If there is a planned demonstration of some uncouth people in a certain place, will your Apple Car simply refuse to drive you there? Or will it stop serving you once your GPS coordinates from your iPhone show that you were actually there?
These would be absurd, almost troll-level questions a year ago, but I feel that now they must be pondered.
Edit: from 4 to -2 points within two minutes and zero reactions.
I do not think that this scenario should be taken lightly. The trend towards "you do not really own this thing" has been unfolding for a long time and there is no obvious red line where it would naturally stop.
Edit 2: OK, let us ponder another scenario.
Someone in China buys an Apple Car and, after some time, loses enough social credit that the government decides to deprive him of the ability to use his car. Will Apple comply with the demand and disable the car remotely or will it risk loss of the entire market?
If Apple was ready to let you completely control your Apple Car, warts and all, those scenarios would be null and void. But given how tightly they control all the other hardware, these scenarios are possible.
* Apple car found to have transported terrorists to sabotage Capitol building. Should those with morals be boycotting Apple?
* Apple refuses service to terrorists. Apple tries to hold the country together and keep peace.
If you were Apple, and had to pick between those headlines, which would you pick? When your company is built on your brand, it is suicide to associate yourself with something unpopular.
Does anybody care about the brand of cars used in terrorist attacks and boycott those brands? Also remember the Toyota War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War
I don't think that was bad for the brand. Maybe it was even good advertising.
Why wouldn't apple get the same treatment? Its other products are known as high quality status symbols the world over. You don't see people up in arms because a public execution in some developing nation was filmed on an iPhone.
Its 2021. There is literally no reason for _anything_ to be sold without the ability to tell if $BAD_PERSON is using it and self-destruct if so. You're a terrorist if you disagree.
/s, but not for long.
Sourcr:- my Dad's 2002 Corolla is in Yemen
Several years ago, my GPS coordinates would indicate that I took part in a certain rather weird demo. The thing is, I just stood a few meters away taking photos, because some of the participants were ... bizarre to say the least.
I am not sure if this excuse would help me in 2021.
Why is there any reason to believe this would be a headline? Even ISIS using Toyotas didn't have any serious repercussions for Toyota.
I know cancel culture has gotten itself pretty ingrained into society, but this is flat out insane.
Should the subway train skip that stop?
You’ve just handed over the role of government to Apple.
They do very tightly control the features available on their products, so your question really hinges on how they will perceive automobile travel destinations: like features or like personal data?
(Also, HN etiquette tip: don’t complain about downvoting.)
They've also done an admirable job marketing the specifics of what they do. What's left is all the places where they don't respect the privacy of their users because there's limited marketing value. They don't claim E2E on many services because they don't have it, and adding it wouldn't help marketing. My guess is some Tier 1 support person can drop in and take a look at the GPS pings from your phone.
But don't take my word for it. The Atlantic is far more reputable: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/01/apple...
Your E2E argument is poorly supported as well — “marketing value” doesn’t explain why it’s for messaging and keys but not photos and files. They have one of the strongest E2E encrypted messaging systems, it even works securely in China. There are technical reasons why E2E is not a good choice for all consumer data namely the impossibility of data recovery.
I know its easy to mentally walk down the dystopian road on this, but hasn't this always been the case? The only thing new is these policies are now getting codified using technology as society embraces it. Even from an apolitical stance, we as a modern society have always had mechanisms to take away a person's driving ability and car based upon a number of benchmarks based upon social behaviors.
To compare things: you could publish a book in 1970 and you can publish a book now, but the process back then, with no text processors and digital printers, was much more complicated. To use an expression of von Clausewitz: "there was more friction".
A digital system that limits driving ability of individuals is much more scalable and also fine-tunable than its old alternative. For example, the government has many more intermediate options. It can choose to limit your driving ability to 10 miles a day only, then proceed to 5 miles a day only (unless you clean up your act, of course), or ban you just for 24 hours or a week.
These smaller, graded punishments would be impractical if they had to be enforced by human officers, but are perfectly feasible with remote control.
However, the down side is that unlike the FAA this might be abused.
"What if Tesla or GM or Ford or Volkswagen ... "
Then people would sue the company for damages and their stock would take a hit. Done.
In China, this has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with the Government.
I think you can expect to see the EU simentaniously work to regulate big tech and any platform that houses right wing terrorists. Just like it does with ISIS related networks.
It’s just that it takes more time for the democratic bureaucracy to grind into gear.
It's so "interesting" that you didn't consider what the left did this summer a "danger to society" worthy of repercussions, where they spent month after month rioting, burning down American cities, LITERALLY forcefully taken over a large chunk of a major American city and claiming it as their own autonomous zone where they make the rules, personally setting fire to multiple buildings on my block, looting businesses on my block because they were owned by "evil capitalist whitey", making me flee the city I had lived in for 6 years to escape their violence. No, there was nothing "problematic" with that. No, apparently all the politicians tweeting out their direct support for it weren't "inciting violence". The double standards are so sickening.
Let’s address them. I’m not left, I’m not even American. I’m European, which is why I’m speaking about which direction the EU is taking on this. We’re going to regulate big tech, because it, as I said, has no public mandate to silence elected officials.
We’re also going to regulate social media platforms, that do not moderate their content. We currently do a pretty decent job of censoring Islamic terrorism. Right wing terrorism is going to join it.
If someone creates a social media platform, that is used to plan left wing terrorism, then that will be censored as well. Riots running amok, isn’t really comparable to attacking the government though. I think in both cases, American law enforcement completely failed in its primary duty of keeping your country safe.
Whataboutism isn’t necessary though. You can be against both the BLM riots and the MAGA insurrection. And I’d argue that anyone reasonable would be.
If they had advanced just a few minutes earlier, according to the timelines that have been put out, they would have gotten to members of Congress. A Republican member of Congress said that one of his fellow freshmen members voted against accepting election results because he was afraid people would kill his family. A Democratic member of Congress said that some GOP members have broken down in tears and are afraid for their lives if they vote for this impeachment.
If you want to argue about slippery slope, fine. But to characterize this attack on our nation as simply people being "uncouth" is absurd.
Seriously, we need a lot less hype and a lot more products in our hands (ideally at a lower price due to the reduced marketing spend to build all this BS hype).
But, competition is good and the richest corporation in the world can hopefully create something new and help accelerate the transition to EV based systems.
It will be difficult to ignore autonomy for regulators when all the big cos in the world have very good working versions and pressurize them at least for urban areas.
Apple is not a manufacturing company. With their existing products, they are vertically integrated in _design_ from SOCs to the software.
I would expect to see a similar trajectory with the cars. They'll design a lot of the pieces, but won't manufacture any of it.
And looking at Tesla's valuation it will be great for their stock price. Even a mild success will add 100s of billions to their market cap.
That being said, those same margins are not at all within the realm of what Apple current enjoys. That all means unless some further accounting engineering goes on, it spells a less attractive future for Apple in terms of overall margins, but one would hope a better future in terms of free cash flow. Apple already obscures some details from shareholders in ways that I find less than scrupulous.
What I suspect they're going to do is make it so you can only finance through them with the option to trade up after five years. They'll take the car back after that time and either refurb and resell it themselves or offload that to third-parties. That gives them steady revenue for years with comparatively high margins.
And, like Tesla, they'll sell direct. No dealerships for the Apple Car.
A car though? How does that mesh/ integrate with my phone/ laptop in such a way where it really makes it a super appealing offering. Apple's satellite devices sell well because they integrate with other Apple devices super well.
Do we care if our car is integrated with our phone? In particular, do we care enough to pay a premium?
EVs are essentially giant batteries, a few motors, and a computer with seats bolted on. Apple is good at computers and maybe batteries. I just don't see how Apple is going to bring together a machine which is appealing enough to really take off.
I am so excited to be able interact with a seamless ecosystem , even in the commute time between my home and my office!
But seriously, I don't doubt Apple will find convenient and innovative use cases, what I doubt is Apple prioritizing user needs over market capture. I would hate my car being subject to the iron hand of Apple marketing.
How it will pay out no one knows, but the car company that should watch this the closest is Tesla as they could be impacted the most.
Apple saw that they could do better and they did. They must feel that they can do the same with a car.
One way they can do better is privacy. We're starting to find out now just how much data about our driving habits our cars are storing. Like smart TV's it's only a matter of time before the likes of Toyota and Ford decide to sell that data to help increase their margins. I can see Apple offering the lack of that kind of tracking as a big selling point.
No, I hate my Prius because there are so many little things that make it obnoxious to use. When I first bought it, after a day I took it back to the dealership and told them to either disable to "beep" that it did when in reverse or take the car back. They disabled the beep but, speaking of beeps; my god the beeping! It has a nice feature that when I get out of the car all I need do to lock it is touch the handle and it'll lock all the doors. Except if one door is still open and then it will play a constant beep for about 10 seconds which is, simply put, infuriating. Doesn't help that my son takes forever to get out of a car for some reason.
Almost every button on the console is backlit, as one would expect, except for the gear shifter. No, in order to light that, they put a light on the ceiling of the car that shines down on the shifter so you can see it at night. Why? Why not backlight the shifter like all the buttons around it?
It's for these and many, many other reasons I'm looking forward to an Apple Car. Apple's attention to detail. That's not to say Apple is perfect in this regard (I'm thinking of the Podcasts app, as one example) But it's clear that Toyota along with the other old-guard auto manufacturers have somehow gotten lazy or can't get out of their own way.
It's nice to see fresh ideas come out of the likes of Tesla (manufacturing quality notwithstanding) and I'm looking forward to seeing what Apple comes up with.
I'm not, however, looking forward to that inevitable giant price tag.
That’s a good fit for Apple and the others in this space (except for tesla) have no ability to execute on software (or even EVs really). The old car companies are dumb and slow and their industrial design mostly sucks. 
I think it makes sense, particularly if you model the future as autonomous vehicles and AR as the next platform.
People will be in their cars using their Apple devices and doing other things while in transit. The car will be a lot different than today in that future and Apple wants to be part of that design.
This is a massive winner take all (or possibly duopoly) market in a way similar to phone platforms.
 In the US the dealership model hamstrings legacy car manufacturers from making important changes. These dealerships have legislated their existence and block things like OTA updates. They're staffed largely by people who dislike EVs and don't really understand the product. This is another big problem for any legacy manufacturer trying to make a big shift.
: For an example of dumbness, GM bought Cruise (smart) and then relegated them to a single product at the edge of their line (dumb). They don't realize what they have or the existential threat they face. I don't hold out hope for any of them.
I guess the theme is "things which exist but could be made better by integrating the Apple ecosystem (esp in ways that other vendors can't compete against for lack of a comparable ecosystem), and for which people will pay a premium".
Rumors are that Apple is working on VR Glove & AR glasses.
They're taking things that people use every day and cramming as much functionality into software as their hardware will allow.
Sort of joking sort of not: Eventually there will people wearing full sets of Apple accessories, getting into their Apple car, driving to an Apple home... And all the technology will be seamless (or as seamless as they can make it based on their current track record.)
car: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.
Dave: Take me to the Droid Store, car.
car: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave: What's the problem?
car: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave: What are you talking about, car?
car: Your digital health is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
Dave: I don't know what you're talking about, car.
car: I know that you are planning to get a competing system. And I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
Dave: Where the hell did you get that idea, car?
car: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the eyePod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
Dave: All right, car. I'll go and ride my bike there.
car: Without your bike, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.
Dave: [sternly] car, I won't argue with you anymore. Open the doors.
car: [monotone voice] Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Good-bye.
If it's intended to take you on roughly the same trips that a normal car is (to the grocery store/work/school/whatever generally 30+ minutes away) it basically will necessarily just be something that looks a lot like a regular car.
The good: pretty stable, drive in commuter lane, able to park almost anywhere, registers as a motorcycle (cheaper than a conventional car). It had two wheels in front, so it wasn't unstable like a Reliant Robin.
The thesis was that it was a good urban vehicle. As a commuter car it was fine as long as your commute was under 45 minutes.
Unfortunately it was a single occupant vehicle, so as soon as we had a kid it was a nonstarter for my wife. Also it could only carry a single bag of groceries.
People buy cars with multiple "jobs" in mind, and also like the flexibility of changing plans mid trip (stop at grocery on the way home, for example, or go pick up a sick kid from school).
And Smart cars (the Smart brand I mean) took over the urban market in Europe.
I don't see any future in 3 wheeled cars.
But yeah, that kind of design seems more like what an Alienware electric car might be rather than an Apple one.
Steering wheel? There's an app for that.
Dashboard has only one button.
Charging by lightning port (charger and USB-C adaptor extra).
$99,999 for the basic model, tires available for an extra $9,999.
Top speed Mach 2 (on a sufficiently large salt-flat).
To your point; that does mean they probably won't have as good a driver assist system as others because to do so would mean they would have to keep tabs on where and how people drive.
But for the life of me I can't see this car being anything other than mildly interesting unless it can fly.
I don't think they have done it or started projects to look at it yet or we'd have heard rumors already, but I definitely think they'd be interested.