Documents confirm Apple is building self-driving car
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
"But, if the car is in autonomous mode and causes a crash, Eugensson [Volvo Cars' director of government affairs] said Volvo will take responsibility. "It will be difficult to sell if the driver is still liable. It gives a false promise."
http://www.cnet.com/news/a-ride-in-volvos-autonomous-car-how...
Perhaps we will buy self-driving cars from how their contracts look and not from their tech specs.
I am always surprised when I see Apple being discussed on Hacker News. I own both Android and Apple devices, and my Apple devices are all much more up-to-date, have better privacy, and better security.
I also think it's ironic that you put privacy in the context of smartphones (Android implies this) when many people believe that smartphones are spying devices.
Largely meaningless from a security standpoint (easily bypassable), and it enables someone to build a large database of fingerprint hashes. (Don't give me any of that "it doesn't upload the actual fingerprints" - uploading hashes is just as useful to security services)
"disk encryption"
You trust Apple way, way too much.
"The CIA and FBI have gone on record as saying as how frustrated they are with Apple's security."
Which is exactly what they would say, wouldn't they?
"Do you really think iPhones can be used as spying devices?"
Yes.
In fact I have little doubt.
And yet you present no evidence.
The only thing you're close with is about whether a mobile device (including an iPhone) can be used for spying - baseband software in the cellular modem is a known area of concern for any mobile device.
The rest you're making claims that either directly contradict what is known or have no basis, without any evidence.
Funny thing, this sort of information doesn't tend to be put into the public domain.
Anybody who knows anything about the relationships massive companies tend to have with the government can see that the situation being exactly as Apple paints it is highly unlikely.
You're also making a lot of conjectures without any evidence backing them up. The iPhone is one of the most examined pieces of hardware/software out there. If hashes are being uploaded to some master database there would be article after article screaming about it.
This is speaking from a position of ignorance. Apple has been leading the way with responsible fingerprint management, in contrast to nearly every other fingerprint-capable device manufacturer out there (e.g. see HTC's recent debacle). Presupposing good faith on their part, the stated design of Touch ID is to prevent even the fingerprint hash from being accessible to the OS itself, let alone leave the device. All the fingerprint logic and stored hashes runs on a logically distinct "secure enclave" and it checks your fingerprints and just returns "match" or "no match" back to the OS (as I understand it).
Technical details here https://www.quora.com/What-is-Apple’s-new-Secure-Enclave-and... but there's a white paper out there somewhere too.
If anything, this kind of set-up is what gives me some faith that Apple might do self-driving cars correctly, rather than other manufacturers who think it's somehow okay that the entertainment system runs on the same device that can change driving parameters. Apple clearly needs to up their game too, but it's clear that the possibility of hacking cars is a Bad Thing, and as cars get more networked and more smart it seems clear that some car manufacturers do not seem to have the in-house expertise capable of doing it responsibly, so I wouldn't be surprised if a tech company actually ends up doing a better job (whether that's Apple or Google or whoever).
All that you've said rests on this single word - pretty much everything you've described is just taking Apple's word for it. I don't know where you get this faith from. Yes, they say they don't have any way into this "Secure Enclave" from the OS.
We're living in a world where instructions passing through a processor can be sniffed over GSM frequencies from metres away. You're telling me that not a single engineer at Apple, who knows the entire system inside out, can think of any possible way to get data from a device it is physically, electronically connected to and communicates directly with? Not a single obscure "debugging" mode was left in for convenience?
You have nothing but blind faith.
Note that the secure enclave is a separate co-processor with its own memory. It's secure even if the entire OS kernel is compromised.
> Each Secure Enclave is provisioned during fabrication with its own UID (Unique ID) that is not accessible to other parts of the system and is not known to Apple. [my emphasis] When the device starts up, an ephemeral key is created, entangled with its UID, and used to encrypt the Secure Enclave’s portion of the device’s memory space. Additionally, data that is saved to the file system by the Secure Enclave is encrypted with a key entangled with the UID and an anti-replay counter.
Note that for the 'rogue engineer' attack, you have to assume that other people at Apple are either colluding with this person or incompetent. Which is not impossible, but it's a little more than just blind faith. Note that the secure enclave has existed for over two years now, since the A7 chip was introduced, and we're yet to see an attack, and I'm sure it's not for lack of trying. If there's a backdoor they're hiding it well, and what would they get out of it anyway?
The white paper is here if you're interested: https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
It honestly just seems like a waste of time to me. That and the fact that I never see Apple employees at conferences etc. - it makes me not want to work there.
That seems optimistic at best. As the OP demonstrates, the secrecy leads to gossip and rumours.
If you cannot even SEE or talk about their project with the members of the other teams, that stops right there. Sure, you can rumour in the cafeteria about it.
Besides you get gossips and rumours also in normal, not secretive companies, only there they get even more specific.
Here the rumours are mostly "wtf are they building?", not the bad kind to have.
Not sure if am that much of an Apple fan to ever wanting to buy such car. Probably would feel like literally giving up all freedom of choice.
There is no chance -- at all, whatsoever -- that Apple would release a car that does any of the things you suggest. Sure, the Apple watch would open the doors, and the entertainment system would integrate with Apple Music, and iCloud would probably get a new feature called Find My Car.
But none of those things would be required in any way.
I'd actually be surprised if it is the other way around. The only way to kill keys is to render them non-compliant.
If anything, they would build a car that is accessible to everyone, and have better iDevice integration to push iDevice sales. Makes no sense to do it the other way around.
1. PC - Initially made for one particular store out of garage. It benefitted them to focus on just that store, because it gave them a feel of exclusive store without having one. Customers would come in, and buy there, because there was no price comparison possible with other stores. With price comparison came product comparison, and all PC companies as small as Apple lost business because of that. This was also accidentally done as Apple got a sizeable order from one single store, and they didn't have proper bandwidth to deliver even that.
2. Music - Initial iPod was Mac only. Steve mentions over and over in documentaries and books that it was the only reason he could convince music companies to let him sell music for $0.99 on iTunes. Too small a product, they thought, for tiny Mac-only player, it would be a good publicity thing. Had iTunes was a global platform from day one, it would be selling you full albums, with a complimentary CD delivered to door. Shipping and handling additional.
3.iPhone - AT&T only. And on this one people cried. But it helped Apple with becoming the OTT king, because they could always say, there is not propertization of telephony here, we only work with one carrier.
Self-driving cars will have a battle with a lot of authorities, in a lot of countries. Nobody knows how many turtles exist in that cave. So it helps starting small.
Do not even think of trying to go fast to Google HQ...
Or how about a red light district ?! Some kind of age verification for each passenger for sure.
-----
I think an important use of self driving cars will be to travel longish distances over night. This may even happen frequently - several times a week.
People will want their own bedding, clothes, wash things and so on if doing that. Logically then, at the high end at least, people will own the vehicle.
Of course, other services will be pod cars in cities, and more hotel-like overnight rentals. But I see no reason Apple couldn't sell a large number of permanently owned driverless campervans.
0 = https://www.linkedin.com/pub/frank-fearon/16/687/3a0 1 = http://litmotors.com
If they made the same vehicle with some kind of device that solves the stability issue in a passive way I'd be totally in.
I only contest that losing power would be the end of you (it very well might, but there are many plausible survival scenarios).
Try turning at a relatively high speed without leaning correctly and we'll see if that wikipedia article saves you from the road rash. In these proposed vehicles you are giving control of that to some hardware that "supposedly works" and software that "supposedly works".
To each his own I guess, I wouldn't ride one of those, let alone everyday, let alone on a highway.
My favorite link to paste on the subject: http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php
You basically proved my point.
I read your comment to imply that the rider's body lean is what initiates a turn, rather than their handlebar input. Or that the rider must actively lean (their body), rather than allowing the bike to lean them over.
Your other reply to jsprogrammer says that "it's pretty obvious that the passenger needs to be shifting its weight to achieve that." But that's precisely what I'm saying is wrong. No weight shift is required at all to do any street-riding turns. When the handlebars are steered, the bike will force you over. When a seated driver of the C1 turns the bars, the seat will move their body over, they don't have to do any work.
If you're on a racetrack, then yeah, shift your weight and eek out sharper turns, but you'll look silly shifting your weight around when riding on public streets or a highway.
Cheesy video that shows it better than I can explain. Skip to 2:25. https://youtu.be/8_5Z3jyO2pA
It's not the technology, it's the liability issues that have to be resolved before self-driving vehicles really become feasible.
Can you imagine the corporate finger pointing and circle jerking that's going to happen the first time somebody gets killed in an accident cause by a self-driven vehicle?
And somebody is bound to get killed because there is no way possible to code all of the possible scenarios that can happen on a road or guarantee 100% that the hardware will function properly.
I have yet to hear an insurance company step up and state how they are going to handle these issues.
It seems like a mess. I have a good driving record and enjoy pretty cheap insurance rates ($25/month from Insurance Panda). I also enjoy taking my car out for a spin and enjoying the ‘freedom’ of being able to drive anywhere. Will the driverless car allow all this? If not, I’ll have to pass.
I've also haven't heard an insurance company step up and say they will insure a self driving car. Until this happens all this talk about self driving cars is really a non-starter.
Well, if a company puts out a decent self-driving car will great commercial opportunities, any smart insurance company will want to get a hand at that pie (insuring its drivers).
From then, it's up to how good the car company can convince the insurance company that their car will have an equal or less accident rate than a regular car.
If the car company can show them that it has an equal accident rate, an insurance company would be stupid not to insure it. And doubly stupid if the car company could show the cars having a smaller accident rate.
So shouldn't be that difficult -- and far easier than also having to convince the buying public.
On Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/uOCwX
[1] http://wikimapia.org/14471022/Mythbusters-Dirty-vs-Clean-Car...
How will they prevent someone from renting a house nearby and spying on them with a drone?
(referencing Palm CEO's Ed Colligan’s remarks before the iPhone introduction).
Has Apple ever heard of drones? They won't be able to hide this much longer if they are testing it in the open.
Just live near a car company and you'd see cars wrapped in black driving around.
I feel as though not all these cars are just for mapping. LIDAR + cameras + inconspicuous makes me think it could also be self driving
And the ubiquity of that design as a child's pedal toy is precisely what should have some folks concerned.
Apple seems to have a long history of vendor lock on hardware components that go in to their systems. I expect they view self-driving cars as a similar opportunity -- for regulatory reasons they could push heavily for use of only vendor-supplied parts, resulting in a tightly closed system. I would also expect a limited number of models to enter the market each year -- just as we see for Apple computer products.
Contrast that with vehicles like the Honda Civic and Ford F150, where there is comparatively a large product range, and an even more enormous range of after-market parts for repair and customization.
I suspect self-driving cars will reach a point of market saturation when they become cheaper than human-driven cars, aided by vendors touting the extremely high safety ratings and environmental protection value.
And when self-driving cars are here in force, I expect we'll actually see the loss of ability to work on your own car that is decried today by folks who advocate classic car technology over cars with computer systems.
Within our community the real question around self-driving cars should be the ability to create an open platform, and whether this is a space that hobbyists should be permitted to operate. Without this, we'll all be driving Lowly's Apple car in a few years.