Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
They are inefficient and don’t have good ranges before they need time consuming charges. And they aren’t green.
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. EVs convert over 77% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12%–30% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.

And they don’t pollute cities. So yes, they are more green.
 
EVs need to get cheaper to become mass market and China + India are ready to flood the Western markets. Meanwhile, Governments are failing to regulate a standard and are slacking on the infrastructure in the hope that private businesses will do all the work.

I do see quite a few Teslas in the UK but they are very expensive and still a status symbol out of reach of the average worker's salary. The ICE used market is still very strong for this reason along with the mistrust of used EV batteries in the long term.

Apple is right to bail on a car project until the market fully switches to EV and all the kinks and standards are ironed out. That's if the Government doesn't price us mere mortals off the road before then.
If they are out, they’re out. They are not coming back when the market matures. That would make no sense giving the long development time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
Perhaps it would have ended up being an overpriced vanity project like the Dyson car. I recall James Dyson saying they would have had to sell it for $150,000 just to make a profit. Maybe this gradual realisation hit the Apple Car project too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tomtad
I dont think they will ever do a mass market car or TV.. too much risk and investment with big items logistics involved an all. I dont think they want any kind of gamble really that requires big investment and in an already loaded marketplace like cars and TVs where a failure costs a lot more than VR glasses segment for instance.
Electric cars and TVs is going nowhere though and are here to stay, even if I feel some kind of real push for hydrogen cars is probably on the horizon somewhere as well.

edit: they should have bought LG 9 years ago (first 4K Oled HDR panel) in that case.. and prob. Tesla back then as well. Its too late now.
 
Last edited:
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
I don't understand people who say this. I know what you're literally saying, and what it means, but you (and others) say it as if it's a big important point.

Tesla hasn't yet enabled it to operate without a driver. That's literally a boolean - a single bit being flipped - away from being on. They haven't enabled it because the software isn't there yet. Nobody said it was. It is close though. Close enough that it could roll out today. Then they'd need to collect data for a few weeks/months to show regulators that a human driver isn't necessary, and maybe allowing humans to override it makes it more dangerous instead of safer.

 
I can't say I'm surprised. But Apple specializes in simplifying complex personal technologies where they can control all facets of production and implementation. Cars don't fit into that scenario. Apple has no control over roadways, traffic signals, crosswalks nor other vehicles on the road. Those aspects were probably obstacles too difficult to overcome. I'm amazed they've gone as far as they have with CarPlay, since they can't control the automakers' hardware choices. Hopefully this means one less distraction for the company, so they can focus on what they do best.
 
I don't understand people who say this. I know what you're literally saying, and what it means, but you (and others) say it as if it's a big important point.

Tesla hasn't yet enabled it to operate without a driver. That's literally a boolean - a single bit being flipped - away from being on. They haven't enabled it because the software isn't there yet. Nobody said it was. It is close though. Close enough that it could roll out today. Then they'd need to collect data for a few weeks/months to show regulators that a human driver isn't necessary, and maybe allowing humans to override it makes it more dangerous instead of safer.
There’s no way with HW3 or HW4 that FSD will ever be close to Level 4 or 5.
 
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.

So, Tesla is absolutely lying. There's no way anybody sane would let a car drive itself without a combination of lidar, radar, and cameras to go with wheel sensors and inertia sensors.

But I would disagree that you need artificial general intelligence. One thing you REALLY need to keep in mind is that humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at driving. If somebody were to invent the car for the first time today there's no way a product that unsafe would ever be allowed on the streets. All a self-driving car really needs to save a lot of lives is to be significantly safer than humans, and I think that's definitely happening already.

It just ain't gonna be Tesla. And if they keep up the bullcrap, NHTSA is going to boot their "full self driving" right off the road.
 
You obviously do not study enough news / information sources...I'll agree with you that they aren't green as nothing really is...
Hey now, bikes are pretty dang green. Extremely efficient as far as distance covered vs energy consumed goes and the only waste is the stuff you'd already be producing just by being alive.

Of course, they're not super practical as an only form of transport for the vast majority of people and there are some accessibility issues but it doesn't seem fair to say that nothing is green. Just... most things... aren't. 😂
 
So, Tesla is absolutely lying. There's no way anybody sane would let a car drive itself without a combination of lidar, radar, and cameras to go with wheel sensors and inertia sensors.

But I would disagree that you need artificial general intelligence. One thing you REALLY need to keep in mind is that humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at driving. If somebody were to invent the car for the first time today there's no way a product that unsafe would ever be allowed on the streets. All a self-driving car really needs to save a lot of lives is to be significantly safer than humans, and I think that's definitely happening already.

It just ain't gonna be Tesla. And if they keep up the bullcrap, NHTSA is going to boot their "full self driving" right off the road.
Tesla is pushing the tech in a very real way, but their marketing and lassiez-faire attitude toward the whole problem attracts the attention and patronage of some of the worst existing drivers on the road, who then grossly misuse the system Tesla has developed. That, more than anything else, is probably why Tesla won't be the first to the line with a true driverless vehicle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimmy_uk
Most of the big tech companies spent the last decade or more growing various side projects with money flowing into almost anything, including “zero return” (present or future) projects like better benefits for employees like childcare on site.

Apple scaling back or closing the supposedly secret car project is simply more of this same cost cutting. Anything that isn’t a core business is going through this. Alphabet closed almost all of its “moonshot” companies. Google is spinning out riskier bets that don’t provide future ad revenue streams like Nest Renew.

This has zero to do with industry level EV trends as several pages of discussion seem to have devolved into. It may have something to do with Apple’s internal outlook on AV cars, only time and some kind of “tell all” will give us insight.

Edit: one more thing- Apple like any corporation can make several bets and should! A 100% hit rate is impossible and canceling the Car means very little besides the fact it obviously isn’t a bet they want to keep in their diversified portfolio. It could be a good project but bad for Apple’s internal theory of business. It’s foolish to project much else on to this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neander
IMO it never made much sense to get into the whole automobile market. I had the same opinion way back when Apple was considering entering the whole TV market. Better to follow the MS model in those markets and get your software on products others build.
 
  • Like
Reactions: klasma
We’re glad that MS didn’t make cars either. o_O
8h9jp1.jpg
 
They are inefficient and don’t have good ranges before they need time consuming charges. And they aren’t green.
While disappointing, it was probably a good decision by Apple to kill the project mostly because the vehicle market as a whole is struggling, margins are thin, Apple is late to the game, and the cost of batteries is out of control.

However, it is a fact that electric motors are far more efficient, have good ranges for most people, and are overall more green.

What constitutes good range is somewhat subjective based a person's driving habits and his or her proximately to a charging station, but the efficiency argument is not even close. A gas motor oil only converts 12 to 30 percent of the energy from gas to power to turn the wheels, while an electric motor transfer about 75 percent of the energy to power to turn the wheels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
Tesla is pushing the tech in a very real way, but their marketing and lassiez-faire attitude toward the whole problem attracts the attention and patronage of some of the worst existing drivers on the road, who then grossly misuse the system Tesla has developed. That, more than anything else, is probably why Tesla won't be the first to the line with a true driverless vehicle.
Most of the Teslas I commute with every day (you see the same cars/drivers heading towards the industrial/business parks) do use the road like their own personal playground and always use the fast acceleration at every opportunity. Tyres must be cheaper for them? This starts wacky races as ICE drivers with high end cars try to race them (I see you Audi/BMW driver).

EVs have really started a new wave of ultra fast driving off the lights but the driving skill doesn't match the new available power. Meanwhile I'm just trying to get to the office safely while avoiding all the potholes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjgrif
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.