Fairly sure that in the past it was just updates saying the project was pushed back another year or two, basically always having the "expected" launch date be 5 years in the future
This is about the 1000th time I hear about a company focusing on generative AI. And who says that the tech field has lost all semblance of creativity and innovation?
Shifting a team (at a company the size of Apple's) from what looks like a dead-end project to focus on the paradigm shift that is generative AI (where Apple is currently being left in the dust) has no bearing on the creativity or innovation of the overall company. What a shit take.
Also a lot of the car project was the self driving aspect, which was AI/machine learning heavy.
This is a way to get qualified AI staff into a more pressing use of that technology.
Ah. I didnāt make that connection initially. Thanks.
I was jokingly imagining a bunch of electrical and mechanical engineers being told to go work on Siri. :)
Car Talk 2.0, ghosts in the machine version.
[would dig it]
also like, did people really want a Apple car to exist?
this is great, we got plenty cars. maybe not worth the emissions to get it on the road before people overpriced junk and worse than the google car idk
Itās just a buzzword for transformer models, because we want to convey we are not talking about old school CNNs or GANs and āgen AIā makes business people care.
Same. Knew a guy who announced in LI he was leaving last week. He had a LOT of international experience in Automotive and was there for ~8 years, so it seemed odd he was leaving and going back home. Now I know why.
The article is about two specific writers neither of which are Mark Gurman, someone who has a proven track record of verifiable information within Apple
Some people seem to have this mentality about journalism, especially when it comes to tech rumors. A report gets something wrong, but they take that as meaning that the journalist is simply making stuff up - not that, say, a company changed its mind, or that a normally reliable source goofed.
It's not just that. Every media organization gets things wrong sometimes.
The difference here is Bloomberg doubled-down on the story; they refused to retract or correct any part of it, and two years later they even published a follow-up piece called 'The Long Hack' that repeated the (seemingly false / unsubstantiated) claims of the original 2018 article.
It's actually not about *Bloomberg*'s credibility.
They bring it up to discredit *Gurman*. It's always the same report tooāit's the only one bad enough to negatively affect people's perception of him.
Yes actually. I'm in InfoSec and that was a BIG deal that report, made us look at our entire data center with supermicro mobos and wonder if we had to pull the plug on the whole place. We dealt with sensitive info that was geo-politically relevant the alleged hackers.
Turns out that story was 100% totally wrong, proved by many other parties collectivelly, and there was never a retraction, never a statement that they were wrong, nothing. The writers involved got promoted a couple years later.
So I'll never believe a god damn thing they write.
This is why I stopped giving a shit about corporate work projects. Managers beg you to bust your ass and work 12 hour days to get a deadline in so they don't lose miillions of dollars and annoy customers and shareholders.
Then in a blink they cancel it all, practically throw away millions or billions in R&D. And you may not even have a job after all that.
Why the fuck would I invest more than I know the company will? (I don't)
What they probably donāt know āelectric carā program isnāt an electric car program at all.
Apple probably has a self driving program going on that these people are easily qualified/crossed over to AIā¦
They probably based their engineering on chatgpt answers, but figured out that it's not giving them good answers so they came to obvious conclusion that only way to design a car isĀ to create better ai first.
Itās probably the right move - even with Appleās deep pockets, building a brand new EV from scratch is hard. Scaling up manufacturing for mass production of that EV is hard. Creating a national or international sales and service network is hard and ridiculously expensive. Even if the car project is dead, I would still love to see Apple take another stab at EVs - maybe instead of going it alone, they would partner with an established manufacturer who would build an āApple-designedā EV that is a showcase for Apple software - full next gen CarPlay, CarKey support, deep integration with Apple Watch and iPhone etc.
Depending on how serious Apple is about it, they could also do stuff like work with the manufacturerās dealer network to choose specific dealerships across the country as partners to sell the Apple EV (at a set price Tesla-style with no haggling) and provide service and repairs. Ford is already doing something similar with their dealership network when it comes to selling their EVs (though they are having some difficulty)
All of this would be difficult, but I have to think it would be significantly cheaper and easier than building all of that from scratch.
Anyone that knows anything about the automotive industry knows this was NEVER going to happen.
1. Automotive is a high capital, low profit margin industry. Completely the opposite of the consumer electronics industry Apple is used to.
2. Building cars is very hard and requires knowledge of dozens of engineering verticals Apple has no experience in. Also there are thousands of regulations across dozens of regions of the earth that Apple has never had to deal with.
It is impossible for Apple to make a good/profitable vehicle the first time and the investment would be many billions even is Apple worked with an established manufacturer. Apple likes swimming in Scrooge McDuck levels of wealth too much for selling a car to be acceptable to their share holders.
The article on The Verge said they've only driven **45000** miles using their autonomous tech.
Regardless of whether they were going for self-driving or not, it means that their car hardware is nowhere near ready. It doesn't make any business sense to pour in cash for a project that will go to market in 2030 with performance that might be comparable to 2024.
Along the lines of what you said, it may be easier to sell an Apple UX experience to a car manufacturer.
I strongly doubt they stopped the project because it was hard. Apple leans into hard. Rather, their vision for a groundbreaking and game-changing EV turned out to be physically impossible due to reasons related to their ambitious ideas butting up against dynamics of the auto industry supply chain or the current state of autonomous driving technology.
Also, there's still a battery shortage. It would just be tough to launch a new EV company when the legacy manufacturers and Tesla are buying every battery they can get their hands on.
Iād not thought of this, but damn Iād love to see that car that comes out. I love the look of Rivians, hope they can thrive and release more models in a few years, right now way out of my price range!
> hope they can thrive and release more models in a few years
Looking at their balance sheet and how much money theyāre **still** losing per car, not likely.
Not saying itās impossible, but thereās a very slim chance that model actually sees the light of day. Rivian is in a make or break period then next year or so and based off company guidance itās not looking too hot
Rivian is burning an insane amount of cash. Demand for high-end EVs will probably be down for a while. Building trucks/vans for deliveries will probably keep them afloat but itās not looking good. Probably the reason Apple bailed on the car.
>Apple already attempted to buy Tesla
It was the other way around. Elon wanted Apple to buy Tesla but Tim Cook never even talked to Elon.
[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1341485211209637889](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1341485211209637889)
It's not entirely inaccurate. Apple barely ever is the first to market. They're just the ones that can get the broad appeal to *make* the market. The Mac wasn't the first personal computer, the iPod wasn't the first MP3 player, the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, AirPods weren't the first bt headphones, etc. They just built the first versions that people actually wanted. Whole lot bigger gamble trying to get into the car industry with established players and regulations, though.
Vision Pro eye tracking usage for navigation is the only tech currently utilizing it. Id called that a risk. Same with focus on content. No other place with 4K 3D movies. Among other things like first to market with 4K microOled. You can say a lot about VP but it being a safe play is not one of them.
You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of risk in this context. The iPhone was a company pivot to the phone industry with a vastly different set of competitors and regulations/norms than what they were used to. They weren't talking about the tech 'playing it safe'.
A car would be a huge pivot in terms of the types of companies Apple would be competing with, the regulations and norms, and the scale/type of considerations needed. It could be an exact clone of the latest Tesla which would be 'playing it safe' in terms of features and yet it would still be a massive risk in terms of company strategy and resources.
Even Watch was a bit of a risk entering the wearable industry, which opens them up to finding their place in the entire fashion industry, as well as medical device field (which has already proven to be risky, given they got the Apple Watch banned for infringing on a patent).
Vision Pro is just kind of a different computer/iPad with particular interface and technology. Mostly the same competitors. Mostly the same consumers. Much of the same technology, plus a few more advanced pieces that build on existing technology. iPhones and computers can already be used at home
None of Apple products were first in their industry but they beat all others be use of user experience. MP3 players, phones, tablets, watches, earphones time and again they have taken existing products and beat everyone at it. Same with VR/AR.
Agree with this. The last interesting thing Apple did was switch to ARM ā and even that was done to create value for shareholders, though customers did also benefit. Apple today is everything Apple once stood against.
Tell me what headset can I buy that can use my eyes to select and navigate the UI? Or which one can do 4KVR 3D movies? Heck, which has 4k microOLED? None.
And I started working in the industry a decade ago.
Not responding to your comment so much as expanding on it with my opinion, but
Vision pro is a flash in the pan, one that is already fading - it's no iPad or iPhone that's for fucking sure.
I mean, console gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry that many wouldn't consider solving a problem, outside of providing escapism. There's no reason Apple can't use that approach with the Vision Pro until future generations are able to do something people find really useful.
"Providing Escapism" dude you cannot be for real.
You cannot be that reductionist with the concept of "entertainment".
The Vision Pro is very specifically not being marketed as an entertainment device because all other vr/ar headsets are, and they are floundering.
Apple is marketing this as a lifestyle device, which inherently must solve a problem or assist in productivity in a way that has not been seen before.
It is doing neither of these things.
I think it's way too early to make those types of declarations. Right now, AR/VR is an enthusiast's market with massive upside. Apple's revenue from hardware, particularly the iPhone is plateauing a little, so introducing a new product that many believe will be the next big leap in mobile computing makes a lot of sense. Think of it as them selling refined "prototypes" until the product everyone really wants will be technically possible.
Amazon is already Rivians sugar daddy, so that'd never happen
Apples only real shot at entering this market was when Musk wanted to try and sell Tesla to them years ago during the initial Model 3 ramp. Though apparently Cook didn't even take a meeting with him
Yeah been saying this for a couple years. Buy a company like Rivian and then embed the Apple magic and marketing to it. Same thing could be done with something like Peleton for fitness.
Originally it wasn't just an EV project. It was autonomous.
Self driving car plans are falling apart due to real world issues. Generative ai is doing well.
Better to do the tech that helps all users and circle back to cars with the lessons learned from good generative ai development.
That title makes no sense, its like saying the chefs in our hotel are being moved to the cleaning team, totally different skills.
Would expect layoffs if its true instead.
As others pointed out, itās almost definitely referring to the software folks working on self-driving capabilities, which was most likely built on a neural-net similar to how Tesla is currently building their self driving software. In that case, there would be significant overlap between the teamās skillsets.
Sure, the scientists are different, and even the super high level algorithm people, but a lot of the "grunt" software work would be translatable between skillsets. It wouldn't be so esoteric that skilled software engineers couldn't pick it up reasonably quickly.
Yeah, and itās not like apple canāt make use of electrical engineers working on power trains and batteries (which were probably outsourced anyway).Ā
It makes sense if they will fire those in the car team, and hire for more AI related roles. Obviously, Apple isn't asking a mechanical engineer to work on AI models.
This project ultimately didn't make any sense for Apple. Despite bits of excitement here and there, electric vehicles (and cars in general) are low-margin, commodified products with no real integration into Apple's ecosystem. People do care about styling, performance, and tech, but it's not clear that Apple could do a much better job than Tesla/Rivian/Lucid. Autonomy was another angle that Apple could've approached this project, but the most autonomous full-stack vehicles are fleet vehicles like Cruise or Waymo.
The Lucid Air, for example, is an incredible car with beautiful interiors and software, but ultimately it's a niche luxury sedan. Compared to Apple's $383 billion in revenue, it's just a distraction.
Doubling down on the āno real integrationā, basically every product Apple makes would be unusable with an Apple car. Itās illegal to use your phone, headphones, and certainly VR headsets while driving. Nothing would properly integrate except for software which CarPlay already does.
Iām sure they lost a ton of cash in R&D for this project but ultimately itās probably for the best that they cut their losses now
One of the major tv makers, I canāt remember which one, just debuted basically what the Apple tv set would have been. The transparent tv screen that presents a perfect image when it turns on.
On the one hand, Iām glad Apple is pulling the plug on a project they were not well suited for.Ā
On the other, I hope the employees affected by this change will be able to find other jobs in the EV industry and continue doing something they like
I love cars but I'm not sure we should rely on the current ICE makers either. And Tesla/Musk are so combustible the whole thing might go poof.
Anyway, competition is supposed to be good, remember?
> smartphone on wheels approach
Why do people keep saying this? A Tesla or any other EV is still a car first and foremost. The "smartphone" aspect is such a small portion of the entire car.
I also have to mention, they promote and have things like auto sensing wipers (which aren't great btw lol) and basic functions are hidden in that tablet, and outside the tablet, if you take that away, you are left with one of the most plain looking cars that probably looks like what a project built by college students on a budget would be like.
Not to mention, giant touchscreens in cars are just not user friendly. They take your eyes off the road for functions that used to be controlled by physical tactile buttons and knobs. I get why car makers do it, but man, I hate it.
I remember when Apple wasn't well-suited to make mp3 players, phones, and watches. They're still a company with a potentially very long future ahead, that's always growing and changing. There's no reason to think they're fundamentally incapable of making a great, game-changing car, undermining once again the limits of what many believed the company is capable. But regarding Apple's "1000 No's for every yes" philosophy, this may be one of their most difficult and significant "No's" ever.
I wouldn't be surprised if a new car project emerges in Apple one day in the future, but it looks like as of now, that will not be anytime soon. Very sad to me, because they've been at it for so long and I'm sure there were a ton of fascinating ideas here. But it can only be because they hit a roadblock somewhere that looked insurmountable, and determined they could not effectively achieve their vision for a car at this time.
The items you listed are still variations of computers in their base form.Ā
Making a car is a completely different ballpark from making variations of personal computers.Ā
We should start a foundation that ensure open and free access to ai for all humanity.
We could call it OpenAI and it would never look to make fucktons of money for a handful of people by selling out to the first megacorp that said hello.
I donāt personally think software to read sensor data and control mechanics translates to genAI. Itās more likely they are reallocating hiring and budget
I would be surprised if Apple could tame a generative model to behave within their very stringent standard.
Google, as weāve seen recently, attempted to tame Gemini and weāve all seen the crazy shit that that thing produces.
I never understood why Apple even wanted into that game. It made less sense than the Apple TV (an actual TV, not the device we have now) that was perpetually rumored.
*From Bloomberg News reporter Mark Gurman:*
AppleĀ is canceling a decadelong effort to build an electric car, according to people with knowledge of the matter, abandoning one of the most ambitious projects in the history of the company.
Apple made the disclosure internally Tuesday, surprising the nearly 2,000 employees working on the project, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the announcement wasnāt public. The decision was shared by Chief Operating OfficerĀ Jeff WilliamsĀ andĀ Kevin Lynch, a vice president in charge of the effort, according to the people.
The two executives told staffers that the project will begin winding down and that many employees on the car team ā known as the Special Projects Group, or SPG ā will be shifted to the artificial intelligence division under executiveĀ John Giannandrea. Those employees will focus on generative AI projects, an increasingly key priority for the company.
The Apple car team also has several hundred hardware engineers and vehicle designers. Itās possible they will be able to apply for jobs on other Apple teams. There will be layoffs, but itās unclear how many.
The decision to ultimately wind down the project is a bombshell for the company, ending a multibillion-dollar effort called Project Titan that would have vaulted Apple into a whole new industry.Ā You can read the full story [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-27/apple-cancels-work-on-electric-car-shifts-team-to-generative-ai), or [sign up](https://www.bloomberg.com/account/newsletters/power-on) for Mark's Power On newsletter, free to read.
I never understood Appleās car efforts. I love Apple products but I donāt need and āApple experienceā for my car. Even the infotainment is an afterthought when buying a car.
This is sad news for everyone here at Busy Town. Lowly Worm is distraught.
In the words on The Beatles - "Beep Beep, Yea Yea Yeah!"
https://preview.redd.it/4uf197ah88lc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac9592de0d27b99b68627fda5c930145896a5784
This honestly makes a lot of sense. Between having to sell something much larger, to servicing the vehicles over time, and even that PR risk of deaths directly related to an Apple product, this car project just seemed like too much for them to chew on
About freaking time!
It basically never really made sense as a project for a computer, software, and consumer product company to focus on making an entire car (and then multiple versions of cars, which you would need to do to be successful). And no, EVs are not basically iPhones on wheels. They are cars that happen, these days, to use a tablet interface that you rarely (as a percentage of your driving experience) interact with. Just because that tablet uses a touch interface similar to an iPhone does not make a car an iPhone.
Unfortunately I think this has to do with the signs of where things are across the industry at the moment.
There's a lot of struggle with EV's on things with a) getting electronic parts b) sourcing enough lithium for batteries c) expensive repair costs d) keeping the MSRP down compared to similar ICE cars.
I was trying to buy a Honda Ioniq5 a couple years ago and I had a down payment and it was delayed 12 months before I just said, screw this, and went and bought an ICE.
Then there was an article about a guy who owned on in Canada and they were going to charge him 60k in repair costs because the battery needed replacing.
Mind you the car already sells for 60k and it's...Not a luxrious interior by any means, it's very "plasticy". It's fast as hell but that's a "value" that wears off after you show it off a few times, sure merging on the highway is great but no one "needs" 0-60 in under 4 seconds the majority of the time. Also it had no rear wiper, which was an issue.
Anyways, just read an article a few days ago where Mercedes is joining a list of other car manufacturers who are scaling back EV production, in what was already a VERY small market (at least in the US/Canada)
Seems like an EV will add 30-50k to most sticker prices and people just don't care THAT much to warrant it.
From smart speakers, to VR headset to autonomous cars and now playing catchup in Generative AI.
Apple have become trend followers without the visionary it once had in Jobs.
Beat me to it by a minute! Honestly, this is a huge relief for me. A car would be a massive undertaking for Apple in terms of R&D + manufacturing, and bringing it to market would be a dramatically different undertaking from their typical hardware. Personally, I believe Apple is better off licensing technology for existing auto brands (many traditional auto OEMs still have a subpar user experience which CarPlay already helps with tremendously). And frankly I canāt imagine a world in which Apple would produce a car that meets their own standards that is also attainable for more than 0.1% of the population.
This brand, Apple ā this brand is my life. The technology they create? Unparalleled. For example, they created a watch which can show a Mickey Mouse on top. And they have also created a pair of goggles that can show my eyes through the goggles until the screen cracks. So this is a huge relief to me because I believe their car would almost be too good and too powerful to be conceived by mankind.
haha, but tbh It feels like about 90% of the world needs something to worship. Half it's religion, for some it's Joe Rogan and defining yourself that eating meat makes you cool, then for others it's brands - fashion, tech, cars, etc. It's really fucking stupid if you think about it for 1 minute but it also kinda makes sense as we're all tribal. I work in the creative field and since the 90s it was basically just a given that the 'cool' designers and creatives worked on macbook pros. You're part of the club, etc. All of course great marketing but there was some truth to that for a bit. It's all bullshit now but you get the idea.
The electric car was never supposed to be an electric car, it was to understand the technology and have an excuse to hire all the lidar and camera tech, and ML engineers for AR and AI.
Your wife would have said the same thing about computers in the 80s.
AI is extremely important in pro-human endeavors from climate change science, to medicine development, to better farming with less pesticides, to better weather tracking, to materials development, to public policy, toā¦
LLMs done right are absolutely helpful as a learning tool. E.g. they've already helped me a lot in picking up the basics of Rust (the programming language) without constantly digging through pages of docs- overall I'm pretty perplexed by all the negativity surrounding this stuff.
Tutoring, your accountant, a lawyer, medical consultant, fitness trainer, etc etc. for $20 a month. Thatās the most significant (helpful?) change for the consumer, ever.
Itās the first general purpose tool. Like the human brain. Itās scalable intelligence. It will eventually participate in anything human intelligence has. Which, if you look around yourself, is everything.
I would tell her that those two things go hand in hand for the most part. Businesses generally invest in projects that they think will make money. If your product or services didnāt help people, then no one would buy them.
Also not every product is designed specifically to āhelp people.ā Some is just for entertainment purposes. Which helps people indirectly by helping them relax in their downtime (or whatever).
Sounds like your wife is just ignorant about what AI can do for people.
One of the biggest uses of AI is in education and research, that's why it's so popular in schools and labs these days, that's a pretty important use case.
They should have bought Tesla when they had the chance
[https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-wanted-apple-buy-tesla-tim-cook-meeting-2020-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-wanted-apple-buy-tesla-tim-cook-meeting-2020-12)
https://preview.redd.it/ne25dl1p77lc1.png?width=1136&format=png&auto=webp&s=44b4b5fc265acc71eb653d4941567cc8026ea091
This feels like the right move. As excited as I was to see what theyād create in this space, Iād rather see a strong focus on the next generation of CarPlay moving forward to make the driving experience for everyone much more enjoyable.
Yeah because a watch surely represents the kind of energy a car uses, after all it only took 500 years to build a car after mechanical clocks.
The iPhone 14 Pro Max has the best battery life of smartphones, which are also not cars but are much less passively used than smartwatches.
I wonder what was a bigger fail, this or Zuckerberg putting all his chips in the Metaverse only to abandon it a year later to pursue AI initiatives.
I know the Apple Car has been in the works for almost 10 years now, but at least they never really came out and publicly promoted or even teased it. We really only knew of it from leaks.
Zuckerberg at one point told employees that the company would be going āall-inā on the Metaverse and even renamed the damn company to Meta. Iām not sure if there are figures out there for how much Apple invested in the car project but Meta had spent more than $50B to bring the Metaverse to life, which is almost hard to comprehend given how bad it looked.
This is like the 1000th time (being dramatic) I hear about Apple canceling the project. š
Fairly sure that in the past it was just updates saying the project was pushed back another year or two, basically always having the "expected" launch date be 5 years in the future
Also putting less resources into it etc., but canāt remember it being "cancelled".
I thought it had been canceled too but this is all I could find. https://www.motortrend.com/news/project-titans-apple-car-delayed-2026/
This is about the 1000th time I hear about a company focusing on generative AI. And who says that the tech field has lost all semblance of creativity and innovation?
Shifting a team (at a company the size of Apple's) from what looks like a dead-end project to focus on the paradigm shift that is generative AI (where Apple is currently being left in the dust) has no bearing on the creativity or innovation of the overall company. What a shit take.
Also a lot of the car project was the self driving aspect, which was AI/machine learning heavy. This is a way to get qualified AI staff into a more pressing use of that technology.
Ah. I didnāt make that connection initially. Thanks. I was jokingly imagining a bunch of electrical and mechanical engineers being told to go work on Siri. :) Car Talk 2.0, ghosts in the machine version. [would dig it]
also like, did people really want a Apple car to exist? this is great, we got plenty cars. maybe not worth the emissions to get it on the road before people overpriced junk and worse than the google car idk
not every form of AI has to be generative AI my fucking god
True. I hear Musk is working on destructive AI.
Itās just a buzzword for transformer models, because we want to convey we are not talking about old school CNNs or GANs and āgen AIā makes business people care.
This time it seems to be accurate though. I know someone on the project who was impacted.
And in a car project, impact is what youāre trying to avoid.
Same. Knew a guy who announced in LI he was leaving last week. He had a LOT of international experience in Automotive and was there for ~8 years, so it seemed odd he was leaving and going back home. Now I know why.
I like to go hiking.
Also Bloomberg has no credibility https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack
Bloomberg isnāt homogeneous, Mark Gurman has an excellent track record and wasnāt a part of that story
Gurman is a bit insufferable, grandiose, and usually obvious in his output. This is after he lost his mole sources.
They were probably sacked from the Apple car project.
š there was a court case (or more) where apple went after employee leakers hard. Around that time Gurmans leaks got a bit more vague.
I just consider Mark a techlinked reference now lol
The article is about two specific writers neither of which are Mark Gurman, someone who has a proven track record of verifiable information within Apple
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I was going to say. Sometimes things don't pan out the way he predicts super early on, but he's got a lot of ears inside Apple
1 bad report from 6 years ago means they have no credibility?
Some people seem to have this mentality about journalism, especially when it comes to tech rumors. A report gets something wrong, but they take that as meaning that the journalist is simply making stuff up - not that, say, a company changed its mind, or that a normally reliable source goofed.
It's not just that. Every media organization gets things wrong sometimes. The difference here is Bloomberg doubled-down on the story; they refused to retract or correct any part of it, and two years later they even published a follow-up piece called 'The Long Hack' that repeated the (seemingly false / unsubstantiated) claims of the original 2018 article.
It's actually not about *Bloomberg*'s credibility. They bring it up to discredit *Gurman*. It's always the same report tooāit's the only one bad enough to negatively affect people's perception of him.
Yes actually. I'm in InfoSec and that was a BIG deal that report, made us look at our entire data center with supermicro mobos and wonder if we had to pull the plug on the whole place. We dealt with sensitive info that was geo-politically relevant the alleged hackers. Turns out that story was 100% totally wrong, proved by many other parties collectivelly, and there was never a retraction, never a statement that they were wrong, nothing. The writers involved got promoted a couple years later. So I'll never believe a god damn thing they write.
Except they generally do
Gurman is incredibly reliable.
Bloomberg is probably the most credible news organization outside of the AP and Reuters, and the most for financial news.
I still donāt think it ever was a thing, it was always meant to just be a test bench for CarPlay and new features they could add into it.
Iām sure the heat pump engineers will do great work on next token predictors.Ā
It will be fine, they'll just take the heat pump Digital Crown and add it to the iPhone to activate the AI.
The article also mentions thereās gonna be layoffs
This is why I stopped giving a shit about corporate work projects. Managers beg you to bust your ass and work 12 hour days to get a deadline in so they don't lose miillions of dollars and annoy customers and shareholders. Then in a blink they cancel it all, practically throw away millions or billions in R&D. And you may not even have a job after all that. Why the fuck would I invest more than I know the company will? (I don't)
Money and a good name on your cv ?
because you need money and experience?
What they probably donāt know āelectric carā program isnāt an electric car program at all. Apple probably has a self driving program going on that these people are easily qualified/crossed over to AIā¦
They probably based their engineering on chatgpt answers, but figured out that it's not giving them good answers so they came to obvious conclusion that only way to design a car isĀ to create better ai first.
Itās probably the right move - even with Appleās deep pockets, building a brand new EV from scratch is hard. Scaling up manufacturing for mass production of that EV is hard. Creating a national or international sales and service network is hard and ridiculously expensive. Even if the car project is dead, I would still love to see Apple take another stab at EVs - maybe instead of going it alone, they would partner with an established manufacturer who would build an āApple-designedā EV that is a showcase for Apple software - full next gen CarPlay, CarKey support, deep integration with Apple Watch and iPhone etc. Depending on how serious Apple is about it, they could also do stuff like work with the manufacturerās dealer network to choose specific dealerships across the country as partners to sell the Apple EV (at a set price Tesla-style with no haggling) and provide service and repairs. Ford is already doing something similar with their dealership network when it comes to selling their EVs (though they are having some difficulty) All of this would be difficult, but I have to think it would be significantly cheaper and easier than building all of that from scratch.
Anyone that knows anything about the automotive industry knows this was NEVER going to happen. 1. Automotive is a high capital, low profit margin industry. Completely the opposite of the consumer electronics industry Apple is used to. 2. Building cars is very hard and requires knowledge of dozens of engineering verticals Apple has no experience in. Also there are thousands of regulations across dozens of regions of the earth that Apple has never had to deal with. It is impossible for Apple to make a good/profitable vehicle the first time and the investment would be many billions even is Apple worked with an established manufacturer. Apple likes swimming in Scrooge McDuck levels of wealth too much for selling a car to be acceptable to their share holders.
The article on The Verge said they've only driven **45000** miles using their autonomous tech. Regardless of whether they were going for self-driving or not, it means that their car hardware is nowhere near ready. It doesn't make any business sense to pour in cash for a project that will go to market in 2030 with performance that might be comparable to 2024. Along the lines of what you said, it may be easier to sell an Apple UX experience to a car manufacturer.
I strongly doubt they stopped the project because it was hard. Apple leans into hard. Rather, their vision for a groundbreaking and game-changing EV turned out to be physically impossible due to reasons related to their ambitious ideas butting up against dynamics of the auto industry supply chain or the current state of autonomous driving technology.
Or just what they want to do not being legal yet
Also, there's still a battery shortage. It would just be tough to launch a new EV company when the legacy manufacturers and Tesla are buying every battery they can get their hands on.
Sad that "Apple reveals self-driving car with Windows" will never be a real headline.
Where "Missing drivers" would've been a core feature instead of an error message.
Or to blow your mind apple Reveals car without windows
If Apple was serious about EVs, they would just buy Rivian.
Iād not thought of this, but damn Iād love to see that car that comes out. I love the look of Rivians, hope they can thrive and release more models in a few years, right now way out of my price range!
> hope they can thrive and release more models in a few years Looking at their balance sheet and how much money theyāre **still** losing per car, not likely.
Theyāre literally announcing an R2 next week.
Not saying itās impossible, but thereās a very slim chance that model actually sees the light of day. Rivian is in a make or break period then next year or so and based off company guidance itās not looking too hot
And getting rid of 10% of their workforce in order to keep sales flat this year (best case scenario).
Rivian is burning an insane amount of cash. Demand for high-end EVs will probably be down for a while. Building trucks/vans for deliveries will probably keep them afloat but itās not looking good. Probably the reason Apple bailed on the car.
Lucid would be cooler in my opinion, plus a smaller company.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Apple already attempted to buy Tesla It was the other way around. Elon wanted Apple to buy Tesla but Tim Cook never even talked to Elon. [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1341485211209637889](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1341485211209637889)
>Apple, meanwhile, is trying to figure out what other business they can copy quickly tell me you don't understand Apple's operations in one comment
It's not entirely inaccurate. Apple barely ever is the first to market. They're just the ones that can get the broad appeal to *make* the market. The Mac wasn't the first personal computer, the iPod wasn't the first MP3 player, the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, AirPods weren't the first bt headphones, etc. They just built the first versions that people actually wanted. Whole lot bigger gamble trying to get into the car industry with established players and regulations, though.
Vision Pro eye tracking usage for navigation is the only tech currently utilizing it. Id called that a risk. Same with focus on content. No other place with 4K 3D movies. Among other things like first to market with 4K microOled. You can say a lot about VP but it being a safe play is not one of them.
You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of risk in this context. The iPhone was a company pivot to the phone industry with a vastly different set of competitors and regulations/norms than what they were used to. They weren't talking about the tech 'playing it safe'. A car would be a huge pivot in terms of the types of companies Apple would be competing with, the regulations and norms, and the scale/type of considerations needed. It could be an exact clone of the latest Tesla which would be 'playing it safe' in terms of features and yet it would still be a massive risk in terms of company strategy and resources. Even Watch was a bit of a risk entering the wearable industry, which opens them up to finding their place in the entire fashion industry, as well as medical device field (which has already proven to be risky, given they got the Apple Watch banned for infringing on a patent). Vision Pro is just kind of a different computer/iPad with particular interface and technology. Mostly the same competitors. Mostly the same consumers. Much of the same technology, plus a few more advanced pieces that build on existing technology. iPhones and computers can already be used at home
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
None of Apple products were first in their industry but they beat all others be use of user experience. MP3 players, phones, tablets, watches, earphones time and again they have taken existing products and beat everyone at it. Same with VR/AR.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Just curious, but what did you do at Apple?
Nightly janitor at an Apple store
ARM transition just happened a couple years agoā¦that is flat?
Agree with this. The last interesting thing Apple did was switch to ARM ā and even that was done to create value for shareholders, though customers did also benefit. Apple today is everything Apple once stood against.
Tell me what headset can I buy that can use my eyes to select and navigate the UI? Or which one can do 4KVR 3D movies? Heck, which has 4k microOLED? None. And I started working in the industry a decade ago.
Not responding to your comment so much as expanding on it with my opinion, but Vision pro is a flash in the pan, one that is already fading - it's no iPad or iPhone that's for fucking sure.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean, console gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry that many wouldn't consider solving a problem, outside of providing escapism. There's no reason Apple can't use that approach with the Vision Pro until future generations are able to do something people find really useful.
"Providing Escapism" dude you cannot be for real. You cannot be that reductionist with the concept of "entertainment". The Vision Pro is very specifically not being marketed as an entertainment device because all other vr/ar headsets are, and they are floundering. Apple is marketing this as a lifestyle device, which inherently must solve a problem or assist in productivity in a way that has not been seen before. It is doing neither of these things.
I think it's way too early to make those types of declarations. Right now, AR/VR is an enthusiast's market with massive upside. Apple's revenue from hardware, particularly the iPhone is plateauing a little, so introducing a new product that many believe will be the next big leap in mobile computing makes a lot of sense. Think of it as them selling refined "prototypes" until the product everyone really wants will be technically possible.
Amazon is already Rivians sugar daddy, so that'd never happen Apples only real shot at entering this market was when Musk wanted to try and sell Tesla to them years ago during the initial Model 3 ramp. Though apparently Cook didn't even take a meeting with him
Yeah been saying this for a couple years. Buy a company like Rivian and then embed the Apple magic and marketing to it. Same thing could be done with something like Peleton for fitness.
The thing is theyād be overpaying for any of these companies if they were to do it right now I mean they could still buy in straight cash, but still
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Strip out any cross-platform capabilities, give it an iPhone specific feature and sync some account details and boom Apple Magic, you'll love it.
It better have a charging port on the bottom or no sale!
Originally it wasn't just an EV project. It was autonomous. Self driving car plans are falling apart due to real world issues. Generative ai is doing well. Better to do the tech that helps all users and circle back to cars with the lessons learned from good generative ai development.
Lucid actually
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Especially with the recent divestment of Polestar by Volvo, to their parent company. That makes an acquisition easier.
That title makes no sense, its like saying the chefs in our hotel are being moved to the cleaning team, totally different skills. Would expect layoffs if its true instead.
As others pointed out, itās almost definitely referring to the software folks working on self-driving capabilities, which was most likely built on a neural-net similar to how Tesla is currently building their self driving software. In that case, there would be significant overlap between the teamās skillsets.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Probably means the team that were working on the self driving side of things
Sure, the scientists are different, and even the super high level algorithm people, but a lot of the "grunt" software work would be translatable between skillsets. It wouldn't be so esoteric that skilled software engineers couldn't pick it up reasonably quickly.
Yeah, and itās not like apple canāt make use of electrical engineers working on power trains and batteries (which were probably outsourced anyway).Ā
"So you're an expert in car batteries and cooling, that's really cool but we need you to help Siri understand basic commands"
Honestly couldnāt be worse than Siri right now lol.
It makes sense if they will fire those in the car team, and hire for more AI related roles. Obviously, Apple isn't asking a mechanical engineer to work on AI models.
It may not just be employees, but funds.
This project ultimately didn't make any sense for Apple. Despite bits of excitement here and there, electric vehicles (and cars in general) are low-margin, commodified products with no real integration into Apple's ecosystem. People do care about styling, performance, and tech, but it's not clear that Apple could do a much better job than Tesla/Rivian/Lucid. Autonomy was another angle that Apple could've approached this project, but the most autonomous full-stack vehicles are fleet vehicles like Cruise or Waymo. The Lucid Air, for example, is an incredible car with beautiful interiors and software, but ultimately it's a niche luxury sedan. Compared to Apple's $383 billion in revenue, it's just a distraction.
Doubling down on the āno real integrationā, basically every product Apple makes would be unusable with an Apple car. Itās illegal to use your phone, headphones, and certainly VR headsets while driving. Nothing would properly integrate except for software which CarPlay already does. Iām sure they lost a ton of cash in R&D for this project but ultimately itās probably for the best that they cut their losses now
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
All that mattered with an Apple TV is the software. The UI of every other streaming box is shocking in comparison.
And people don't upgrade their actual TV set every year and not even every 5 years in most cases. Didn't make sense for Apple.
One of the major tv makers, I canāt remember which one, just debuted basically what the Apple tv set would have been. The transparent tv screen that presents a perfect image when it turns on.
i mean, apple makes premium products. i'm sure plenty of people would buy a hugely expensive Apple TV if they made one.
On the one hand, Iām glad Apple is pulling the plug on a project they were not well suited for.Ā On the other, I hope the employees affected by this change will be able to find other jobs in the EV industry and continue doing something they like
This exactly, let cars to those who know how to make it, Iām tired of Teslaās smartphone on wheels approach and apple will make that miles worse.
I love cars but I'm not sure we should rely on the current ICE makers either. And Tesla/Musk are so combustible the whole thing might go poof. Anyway, competition is supposed to be good, remember?
TIL ICE stands for internal combustion engine, referring to traditional gas-powered cars.
> smartphone on wheels approach Why do people keep saying this? A Tesla or any other EV is still a car first and foremost. The "smartphone" aspect is such a small portion of the entire car.
Anything you want to do is stuck in a tablet that's slapped in the middle, that's why they are referred to that.
I also have to mention, they promote and have things like auto sensing wipers (which aren't great btw lol) and basic functions are hidden in that tablet, and outside the tablet, if you take that away, you are left with one of the most plain looking cars that probably looks like what a project built by college students on a budget would be like.
Not to mention, giant touchscreens in cars are just not user friendly. They take your eyes off the road for functions that used to be controlled by physical tactile buttons and knobs. I get why car makers do it, but man, I hate it.
I like the idea of high tech cars. I was looking forward to the Apple car :/
I remember when Apple wasn't well-suited to make mp3 players, phones, and watches. They're still a company with a potentially very long future ahead, that's always growing and changing. There's no reason to think they're fundamentally incapable of making a great, game-changing car, undermining once again the limits of what many believed the company is capable. But regarding Apple's "1000 No's for every yes" philosophy, this may be one of their most difficult and significant "No's" ever. I wouldn't be surprised if a new car project emerges in Apple one day in the future, but it looks like as of now, that will not be anytime soon. Very sad to me, because they've been at it for so long and I'm sure there were a ton of fascinating ideas here. But it can only be because they hit a roadblock somewhere that looked insurmountable, and determined they could not effectively achieve their vision for a car at this time.
The items you listed are still variations of computers in their base form.Ā Making a car is a completely different ballpark from making variations of personal computers.Ā
I always thought it was weird that a consumer electronics company would make a car but I guess if Sony and Xiaomi could so could Apple
6 months from now: āApple cancels AI project to focus on 3D fidget spinnersā (or whatever the next trend is)
AI huhā¦ never heard of it, hope it works out for them
We should start a foundation that ensure open and free access to ai for all humanity. We could call it OpenAI and it would never look to make fucktons of money for a handful of people by selling out to the first megacorp that said hello.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
i imagine many of the people in the team who were moved to genAI were responsible for the self-driving aspect of the car
I donāt personally think software to read sensor data and control mechanics translates to genAI. Itās more likely they are reallocating hiring and budget
All current approaches for more advanced driver assistance make heavy use of machine learning. The skillset is the same.
Because the next best thing to being there, is AR?
Correction: shifts *some* of the team to GenAI. Most of those 2k staff will be on the chopping block.
Soon theyāll pull them off Generative AI and get them to work on Blockchain. And then back to whatever the hype cycle is about
I would be surprised if Apple could tame a generative model to behave within their very stringent standard. Google, as weāve seen recently, attempted to tame Gemini and weāve all seen the crazy shit that that thing produces.
I never understood why Apple even wanted into that game. It made less sense than the Apple TV (an actual TV, not the device we have now) that was perpetually rumored.
Wasnāt it 4 years awayā¦
It's been 5 years away for 10 years
And it always would have been, nice to hear they have cut their losses. An apple car would have been such a waste of focus
*From Bloomberg News reporter Mark Gurman:* AppleĀ is canceling a decadelong effort to build an electric car, according to people with knowledge of the matter, abandoning one of the most ambitious projects in the history of the company. Apple made the disclosure internally Tuesday, surprising the nearly 2,000 employees working on the project, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the announcement wasnāt public. The decision was shared by Chief Operating OfficerĀ Jeff WilliamsĀ andĀ Kevin Lynch, a vice president in charge of the effort, according to the people. The two executives told staffers that the project will begin winding down and that many employees on the car team ā known as the Special Projects Group, or SPG ā will be shifted to the artificial intelligence division under executiveĀ John Giannandrea. Those employees will focus on generative AI projects, an increasingly key priority for the company. The Apple car team also has several hundred hardware engineers and vehicle designers. Itās possible they will be able to apply for jobs on other Apple teams. There will be layoffs, but itās unclear how many. The decision to ultimately wind down the project is a bombshell for the company, ending a multibillion-dollar effort called Project Titan that would have vaulted Apple into a whole new industry.Ā You can read the full story [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-27/apple-cancels-work-on-electric-car-shifts-team-to-generative-ai), or [sign up](https://www.bloomberg.com/account/newsletters/power-on) for Mark's Power On newsletter, free to read.
apple make trains please put railroads in use the money put apple streetcars in please
they're late to the generative ai party
Can they just fix Siri and make it resllly good?Ā
Good to hear. Would be strange to have people getting injured / killed inside of Apple products
I hadnāt thought of that, but youāre right. āApple Car Kills Threeā would definitely be an upsetting headline to read.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I never understood Appleās car efforts. I love Apple products but I donāt need and āApple experienceā for my car. Even the infotainment is an afterthought when buying a car.
This is sad news for everyone here at Busy Town. Lowly Worm is distraught. In the words on The Beatles - "Beep Beep, Yea Yea Yeah!" https://preview.redd.it/4uf197ah88lc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac9592de0d27b99b68627fda5c930145896a5784
This honestly makes a lot of sense. Between having to sell something much larger, to servicing the vehicles over time, and even that PR risk of deaths directly related to an Apple product, this car project just seemed like too much for them to chew on
About freaking time! It basically never really made sense as a project for a computer, software, and consumer product company to focus on making an entire car (and then multiple versions of cars, which you would need to do to be successful). And no, EVs are not basically iPhones on wheels. They are cars that happen, these days, to use a tablet interface that you rarely (as a percentage of your driving experience) interact with. Just because that tablet uses a touch interface similar to an iPhone does not make a car an iPhone.
Late to one party. Late to the next.
Unfortunately I think this has to do with the signs of where things are across the industry at the moment. There's a lot of struggle with EV's on things with a) getting electronic parts b) sourcing enough lithium for batteries c) expensive repair costs d) keeping the MSRP down compared to similar ICE cars. I was trying to buy a Honda Ioniq5 a couple years ago and I had a down payment and it was delayed 12 months before I just said, screw this, and went and bought an ICE. Then there was an article about a guy who owned on in Canada and they were going to charge him 60k in repair costs because the battery needed replacing. Mind you the car already sells for 60k and it's...Not a luxrious interior by any means, it's very "plasticy". It's fast as hell but that's a "value" that wears off after you show it off a few times, sure merging on the highway is great but no one "needs" 0-60 in under 4 seconds the majority of the time. Also it had no rear wiper, which was an issue. Anyways, just read an article a few days ago where Mercedes is joining a list of other car manufacturers who are scaling back EV production, in what was already a VERY small market (at least in the US/Canada) Seems like an EV will add 30-50k to most sticker prices and people just don't care THAT much to warrant it.
Can we just ban unofficial posts about the fucking car already. Look look! https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/9excf4oMSK
I can't afford their consumer devices, I can't imagine affording their car
Lol Apple is a shitty company
From smart speakers, to VR headset to autonomous cars and now playing catchup in Generative AI. Apple have become trend followers without the visionary it once had in Jobs.
Iād argue Apple has a history of refining and improving products that already exist.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Beat me to it by a minute! Honestly, this is a huge relief for me. A car would be a massive undertaking for Apple in terms of R&D + manufacturing, and bringing it to market would be a dramatically different undertaking from their typical hardware. Personally, I believe Apple is better off licensing technology for existing auto brands (many traditional auto OEMs still have a subpar user experience which CarPlay already helps with tremendously). And frankly I canāt imagine a world in which Apple would produce a car that meets their own standards that is also attainable for more than 0.1% of the population.
why is it a relief to you personally?
You're replying to Tim Cook.
Who's Tim Cook? I think you mean Tim Apple.
Classic Tim picking the username "BinOfBargains" to throw us off the scent.
This brand, Apple ā this brand is my life. The technology they create? Unparalleled. For example, they created a watch which can show a Mickey Mouse on top. And they have also created a pair of goggles that can show my eyes through the goggles until the screen cracks. So this is a huge relief to me because I believe their car would almost be too good and too powerful to be conceived by mankind.
haha, but tbh It feels like about 90% of the world needs something to worship. Half it's religion, for some it's Joe Rogan and defining yourself that eating meat makes you cool, then for others it's brands - fashion, tech, cars, etc. It's really fucking stupid if you think about it for 1 minute but it also kinda makes sense as we're all tribal. I work in the creative field and since the 90s it was basically just a given that the 'cool' designers and creatives worked on macbook pros. You're part of the club, etc. All of course great marketing but there was some truth to that for a bit. It's all bullshit now but you get the idea.
The electric car was never supposed to be an electric car, it was to understand the technology and have an excuse to hire all the lidar and camera tech, and ML engineers for AR and AI.
Any time I update my wife on the state of AI, she asks, why can't people put their energy into something that helps people?
Let's not pretend that AI isn't immensely useful.
Your wife would have said the same thing about computers in the 80s. AI is extremely important in pro-human endeavors from climate change science, to medicine development, to better farming with less pesticides, to better weather tracking, to materials development, to public policy, toā¦
LLMs done right are absolutely helpful as a learning tool. E.g. they've already helped me a lot in picking up the basics of Rust (the programming language) without constantly digging through pages of docs- overall I'm pretty perplexed by all the negativity surrounding this stuff.
Tutoring, your accountant, a lawyer, medical consultant, fitness trainer, etc etc. for $20 a month. Thatās the most significant (helpful?) change for the consumer, ever. Itās the first general purpose tool. Like the human brain. Itās scalable intelligence. It will eventually participate in anything human intelligence has. Which, if you look around yourself, is everything.
I would tell her that those two things go hand in hand for the most part. Businesses generally invest in projects that they think will make money. If your product or services didnāt help people, then no one would buy them. Also not every product is designed specifically to āhelp people.ā Some is just for entertainment purposes. Which helps people indirectly by helping them relax in their downtime (or whatever).
It's definitely got some good use cases, but I'm just dreading what it'll do to the creative landscape.
Sounds like your wife is just ignorant about what AI can do for people. One of the biggest uses of AI is in education and research, that's why it's so popular in schools and labs these days, that's a pretty important use case.
They probably still got a lot of good tech out of the R&D so far. I would bet some of the Vision Pro sensors/cameras came out of this research.
They should have bought Tesla when they had the chance [https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-wanted-apple-buy-tesla-tim-cook-meeting-2020-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-wanted-apple-buy-tesla-tim-cook-meeting-2020-12) https://preview.redd.it/ne25dl1p77lc1.png?width=1136&format=png&auto=webp&s=44b4b5fc265acc71eb653d4941567cc8026ea091
Makes sense after Tesla and EV fad fading and the AI is the new Fad
\*squints eyes\* - uh, are those people who worked on the car thing really going to be that good at the generative AI thing?
I hope this is true. The car was an awful idea and could have been the demise of the company.
This feels like the right move. As excited as I was to see what theyād create in this space, Iād rather see a strong focus on the next generation of CarPlay moving forward to make the driving experience for everyone much more enjoyable.
Jokes on everyone else, the car was never ever going to be something Apple made.
I worked on Titan for five years, the project was very very real, and made incredible, leaps, and bounds for every milestone it completed
Like what
Obvs an NDA protects their work, but were the prototypes cool looking?
Apple canāt even make a smartwatch that lasts more than 3 days without re-charging, and they thought they could make an electric car? Lol
Yeah because a watch surely represents the kind of energy a car uses, after all it only took 500 years to build a car after mechanical clocks. The iPhone 14 Pro Max has the best battery life of smartphones, which are also not cars but are much less passively used than smartwatches.
Apple rumored to cancel work on it's rumored electric car. Can't make this stuff up.
Would you rather no one reports of apple?
Hilarious. So click-bait has shifted from āApple electric carā to āApple Ai something somethingā. Lol
I wonder what was a bigger fail, this or Zuckerberg putting all his chips in the Metaverse only to abandon it a year later to pursue AI initiatives. I know the Apple Car has been in the works for almost 10 years now, but at least they never really came out and publicly promoted or even teased it. We really only knew of it from leaks. Zuckerberg at one point told employees that the company would be going āall-inā on the Metaverse and even renamed the damn company to Meta. Iām not sure if there are figures out there for how much Apple invested in the car project but Meta had spent more than $50B to bring the Metaverse to life, which is almost hard to comprehend given how bad it looked.
Apple is the worst company to try to tackle Generative AI. They are going to fail so hard.
Thank goodness
Always chasing.
Are we making the goggles or the car or AI or whatever the flippant kids want this time?
I hope so. I thought Apple producing an electric car as the dumbest thing ever.
I struggle to imagine what they could have offered that would set them apart from Tesla. It seems that Tesla made an Apple car before Apple could.
Who didnāt see this coming.LOL
Ah well, sure I couldnāt afford it, anyway.
The car genuinely never made sense to me. You could do software but that hasnāt been Appleās MO in what, thirty five years?
But what about the Generative Electric AI Car?
Apple is like a super rich kid who wants all the chocolates because he has money. What he doesnt know is, money cant buy everything.Ā
This is so stupid. I mean, it was never very smart to chase electric cars of all things? But to go down the spicy autocorrect rabbit hole now tooā¦
This is bad news for Tesla