
Apple buys autonomous driving company Drive.ai - Deimorz
https://www.axios.com/apple-buy-driveai-753da17d-60fe-44f9-84ff-1d2d82cd0b81.html
======
gumby
Apple pretty consistently pays bottom dollar for acquisitions, and typically
does an acquihire which results in the former company's product being deep
sixed. So this looks like an autonomous driving skill acquisition, but for all
we know the remaining team will be purposed to guessing where you are by dead-
reckoning on your phone, or improving Photos' judgement or who knows.

In fact the only case I can remember when they _didn 't_ do this was with the
liquid metal company, and that one didn't pan out. (there are presumably
others but I don't recall any off the top of my head.).

They have bought a few products, like iTunes, without buying the company.

~~~
ksec
Siri, TestFlight, Workflow, Shazam, Beats, FoundationDB, SoundJam ( iTunes ),
FileMaker, P.A Semi, PrimeSense, and of course the biggest one that is still
going strong, NeXT. ( Well technically it was NeXT acquired Apple and changed
its name to Apple /s )

And I don't think they acquired Liquidmetal the company, they only signed a
deal for Consumer electronics exclusive use up to a period of time, and my
guess was LiquidMetal were too expensive and they could not figure out a way
to hit High Volume Production.

Although I generally do agree Apple pays bottom dollar for acquisitions. One
reason why I am not hopeful of them buying the Intel Modem business along with
all the 3G - 5G Patents.

~~~
nizmow
Can anyone explain why you wouldn't pay the lowest price you could for an
acquisition?

~~~
michaelt
If you want to buy some cheap metalworking equipment, buying from a small
metalworking company on the cusp of bankruptcy can get you a great price.

But if you want to buy a business that makes a lot of money, you'll be hard
pressed to find one if you only look at small companies on the cusp of
bankruptcy.

~~~
simonh
What Apple does is buy companies with fantastic technology, but a very limited
ability to bring that to the market as a compelling product on their own.

Siri had limited value as a standalone app interfacing only to public APIs and
services, but huge value as a deeply integrated platform interface with links
into all the platform services. The original company could never realise that
sort of enhanced value, so as a standalone player it's value was limited and
Apple could buy it (relatively) cheap.

PA Semi as a small independent chip designer could eke out a decent living
doing small bespoke designs for companies here or there. That has value, but
it's limited. However as the designers of the undisputed heavyweight champion
mobile CPUs, in the most successful consumer product of all time, providing
significant product differentiating performance and features, they have
enormous value but _only_ if Apple buys them.

User ksec gave a great list of successful Apple acquisitions for which their
core products still exist and are thriving and the above pattern applies just
as well to all of them. That's the primary model for Apple. I'm sure there are
cases where they buy teams for talent, but it's usually talent in a specific
area Apple can directly leverage somewhere in their products.

EDIT: I would into be at all surprised if Apple went into these negotiations
saying "We love your technology, it;s great. Here's an offer. BTW here's the
brochure of another similar company with almost as good technology we could
buy instead, integrate into our products and kill you with.".

~~~
patrickk
> *What Apple does is buy companies with fantastic technology, but a very
> limited ability to bring that to the market as a compelling product on their
> own.

Not always, Beats headphones was them buying a company producing complimentary
products, most of the value was in the brand, marketing and the distinct
visual design of the products. There's nothing special about the technology
and the company was very effective in bringing their product to market.

~~~
fivethr33
Beats Music is the basis for Apple Music and was absolutely worth the purchase
for the technology.

------
jedberg
> Why it matters: The deal and hires confirm that Apple hasn't given up its
> autonomous driving project.

I think the first sign was the near continuous sightings of Apple’s self
driving cars in Cupertino. At one point i literally saw four of them at the
intersection of Homestead and Wolfe (next to the spaceship), one going in each
direction.

~~~
taneq
That almost sounds like a set-piece, making sure they don't interfere with
each other (assuming they're using LIDAR).

~~~
chairmanwow
I’m not sure about this. This kind of integration test would almost certainly
be performed in a closed course (parking lot / garage).

~~~
earenndil
Well, as an initial test, sure, but you have to do the same test in an open
road once you know it works in isolation.

------
dalbasal
Personally, I'm happy to see multiple strong techcos getting involved in
autonomous driving. Apple especially, considering their non-standard MO.

Uber & Tesla are showing us that just because a company is culturally
SV/startup, it doesn't necessarily mean that their business becomes a (taking
Thiel's definition) monopoly in the Google/FB sense.

If/when autonomous driving starts living up to predictions, it will be a
massive crucial industry. Hopefully every part of it will be a competitive
market. An Airbnb of autonomous trucking or a Microsoft of autonomous taxis
would be disturbing.

~~~
WhompingWindows
I think it'll roll out in different geographic areas at different times,
depending on regulations and mapping data of each company. Waymo is clearly
going to be first in Arizona, Tesla may be first to a wide roll-out, and let's
be real, probably Waymo will be first in California too.

------
mandeepj
Andrew ng was a board member at Drive.ai and also posted some very promising
videos like driving in rain etc. Not sure what lead to this lukewarm exit.

~~~
ramraj07
Because every automotive company already has a self driving division and they
have realized it's not a realistic dream to work on for at least a decade?

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
How is it "not realistic to work on"?

Tesla has a self-driving functionality in their cars right now on the market,
and a quick youtube research will show you that it blows the competition right
off, they are better by an order of a magnitude.

Now, it is nowhere near full (level 5 or whatever) self-driving, but noone
says that it has to be. The point is that you bring up all other car
manufacturers, and they all have obviously inferior products compared to
Tesla's (if we are looking at commercially available general personal
vechicles). The self-driving as it is right now (even though not level 5) is
obviously very useful to many people, it is a good product, the market is
right there. And yet these Every Automotive Companies have failed to produce
something that Tesla already has on the market. So the problem is not that it
is not an "unrealistic dream",(if it exists already), the problem is that
other automotive companies are basically behind on this.

My guess is that they are not software companies, they have never had to
develop really complicated software, and while having expertise on the
mechanical side of things, they are ways behind on the software.

~~~
dmitriid
> Tesla has a self-driving functionality in their cars right now on the market

It’s semi-autonomous, requiring constant attention from the driver and
operating in an extremely limited set of conditions.

Truly autonomous cars are decades away.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
Which is exactly what I wrote if you read the complete message. The point is,
how does a new company produce this good product (which many people find very
useful, even if it sounds like you don't) - when all the other major
manufacturers with their experience and budgets are failing in this regard?

~~~
dmitriid
Other manufacturers are not failing, you’re just blinded by Tesla’s flashy
marketing.

For example, Volvo’s current breed of cars has everything that Tesla has to
offer. However, their approach is “no person killed by Volvo by 2020”, so
their tech is rightly called assisted driving. Other manufacturers have
similar tech and approaches.

A few years back European truck manufacturers even had a competition that
involved autonomous driving on general roads across multiple state borders in
Europe.

However, Tesla’s marketing keeps insisting that their tech is full autonomous
driving, and their lawyers correctly insist that its not.

Now, back to the “not realistic to work on”. Because it’s not realistic. Real
autonomous driving is decades away. And “state-of-the-art” is barely semi-
autonomous (requires driver’s attention _at all times_ ), barely works under
ideal conditions (read: sunny California weather with good roads, signs and
road markings), can barely handle a very restricted set of road and weather
conditions etc. etc.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
> For example, Volvo’s current breed of cars has everything that Tesla has to
> offer.

Have you actually tried it or did you just read it off some anti-tesla rant on
the Internet? I desperately want to believe that statement because Teslas are
very overpriced for the amount of comfort they provide, but every time I test
any other car, the "lane assist" and similar things are nowhere near what
Tesla offers. They are all "just as good" on paper, and then you activate lane
assist and smallest problem like one small segment of the road line being off
makes a Volvo or something else scream in panic and force you to take the
wheel while Tesla gracefully doesn't even notices at as a problem and keeps
driving. Just because the other manufacturers say on paper "we also have lane
assist" does not mean it's the same function.

Look at this latest Audi e-tron.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjsfMmJ4AiM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjsfMmJ4AiM)

When you say that other manufacturers are not doing as much marketing for
this, you are right. But you got it the other way around: it's not that they
are behind on the marketing, and that's why they are failing. They are failing
to implement these features that Tesla's already have in great quality on the
mass-market, - and that's why they don't have the audacity to market those
features, because they know that if they forced people to actually take their
"lane assist" seriously, they would be scrutinized by the market even more and
all those flaws would be brought to light.

Go actually test a Tesla autopilot, on a long drive, and then go actually test
a Volvo, VW, BMW, etc lane assist -and then come back and review your
statement. Your mind will be changed.

> barely works under ideal conditions (read: sunny California weather with
> good roads, signs and road markings),

Watch more of videos on that channel. Many rain situations are fine, and
barely some visible road markings is all that is needed. Yes level 5 might be
a decade away, but even as it is - that's like 80% of driving time covered.
What part of it is "unrealistic" when it already exists?

~~~
dmitriid
> Have you actually tried it or did you just read it off some anti-tesla rant
> on the Internet?

I have.

> They are failing to implement these features that Tesla's already have in
> great quality on the mass-market

> Go actually test a Tesla autopilot, on a long drive

You keep buying into Tesla's marketing.

Here's a riddle for you: every time a Tesla fails and kills a person, Tesla
quickly blames _the driver_. They say that the driver _has to always keep
watch and grab the wheel at the first sign of trouble_.

Here's an official statement by Tesla in such an accident: "We _also ask our
customers_ to exercise safe behavior when using our vehicles, including
following the car’s instructions for _remaining alert and present when using
Autopilot and to be prepared to take control at all times_ " [1]

Why is that, do you think?

Other companies are just less careless about human lives. They don't pretend
it's a full autopilot. They don't pretend that the system can handle 100% of
situations. They don't pretend that you can safely fall asleep behind the
wheel, and nothing will happen. They call it what it is and introduce the
features gradually because they are _fully aware_ of the current capabilities
of autonomous systems.

Tesla is fully aware of that as well, but their marketing is willfully engaged
in deception tactics.

> What part of it is "unrealistic" when it already exists?

The part where it doesn't exist. In all cases _it requires the driver to be
fully engaged and alert at all times_.

[1] [https://abcnews.go.com/US/teslas-autopilot-blamed-driver-
acc...](https://abcnews.go.com/US/teslas-autopilot-blamed-driver-accident-
police/story?id=60994610)

------
lasryaric
Ex drive.ai employee here. I got $0 for my stocks.

~~~
gesman
Were you employee at a time of acquisition?

~~~
lasryaric
why would it matter? I had vested a good chunk of my stocks. And it’s hard to
define since they did not buy my shares.

~~~
sdinsn
So Apple did not actually buy all of drive.ai?

~~~
lasryaric
I honestly have no idea of what I can say and what I can't say.

I think it's reasonable to think that I can share that nobody bought my
shares. I can't talk for any other employee or anybody else.

~~~
tim333
The crunchbase story title "Apple Said To Have Bought Assets Of Struggling
Drive.ai" perhaps indicates what happened.
[https://news.crunchbase.com/news/drive-ai-reportedly-
closing...](https://news.crunchbase.com/news/drive-ai-reportedly-closing-down-
after-raising-77m/)

------
robterrell
"The backdrop: Drive.ai's highlighter-orange vans ferried workers around a
business park in Frisco, Tex., and shuttled fans in nearby Arlington to
Cowboys games."

This sounds more impressive than the Cruise cars I see with one driver-
engineer at the wheel. Has anyone been shuttled in one and can comment on the
experience?

~~~
jedberg
I’ve been in a rival company’s car that drives in SF. It was truly amazing. On
the short drive it dealt with a garbage bag in the street, a truck driving the
wrong way on a one way street, a jaywalker, and a double parked car, all with
no issues whatsoever.

I know some cruise guys, and they say it’s a similar experience. They
basically run a free, autonomous Uber for employees. They’ll be full in the
morning and afternoon and then drive around the city alone midday to build up
miles.

------
hansdieter1337
I can confirm that they didn't stop their self driving car project. I see
their Lexus driving around Sunnyvale all the time.

------
xxxpupugo
Feel bad for the employees, not sure how much their options would be worthy of
right now...

~~~
toasterlovin
The employees are all machine learning engineers with a focus on autonomous
vehicles (aka, the current hot shit in machine learning), which means they're
probably all making $300k+ per year at the low end. They'll be fine.

~~~
eanzenberg
Lol if you think that they make that much at a failing startup

~~~
jonathankoren
But they’re no longer at a failing startup. They’re at Apple.

~~~
bduerst
Apple can and does fire people in their acquisitions, including engineers and
other skilled positions.

~~~
jonathankoren
And those people were never at Apple.

~~~
bduerst
There's a bit of tautology - They are at Apple because if they were fired in
the acquisition they were never at Apple.

~~~
jonathankoren
As someone who has been through an acquisition, it's a liminal space. You
remain the employee of the company being purchased, right up until the
purchase goes through, which is _after_ the offers from the purchaser are
extended to people. The amount of people coming over can be part of the due
dillegence and terms of the deal. (e.g. n engineers are to be purchased, but
all the engineers suck, so the deal is off, or the price is reduced.)

Apple never extended an offer, or an offer was not accepted. Either way, they
were not at any point an employee of Apple, or any other company.

------
iandanforth
"Apple shows up to Drive.ai liquidation sale" would be more informative. A
small number of employees and some assets were brought over.

~~~
Animats
Well, at least Drive.ai's creditors have a good chance of being paid. It's not
yet clear if the "mass layoffs" planned for Friday will still happen.[1]

Does anybody, anywhere, have a reliable self-driving car in use on public
streets without a "safety driver"? Waymo did briefly, but backed off.

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/25/18758820/drive-ai-self-
dr...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/25/18758820/drive-ai-self-driving-
startup-shutting-down-apple)

~~~
drawnwren
Is Waymo not driving fully autonomous in Phoenix still?

Edit: It looks like they aren't [1]

1: [https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/18536003/waymo-lyft-
self-d...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/18536003/waymo-lyft-self-driving-
ride-hail-app-phoenix)

------
canada_dry
Ironically, I wonder how many of the folks that were laid off recently
([http://fortune.com/2016/09/11/apple-self-driving-car-
layoffs...](http://fortune.com/2016/09/11/apple-self-driving-car-layoffs/))
landed a position at Drive.ai only to be brought back into the clan?

------
foobiekr
The price is interesting. An awful lot of the self-driving companies are
hoping for a big acquisition. It reminds me of the SDN market just before
VMware bought Nicira. And there wasn’t a second Nicira, not really.

~~~
erklik
This wasn't really a acquisition though. More like Apple buying some assets as
Drive.ai gets liquidated.

~~~
foobiekr
That distinction is mostly not real. Startups that are losing altitude start
looking for an acquirer no less than 6 months before they know they’re done.
The very likely ran the gamut of every acquirer they could get connected to.

The case where companies run into the wall at full speed (a funding round fell
through) mostly were very mismanaged.

------
honopu
Apple should just buy Tesla. What a story, helping the world with energy,
driving safety, etc. Seeing Elon Musk as the CEO of Apple would be interesting
to say the least. Beats somewhat lead the way for them to have different
brands under their umbrella.

~~~
rahkiin
Musk as the CEO of Apple would be an unmitigated disaster.

~~~
sprafa
Musk as the CEO of anything has been less than great. At PayPal e was forced
out, at Tesla <no comment take your own conclusions> and at SpaceX my
understand is he is at arm’s length and has someone else administer the
company - which appears to be just about the smartest thing he’s done.

~~~
ajslater
Gwynne Shotwell runs SpaceX. He could use a Shotwell for Tesla and focus on
his strength: being outrageous and running his useful cult of personality. I’m
not sure his behavior helps fundraising anymore.

~~~
sprafa
Yeah pretty much. It’s fascinating why he hasn’t arrived at the same
conclusion. The man has his strengths but the actual nuts and bolts of running
a company day to day does not appear to be his sharpest edge. Surely even he
can see that, sometimes? Makes me wonder how blind we can be to our own
flaws...

------
bradknowles
I wonder how happy GeoHotz is about this development?

~~~
viraptor
Is comma.ai interesting to other companies at all? They have a system for
integrating into existing cruise control, which Apple doesn't need (they can
drop money to get cars made for them). They also have a vision system which is
not very secret - throw lots of video footage into a NN - which should be
possible to replicate relatively easily. Apart from aquihire, why would anyone
buy comma.ai?

~~~
erklik
Is comma.ai's driving system at all realistic in terms of actual capability? I
don't own a compatiable car (nor have the knowledge or courage) otherwise I
would love to install and try to use it.

~~~
hackerbabz
A couple of years ago the founder was super confident that he would have a
fully self driving car soon, and definitely before Tesla.

A couple of months ago I read that he decided the problem is basically
unsolvable and a human will always need to be involved.

He's still right about being "before Tesla" as long as Tesla never figures it
out either.

~~~
Tepix
> A couple of months ago I read that he decided the problem is basically
> unsolvable and a human will always need to be involved.

Are you referring to the Engadget article? I understood him differently.

~~~
tntn
The copy on [https://comma.ai/](https://comma.ai/) has certainly changed tone
from what it once was.

Now it is clearing pushing a driver-assist angle ("improves your stock ACC and
LKAS," "copilot," "augment"). No mention of "self-driving," "autonomous," or
the like.

Previously, it was clearly marketing a full-self-driving, no human involved
system: "ghostriding for the masses," "software to make your car self
driving."

~~~
Tepix
It could be for liability reasons.

------
solos
awesome

------
m3kw9
Real old news

------
oblib
Personally, I will never let a machine take over controlling a automobile I'm
in. Never.

They may be good enough some decades from now, but they are not now and we are
a long, long way from getting to the point where they are.

This has been proven too many times already to trust my life in a machine
doing highway speeds, and I trust them even less on streets and roads.

For the record, I've never caused an accident in my 46 years of driving. The
only accident I've been in was with a dumbass who turned left in front of me
at an intersection I'd already entered and I was able to minimize the impact
by slowing down before they did that and steering into the least damaging hit
for me because I was watching the driver's eyes and body and could see they
were thinking about it and then decided to do it.

No self driving car can do that now and it will be a very long time before
they can.

~~~
agildehaus
No self-driving car will turn left in front of you either. Pendulum swings
both ways.

The self-driving car could very well have reacted faster than you ever could
have, saving your life even in the many crash situations where you wouldn't
have had any idea of the other driver's intention.

~~~
jonathankoren
Or a self driving car, would have plowed ahead and never hit the brake.

There’s an assumption that self driving will be safer, but it’s not necessary
(there’s very little public data with any reasonable detail), and plenty of
anecdotes where the car did something very abnormal. Furthermore, you have
self-driving backers like Andrew No, publicly moving the goal posts to justify
the investments.

My point is, in 2019, self driving cars don’t work very well, and there’s
little expectation that they will work well in the near to medium future, so
it’s silly to sing their praises now.

~~~
revscat
My car saved my ass.

Southern Illinois, destination Niagara. Going through one small town after
another. Flat. Boring. Autopilot is on. Highway is 4 lane divided, no service
road. Occasional farmers market roads.

Driving for a couple of hours, not much to see (and smell) but farmland.
Southern Illinois is incredibly boring. Start to pass an 18-wheeler on my
right.

Not paying 100% attention because... boring.

Car starts freaking out, loud warning signals. Engages the brakes, hard. Some
old lady had pulled out to cross the highway, so that she was halfway in my
lane. Couldn’t see her because of 18-wheeler. She couldn’t see me for the same
reason. Stupid.

Car saw her before I did, took appropriate measures. I would have been in a
nasty wreck if if I hadn’t had it. She probably would have died, because I
would have hit her driver’s side. Would have been nasty regardless.

So three cheers for autopilot from this driver. Saved the day.

More. Please.

~~~
ummonk
What the hell was the 18 wheeler doing in the left lane?

Note that you didn’t need autopilot here, just collision avoidance system.

~~~
revscat
“on my right.”

He was in the right lane.

~~~
ummonk
Oh, my bad.

------
pentae
I know tons of developers clinging onto their old Macbooks who refuse to buy
the new generation and many are changing to PC's.

My GoPro has a USB-C port on it. My USB-C to USB-C data cable won't recognise
it on my MBP. Have to use USB-C > USB-A -> Dongle -> USB-C.

My left arrow key sticks after my keyboard replacement.

I still keep ghost tapping that damn escape key on the touchbar after 3 years.

Apple: Forget all that, let's invest in self driving cars and new watch bands.

~~~
aetherspawn
The USB-C thing is a nightmare because you can’t extend Thunderbolt and every
Thunderbolt accessory comes with some arbitrary length someone decided
(usually about 20cm) that barely allows you to reorient the device next to the
laptop where your hand is supposed to be.

There literally exists no male to female thunderbolt extenders in the usb-c
form factor. I tried buying a non Intel approved one and hesitantly, after
weighing the risks of even plugging it in, found it would power the
Thunderbolt device but couldn’t move data.

(For the information of the reader, Thunderbolt exists above USB-C and USB-C
connectors lack Thunderbolt data pins and hence downgrade Thunderbolt back to
just regular USB-C)

~~~
hadlock
The Lenovo 40AC0135US acts as a male to female extender (+ port replicator). I
have one on a 6' 40GBPS 100W cable to my laptop, and the 40AC0135US has a
female port allowing you to daisy chain X, has been working great the last 18
months with no issues, mac or PC.

~~~
aetherspawn
In my case I did something like this (used an ALOGIC part) but glued the
extender upside-down under the laptop stand with araldite since there was no
easy way of mounting it out the way of my hands but close enough that the 15cm
cable would reach.

Voided quite a few warranties working around the awkwardness

