Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Cancels Electric Car Project
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No.
If you have an old gas-guzzler, scrapping it and replacing it by a new more efficient vehicle may be the greenest thing to do.
Lifecycle analysis of vehicles is slightly complicated, as there are many parameters. However, especially with ICEs, vast majority of emissions result from fuel burning, manufacturing is typically 15 %, sometimes significantly less.
An old and efficient car (a rare combination) is worth keeping, but of you have a new 20-mpg vehicle, scrapping it and replacing by a 40-mpg one gives lower total emissions.
In many locations, replacing almost any vehicle with a BEV will give lower emissions in the long run.
Last edited:
Whilst I will state how can something that's never once been acknowledged or confirmed or announced to the public once by Apple, be cancelled. Also not surprised as they, shock horror, are not a car company and no manufacture would accept its ridiculous deals by the sounds of it.
The liability issue is what I have always cited in conversation as the marker for “trustworthy” self-driving: when the manufacturer removes all disclaimers about “driver attention” and takes on the liability, I’ll consider it. Not one second before that.
Until we are guaranteed that Tesla FSD is smart enough to not make insane errors like this, it is a non-starter. FSD isn't like your OS on your phone or something. When things don't work, it's not just some minor inconvenience that you can look past and wait for the next update. It's high stakes stuff that involves lives and property.
Apple would never ship an ICE vehicle. They might as well start putting parallel ports on Macs and power them with a hand-crank.
This might be the silliest take I've seen on this forum in years, and that's really an achievement.
keep in mind that Tesla is at level 2, nothing more, and that still applies to FSD 12 ...
True, what I meant by “other sectors” is they will lose iPhone customers and all the ecosystem customers if their ecosystem is missing the car pieces. The ecosystem idea is just lacking now
There's ways to go, without a doubt. It's far from perfect, and that's why you need to be 100% ready to take over at any moment. V12 is also rolling out very slow so they can fix any major issues before a wide rollout.
Until we are guaranteed that Tesla FSD is smart enough to not make insane errors like this, it is a non-starter.
But it's advancing rapidly and in a lot of instances can do 0 intervention door-to-door drives. To call it a non-starter is ignorant, there needs to be drivers testing the system so they have data to train the AI model. It's the only way to improve, and it's working incredibly well seeing as where they were at just 2 years ago compared to V12 today.
It's already statistically safer than a human driver, and I suspect in the long run will end up saving countless lives when this tech is built into every vehicle in some form.
Why? Becase the company is more profitable than ever? You have no idea what boards are for do you?
If anyone on the board attempted to get rid of Tim the others would kick that person off the board instantly, it's about making money nothing else for the board and Tim has took the stock from $14 to over $182. It has out paced the top 500 company investment list by over 3x.
The target market for the Apple Car now has an Apple Vision Pro and don't really have a reason to leave the house.
Most of the battery can be recycled (similar to smartphone batteries, by the way): https://electrek.co/2023/03/02/tesl...ows-95-efficiency-in-battery-recycling-pilot/
Of course they're green. Electricity can be generated off of any energy source, including renewables, so it's green. Portable electric storage can be made in a myriad of different ways, most of which haven't been invented yet; so it's green, too. You know what can't ever be green? ICE. Your problem is that you cherry-pick extremely early technologies that even now are 5 years out of date; and your mind either can't, or won't, accept the idea that those techs are going to improve, off the massive investment going on in making those improvements. We are 5% into the maturity lifecycle of EV tech, and 95% into the lifecycle of ICE tech.
It's a lie from Tesla, though. Its absolutely not "FULL SELF DRIVING," and it's not even CLOSE to being that. Doesn't really matter if it can do 0 intervention door to door drives, when those drives need to be in specific locations, in ideal conditions. That's not remotely good enough. Full self driving needs to be as good as a human, at a minimum. A human didn't learn to drive by sitting and watching millions of hours of footage from Tesla cameras. A human learns to drive by using a ton of other skills/lessons/experiences throughout their life, and using multiple sensory inputs. There's so much more than goes into human intelligence that you cannot get with the type of AI training model they're using...
You know what gets you to true Full Self Driving? Artificial General Intelligence. And until that happens, Full Self Driving isn't happening.
Look, we all know the real reason Apple Inc ditched the Apple EV is they couldn't gouge the electricity companies for 30% a charge.
I almost agree with you. Most people I know say "I would really like an EV, but I don't want a Tesla." Which is very closely related, of you think about it.
Nah, it's just an extra step that is unnecessary. Keep the oil flowing.
Well dealerships in the U.S. don't want any more electric cars on their lots because they aren't selling. The people have spoken. It's a no brainer.
Tim had a good run but look at the performance from last 2 years.
Now look at Nvidia in the same period.
Apple lost the Electric Car bus in 2020 and now they are also losing the AI bus.
All this because Tim wanted to focus all the resources on a VR product that nobody needed or asked for.
They are worse for the environment in most of the world, the battery tech is not there yet.
Charging stations are few and far away around the globe. The energy grid is not able to sustain a full electric car transition in almost any country in the globe.
A more sustainable combustion fuel is the greener option. Like hydrogen for example.
I'm trying to figure out a way of saying this in the nicest way without sounding like a jerk, but I really think you need to not be close minded and do some research and see what the system is capable of. The drives do not need to be in specific locations or in ideal conditions. It's capable of making on-the-fly decisions in complex scenarios, even if it's not a situation the model has been explicitly trained for. In many, many cases it can see, react, and decide scenarios significantly further and faster than a human.
Again, there's a ton of work to be done, but this tech exists today and is improving rapidly.
Apple always does things later and better.
Apple is the most prepared company on the planet to nail general consumer facing AI.
Research and development with data collection is all well and good, but why even call it “FSD” today if “there’s a ways to go”? Whether it was “Auto Pilot” or “FSD”, Tesla has been playing the shady naming game for so long, people will stand up and defend FSD when it clearly isn’t. When Tesla steps up and assumes all liability for what happens when the system is engaged, then and only then, should they call it “FSD”.
What is the proportion? I doubt it's significant compared to the emissions from burning gasoline.
True, but the engines are so efficient that they are a net win even if the electricity comes from dirty sources. Reference: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/driving-cleaner
With simpler engines and fewer moving parts, it is actually the opposite. Regular maintenance on mine mainly consists of rotating the tires (which my local tire store does for free) and changing the cabin air filter (which I do myself).
Last edited: