
I dunno, just spitballing here but...a VCR? Heh...or a TV (remotes have lots of buttons!), or a computer perhaps.
> Steering wheel, pedals, buttons everywhere. Probably well over 100 separate features.
Of all the complicated machines humans tend to use on a daily basis, a car is probably the most intuitive of them all, and most familiar. The basic, most important functions of all cars are practically the same. I don't think you can seriously say a steering wheel and pedals are confusing to anyone, especially with automatic transmissions. The basic controls in cars are pretty well optimized for intuitive, and safe human usage.
As for "buttons everywhere", sure, they can take a little getting used to per car type but it's not rocket science, or even car science. Pretty sure most people can get a rental car and have the whole thing figured out in 5 minutes. Apple could try something novel or "different" but remember, cars have multiple physical buttons and knobs because the driver needs consistent and unambiguous access to whatever "setting" they want to change without significant distraction from paying attention to the road. God help us if we had to swipe through menus and thumb a flat screen to change the AC temp.
There's room for improvements sure, perhaps voice control for some functions (though that might get annoying with kids and idiot friend passengers), and I'd be curious to see Apple's novel take on a UI that employs physical controls (not sure the last time they did anything like that). If they do want to improve something, maybe start with working on a way to present wtf the orange indicator lights that randomly popup on the dashboard mean.
Of course I don't think Apple has much interest at this point in regular human driven cars. In a vehicle meant exclusively to be driven by computer, I guess all bets are off. But we're a long way from that. Technical concerns aside, as we could do this with planes much more easily than with cars, it will be a long time before people would be comfortable with such a situation, and for good reason.
So I think radical changes to basic driving functions, and touchscreen controls for auxiliary ones is I think a no-go as long as humans are allowed to drive (though I have no doubt there are already examples/experiments in such things out there).
"I dunno, just spitballing here but...a VCR? Heh...or a TV (remotes have lots of buttons!), or a computer perhaps."
Better to consider UI in relation to the possible failure modes. VCRs can be complex, but failure generally doesn't risk death. Cars are probably the most complex widely used device use of which carries significant risk.
Critical personal medical devices, like insulin pumps, have pretty simple interfaces. Or don't have any interface, as seen in pacemakers.
You don't need to make radical changes to make a significant improvement. Laptops of today are essentially the same as laptops of 25 years ago. And yet Apple has found plenty of ways to improve them in that time.
Also, what you're missing about car UI is all the other stuff a car does. Seats are adjustable. Sometimes they're heated and/or air conditioned. Ditto for mirrors, etc. Humans interact with many different parts of a car. All of those are game for improvement.
If Apple can take over transport and wall it off for somebody then it just further cements their high ground
I fully expect that you won't be able to tether an Android (or any open specced) phone to an Apple car, like iMessage and Apple TV, and they'll use further cement their grip on existing customers
It only mattered in the last couple of years that you could buy a car that supported Android Auto. So as long as Bluetooth works, I think that gets you 80% of the way there. Maps seems to be the only real UI app allowed anyway, and hopefully Google releases a version for iOS 12.
I can’t imagine Google NOT releasing that update. Ever since CarPlay first came out people have been complaining about this and blaming Apple.
When iOS 12 was first unveiled a huge chunk of the comments I saw were people happy about this exact feature.
Now that there’s absolutely no reason Google can’t do this… it seems moronic said they would choose to hold the feature back.
What would the benefit be? They wouldn’t get the data collection because the app isn’t running, and how many people would realistically switch to Android over this single decision?
When it comes to the Apple car I guess part of the question is… can people even buy them? It’s not as much of an issue if it’s a fleet car or a cab kind of situation.
It’ll be very interesting to see what Apple does if that day comes.
Every company that gets big enough becomes a VC firm, which is natural when you've got a firehose of money and don't want to miss out on the Next Big Thing.
