The Curious Case of Apple’s Supposed Self-Driving Car
Posted on 08/18/2015 8:30:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I can see it now.
You ask to go to Miami OH and end up in Miami FL...
Thanks to SeekandFind for posting the article.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Hoestly i am not intrested in any vehicle that puts me so close to the ground. Not with all the larger vehicles on the road.
But the most dangerous flaw is clearly the broken mapping App, Apple Map, that replaced the excellent Google (GOOG) App available on earlier iPhones. As the New York Times reported, Apple decided that it no longer wanted to give Google all that valuable information about how iPhone customers were using Google Maps.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/09/27/apple-maps-six-most-epic-fails/
The former Alameda Naval Base is huge. My dad was stationed there for years before his passing in the early 70s, and I have memories of visiting his office and spending time there. After its closing, it has been used by movie studios (The Matrix Reloaded where they filmed the freeway sequence) and TV shows (Myth Busters). Also for car events; I test drove new cars there for some event. It makes sense for Apple to test drive a car there.
It depends on how much power your vehicle has. I have enjoyed riding my motorcycles and sports cars. And accelerating out of the way of larger vehicles that are careless. Nothing like being close to the ground and feeling the wind and roar of a good engine. It's a risk, but so are many things such as sports where you can get injured.
Motorcycles and sports cars are often the careless ones.
Its not even that, it is about being able to see other vehicles and have good visibility of what is going on around you.
Not in my experience. There are numerous times I've seen large vehicles weaving across lane lines, drivers are texting or eating and are careless. Then there are the lane changers who never turn their heads around to look, relying on their mirrors or not at all. A lot of people own large SUVs and trucks yet can't see below the passenger windows. One of my friends that owned a large truck was complaining to me that people are always honking at him when he changes lanes. I asked him if he's aware of smaller vehicles next to him. He said it's their responsibility to get out of his way when he changes lanes! He said it's not his fault if he can't see below his windows! I told him someone would someday shoot him if he kept that up.
I've had cars come up alongside my motorcycle and bump it, pure negligence on their part. I've never had an accident with my motorcycles or sports cars in over 50 years of driving, and never caused an accident with my other cars. I have been hit several times by red light or stop sign runners and had my car totaled. A lot of safety has to do with watching out for the other guy and avoiding them; sometimes unavoidable if they run a light.
That's part of it; see my other post about other drivers not looking at what is around them. There are times when I've had to accelerate to get away from harm. Like debris from another vehicle's blown tires, one time had a spray of lug nuts hitting my windshield. Other times debris blown off trucks into my path. Or when a drunk driver weaved and caused a 7 car pileup in front and around me, I escaped without a scratch. Good visibility is important, but so is quick thinking and avoidance.
One reason I'm not so keen on driverless cars is that avoidance depends heavily on how the car is programmed. A programmer really cannot program avoidance of all the things that can go wrong on the road. Sometimes it's better to run over debris on the road rather than deviate from your path and risk a collision. Can a driverless car really calculate in a split second whether debris is safe to run over? Or will it simply weave to avoid it and cause a collision elsewhere?
Why don't you use some more up-to-date FUD? Apple Maps is as accurate if not more so than Google Maps now. . . and even in September of 2012, had only a few extremely hyped issues with directions, as Apple leased it's data from Tom Tom, a well known and respected mapping source.
In fact, a side-by-side comparison of directions between Apple Maps and Google Maps in the USA at the time found the directions that often Apple had shorter and quicker response time with better routing when actual addresses were input. Where Google showed better was in mapping business locations by name where a business had to be looked up. Apple was using Yelp! data and it was frequently out-of-date or erroneously located, while Google was less frequently out-of-date but still often had closed or missing .
The other issue was in Apple's 3D view with some hilarious results where 3D roads followed the terrain or bridges swooped down into river beds. . . but Google had no better results when they introduced the feature two years later while Apple had pretty much perfected it.
Three of your link's "Six most Epic Fails," to use their headline title, refer to 3D graphics failures as the system tried to render things like bridges and buildings from 2D images. Something no other mapping software had ever been done before on a handheld, such as:
Two had to do with missed addressing having to do with out-dated data from Yelp!
And finally,
The Tom Tom data base from which Apple was leasing its data, is a Netherlands company. . . a country with a large Muslim population. . . a country which does not recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. They, being politically correct, like the United States, absurdly list the capitol of Israel as Tel Aviv.
As for errors in directions, Google had about the same number of mis-directed travelers as did Apple Maps. . . but Google was not directing the FUD campaign against their own product as they were against Apple Maps.
Your characterization of why Apple dropped Google Maps is wrong. Google was deliberately providing a crippled version of Google Maps without turn-by-turn for iOS devices while providing a full featured version with voice turn-by-turn for Android devices and refused to provide one for Apple—although Apple had helped them develop turn-by-turn voice for the iPhone or iPad. That was a deliberate marketing ploy by Google to make Android a better choice for Google Maps. Apple dropped them because of that choice on Google's part.
It had nothing to do with "valuable information" but rather with choices made by Google in order to push Android.
I dont want a car to make a decision that will kill me, to, in its estimation, save others. That may not be the correct assumption or estimation. Or if its programmed to weave to avoid stuff, and the shoulder isnt there and te car slides down into a tree or off a cliff.
Good example. Here's another. Let's say an object or debris is in the driverless car's path. Maybe the program decides to weave to avoid the object, but when it does so it drifts into the path of oncoming traffic which is hidden by a curve. Not every road is marked with divider lines. Sometimes there are multiple moving objects, such as a few deer crossing the road. Can the program handle multiple objects? How about when a snowplow comes barreling down the center of the road with you having barely enough space between snowplow and the cliff edge (something I've encountered while in the mountains). I'm scared of self-driving cars being on the road.
It is in MY experience.
So many times an asshole on a bike or in a sports car have cut in front of my 5000# truck too stupid to realize THAT is my stopping distance required. They are also too inattentive to realize before they know it I could punch the 380hp and be in front of them hitting my brakes if I wanted to.
I have had bikes and sports cars too but I understood physics unlike them.
That is in MY experience.
Self-driving cars might end up in the bad driver category depending on well they're programmed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.