The biggest NEW thing here is that this isn't white-labeled. Apple is officially acknowledging Google as the model that will be powering Siri. That explicit acknowledgment is a pretty big deal. It will make it harder for Apple to switch to its own models later on.
Yes, Apple is acknowledging that Google's Gemini will be powering Siri and that is a big deal, but are they going to be acknowledging it in the product or is this just an acknowledgment to investors?
Apple doesn't hide where many of their components come from, but that doesn't mean that those brands are credited in the product. There's no "fab by TSMC" or "camera sensors by Sony" or "display by Samsung" on an iPhone box.
It's possible that Apple will credit Gemini within the UI, but that isn't contained in the article or video. If Apple uses a Gemini-based model anonymously, it would be easy to switch away from it in the future - just as Apple had used both Samsung and TSMC fabs, or how Apple has used both Samsung and Japan Display. Heck, we know that Apple has bought cloud services from AWS and Google, but we don't have "iCloud by AWS and GCP."
Yes, this is a more public announcement than Apple's display and camera part suppliers, but those aren't really hidden. Apple's dealings with Qualcomm have been extremely public. Apple's use of TSMC is extremely public. To me, this is Apple saying "hey CNBC/investors, we've settled on using Gemini to get next-gen Siri happening so you all can feel safe that we aren't rudderless on next-gen Siri."
Apple won't take the risk of being blamed for AI answers being incorrect. They will attribute Google/Gemini so users know how to be mad at if it doesn't work as expected.
Apple is already taking the risk of being blamed for their own AI right now, though (an AI that is much more prone to incredibly dumb errors than Gemini), so I don't find it that obvious that they wouldn't just continue taking the blame for Siri as they already do, except with an actually smarter Siri.
This is a double-edged sword. Apple would love any failure to be blamed on Google, but not the branding to go with it.
Apple's brand is so dominant that even if they say Siri is "powered by Google", most users will still perceive it as an Apple service. The only way that changes is if Apple consistently and prominently surfaces the Google name on Siri — which seems unlikely (but who knows when the stakes are so high).
Maybe they'd prefer it for aesthetics, but OTOH in iOS 18.2+ they support off-device ChatGPT and apparently refer to it as "ChatGPT" both in settings and when prompting the user to ask if they want to use it.
If they do refer to it as "Gemini" then this is a huge win for Google, and huge loss for OpenAI, since it really seems that the "ChatGPT" brand is the only real "moat" that OpenAI have, although recently there has been about a 20% shift in traffic from ChatGPT to Gemini, so the moat already seems to be running dry.
I don't see why - iOS originally shipped with Google Maps as standard, for example. Macs shipped with Internet Explorer as standard before Safari existed
The Google Maps situation is a great example of why this will be hard. When Apple switched to their own maps it was a huge failure resulting in a rare public apology from the company. In order to switch you have to be able to do absolutely everything that the previous solution offered without loss of quality. Given Google's competence in AI development that will be a high bar to meet.
It is pretty much impossible. How are they going to build the data centers on the scale required when all the RAM and GPUs in the world are bought up for the foreseeable future?
Well, yeah, Apple's Maps.app wasn't good enough when it launched (it's solid now though). That feels like a separate thing from white labeling and lock-in. Obviously they would have to switch to something of similar or better quality or users will be upset.
But it's a whole lot easier to switch from Gemini to Claude or Gemini to a hypothetical good proprietary LLM if it's white label instead of "iOS with Gemini"
I prefer Apple Maps for turn-by-turn navigation and public transit. However, I still keep Google Maps around for business data and points of interest. This is where Apple Maps is still lacking significantly. The fact that Apple still prompts me to download Yelp to view images of a business is insane to me.
Depends on where you are. In my experience here in Sweden Google Maps is still better, Apple maps sent us for a loop in Stockholm (literally {{{(>_<)}}} )
I thought it was Google refusing to provide turn by turn directions?
Apple announced last year they are putting their own ads in Maps so if that was the real problem the corporate leadership has done a complete 180 on user experience.
I think Google was withholding them unless Apple was willing to put the ads in.
Apple is a very VERY different company than they were back then.
Back then they didn’t have all sorts of services that they advertised to you constantly. They didn’t have search ads in the App Store. They weren’t trying to squeeze every penny out of every customer all the time no matter how annoying.
Google Search also has ads in it, but that didn't stop Apple from keeping it as the default, and now Apple is adding ads to Apple Maps. GP is correct. Google withheld turn by turn navigation from the iOS app. There are many deficiencies in the iOS platform, but this one was glaringly visible, forcing Apple's hand.
Apple does ads but they have a very particular taste with it. Not necessarily a better taste, but they do it in their own apple way. They're very much control freaks.
I was in agreement with the parent before I read this, and now I'm in agreement with you. It is a great example, I know so many people who never switched back to Apple Maps because it was so poor initially. Personally I find it a considerably better experience than Google Maps these days, but those lost users still aren't coming back.
Mobile digital mapping was already a useful thing though. Even though Apple Maps was initially a failure I still came back to it every so often to see how it was progressing and eventually it ended up pretty good.
Maybe I'm weird but mobile assistants have never been useful for me. I tried Siri a couple of times and it didn't work. I haven't tried it since because even if it worked perfectly I'm not sure I'd have any use for it.
I see it more like the Vision Pro. Doesn't matter how good the product ends up being, I just don't think it's something most people are going to have a use for.
As far as I'm concerned no one has proved the utility of these mobile assistants yet.
Apple ultimately developed their own map application specifically because Google was unwilling to remove the Google logo from the Google Maps app, no matter the price.
It'll absolutely be interesting to see if "Google" or "Gemini" appear anywhere in the new Siri UI.
As someone who hasn’t used Google Search in several years, I will be upset and less inclined to use the AI if it’s kicking me out to Google search result pages to show results. This is what I fear. Some of this already happens with Siri and Apple Intelligence today. I’m sure Google would love to see even more of it, to serve up ads and take advantage of their new revenue streams in agentic shopping.
The ChatGPT integration was heavily gated by Apple and required explicit opt-in. That won't be the case with the Gemini integration. Apple wants this to just work. The privacy concerns will be mitigated because Apple will be hosting this model themselves in their Private Cloud Compute. This will be a much more tightly integrated solution than ChatGPT was.
An abstraction layer doesn’t prevent Google from seeing the data. Last year the story was that Apple would be running a Google model on their (Apple’s) own server hardware.
This story says the custom model will run on-device and in Apple's Private Cloud Compute. The implication is that Google will not see the data. The "promise" of Private Cloud Compute is that Apple wants it to be trusted like "on-device".
Presumably cutting Google out of getting the data from this is part of why this story first was mentioned last year but is only now sounds close to happening. I think it's the same story/project.
I think they want it to work well with web search. That’s why Google is the obvious choice. Also their ai offering is low risk of getting eliminated where as open ai could fail at any time
It appears to be lack of competence given they lied about the initial features of Apple Intelligence.
First, they touted features that no one actually built and then fired their AI figurehead “leader” who had no coherent execution plan—also, there appears to have been territorial squabbling going on, about who would build what.
How on earth did Apple Senior Management allow this to unravel? Too much focus on Services, yet ignoring their absolute failures with Siri and the bullshit that was Apple Intelligence, when AI spending is in the trillions?
There is just too much money being burned in AI for Apple to keep researchers. Also models have no respect for original art which leads to a branding issue of being a platform for artists.
Apple is competent at timing when to step into a market and I would guess they are waiting for AI to evolve beyond being considered untrustworthy slop.
Don't think that's an especially big deal, they've always included third party data in Siri or the OS which is usually credited (Example: Maps with Foursquare or TomTom, Flight information from FlightAware, Weather data and many more).
All while Waymo is expanding to more and more cities, including Detroit where it will deal with snow and ice. Waymo is years ahead of Tesla in the self-driving race. It's possible Tesla never succeeds in launching a truly self-driving car.
I think is really interesting how it's often suggested Waymo is at a disadvantage over Tesla due to its reliance on LIDAR and the costs associated with it. But the reality is that it's enabled Waymo to move faster and gain significant more operational experience than Tesla, and that's far more important than front loading with cost reductions in a service business.
Tesla have been operating as a product business, and cost reduction of that product was key to scale and profitability. I completely understand why they have focused on optical sensors for autopilot, lidar was always going to be impossibly expensive for a consumer product.
Waymo on the other hand have always been aiming to build a service business and that changes the model significantly, they need to get to market and gain operational experience. Doing that with more expensive equipment to move faster is exactly what was needed. They can worry about cost of building their cars later, much later.
It's already cost effective. Lidar prices have been divided by like 10 in a bit more than a decade. I've read a Wall street story about a SV company that wanted to enter the Lidar market for cars, only to bifurcate to a weird scam and a SPAC when they realized as the prices fell that Lidar would never be a very profitable.
Lidar production costs have already scaled. Now it need more miniaturization (which will help with production costs even more) and something against diffraction.
Oh, yeh, don't get me wrong. I meant impossibly expensive to drop into a mid range car with no scaling up from a higher value lower volume product range first.
It's also quite ugly, not sure you can have it on a convertible etc. - all probably solvable, but not ideal. I can see why Tesla tried the camera only approach but doesn't look like it's working out
To each their own, but it's possible having sensor bumps on your car become a status symbol that indicates you can afford a private driver.
> not sure you can have it on a convertible etc.
Radically different car shapes are possible when human driving never happens or is very rare. Maybe a small van (like a private lounge on wheels, or a train observation car) with a huge panoramic sunroof becomes en vogue.
Due to its choice to use LIDAR. Waymo has tested a working system using cameras only, but they choose to use LIDAR because it is safer and does not significantly change cost.
> Waymo on the other hand have always been aiming to build a service business
> Waymo on the other hand have always been aiming to build a service business and that changes the model significantly
This isn't the main factor. The main factor is Waymo only does this one thing. Tesla has been: building electric cars and forcing all car makers to do the same; building charging networks; funding and releasing free of charge battery tech research improvements; and doing self driving, and all of it while trying to make a profit to keep running. Waymo is funded by Google, which has infinitely deep ads-spying-on-you pockets. Which is just much, much easier.
Building a self-driving car is more difficult as evidenced by no one having delivered one except for Google. Many companies (including astronomically rich ones like Apple) have tried.
The cost for Waymo is the whole car, so Waymo is in it at ~$100k per operational taxi. They are beholden to hardware manufacturers for their product.
Tesla is trying to get in at ~$20k per operational taxi, with everything made in house.
Assuming Tesla can figure out it's FSD (and convince people it's safe), they could dramatically undercut Waymo on price, while still being profitable. If a Waymo to the airport is $20, and Robotaxi is $5, Tesla will win, regardless of anything else (assuming equal safety).
This is just Google doing what they've done for years now: start with the software, partner with hardware OEMs, then build their own hardware. Android to Nexus to Pixel line is one example, Google Now on Tap to their own smart speakers is another (though they may not have hit the third step there yet), and Waymo / Google Maps to self driving is following the same path.
The cost discussion on LIDAR always confused a layman like me. How much more expensive is it that it seemed like such a splurge? LIDAR seems to be the only thing that could make sense to me. The fact Tesla does it with only cameras (please correct me understanding if I'm wrong) never made sense to me. The benefits of LIDAR seem huge and I'd assume they'd just become more cost effective over time if the tech became more high in demand.
> How much more expensive is it that it seemed like such a splurge?
LiDARs at the time Tesla decided against them were $75k per unit. Currently they are $9,300 per car with some promising innovations around solid state LiDAR which could push per-unit down to hundreds of dollars.
Tesla went consumer first so at the time, a car would've likely cost $200k+ so it makes sense why they didn't integrate it. I believe their idea was to kick off a flywheel effect on training data.
Lidar will continue to get cheaper, but it has fundamental features that limit how cheap it can get that passive vision does not.
You’re sending your own illumination energy into the environment. This has to be large enough that you can detect the small fraction of it that is reflected back at your sensor, while not being hazardous to anything it hits, notably eyeballs, but also other lidar sensors and cameras around you. To see far down the road, you have to put out quite a lot of energy.
Also, lidar data is not magic: it has its own issues and techniques to master. Since you need vision as well, you have at least two long range sensor technologies to get your head around. Plus the very real issue of how to handle their apparent disagreements.
The evidence from human drivers is that you don’t absolutely need an active illumination sensor to be as good as a human.
The decision to skip LiDAR is based on managing complexity as well as cost, both of which could reduce risk getting to market.
That’s the argument. I don’t know who is right. Waymo has fielded taxis, while Tesla is driving more but easier autonomous miles.
The acid test: I don’t use the partial autonomy in my Tesla today.
Does the "sensor fusion" argument that Tesla made against LiDAR make as much sense now that everyone is basically just plugging all the sensor data into a large NN model?
It's still a problem conceptually, but in practice now that it's end to end ML, plug'n'pray, I guess it's an empirical question. Which gives one the willies a bit.
It'll always be a challenge to get ground truth training data from the real world, since you can't know for sure what was really out there causing the disagreeing sensor readings. Synthetic data addresses this, but requires good error models for both modalities.
On the latter, an interesting approach that has been explored a little is to SOAK your synthetic sensor training data in noise so that the details you get wrong in your sensor model are washed out by the grunge you impose, and only the deep regularities shine through. Avoids overfitting to the sim. This is Jakobi's 'Radical Envelope of Noise Hypothesis' [1], a lovely idea since it means you might be able to write a cheap and cheerful sim that does better than a 'good' one. Always enjoyed that.
Exactly, and the Waymo sensors are practically a superset of those of Tesla, so with all the acquired data, then can build models that slowly phase out the need for Lidars.
It seems to me Tesla's mistake was over optimism about AI. Musk always seemed to believe they'd have it cracked the following year but it seems to be taking its time.
If I recall correctly, at the last Tesla AI Day, he said ~"FSD basically requires AGI."
There is a lot to unwrap there, but that's what he said. I believe at that moment he was in ML talent recruitment mode, and yet he admitted the true scale of this issue that Tesla faces given the vision-only direction.
The surprising thing to me is when you look at Starlink, there was a very expensive blocker there: consumer phased array. Prior to Starlink, I think the cheapest consumer unit was around $50k. That did not stop Musk from charging ahead.
Is there some technological thing about LiDAR that would prevent similar cost reductions? Or, is it just the philosophical difference over pre-mapping, and not doing so?
LIDAR has seen many cost reductions as capabilities continue to increase. I don't know the area well enough to speculate how much optimization might be left.
> Or, is it just the philosophical difference over pre-mapping, and not doing so?
It seems to be a "burn the ships" style bet that the Tesla engineers will get to camera-only self driving first without having ever relied on LIDAR. It's equally as likely (or moreso) that Waymo could get there first with better ground truth data from the LIDAR.
I think it's that with Tesla he had hardware to sell (and maybe already sold?) to existing customers with the contractual promise that they'd get self-driving as soon as TESLA cracked it. Retrofitting LIDAR into all those already sold cars would have been pretty expensive at the time, and the more he doubles down the more monstrously expensive it'll get.
With Starlink, there was no baseline consumer product to sell before getting it working.
Yeah, that makes perfectly rational sense to me. But, still disappointing as Musk is one of the few CEOs in a position to admit miscalculations, and pivot. The only thing I am left with is uncharitable, and it involves online ego.
> lidar was always going to be impossibly expensive for a consumer product.
I just don't buy this at all
>"The new iPad Pro adds ... a breakthrough LiDAR Scanner that delivers cutting-edge depth-sensing capabilities, opening up more pro workflows and supporting pro photo and video apps." [1]
Yes of course the specs of LiDAR on a car are higher but if apple are putting it on iPads I just don't buy the theory that an affordable car-spec LiDAR is totally out of the realm of the possible. One of the things istr Elon Musk saying is that one of the reasons they got rid of the LiDAR is the problem of sensor fusion - what do you do when the LiDAR says one thing and the vision says something different.
Tesla got rid of radar because of sensor fusion, and particularly for reasons that wouldn't apply to high resolution radar. Sensor fusion with a high resolution source like LiDAR isn't particularly tricky.
The iPad lidar has a range of a handful of meters indoors and is not safety critical.
Higher specs can make all the difference. A model rocket engine vs Space Shuttle main engine, for an extreme example. Or a pistol round vs an anti-armor tank round. The cost of the former says nothing at all about the latter.
They are getting there. But that link has big caveats. Not sure how cool it is to endanger other people’s cameras.
From your linked page:
>
Important Use responsibly
The lidar and features that can rely on it are supplements to safe driving practices. They do not reduce or replace the need for the driver to stay attentive and focused on driving safely.
Safe for the eyes
The lidar is not harmful to the eyes.
Lidar light waves can damage external cameras
Do not point a camera directly at the lidar. The lidar, being a laser based system, uses infrared light waves that may cause damage to certain camera devices. This can include smartphones or phones equipped with a camera.
Waymo can just add the cameras exactly the way Tesla has, and train based only on that information.
Now it has tons and tons of data, they could gradually remove the Lidar on cities that they've driven over and over again. IF driving without Lidar is worth it... maybe it isn't even worth it and we should pursue using Lidars in order to further reduce accidents.
Meanwhile people use Tesla sporadically in a few spots they consider safe, they will always have data that isn't useful at all, as it can already drive on those spots.
--
Another thing, we can definitely afford to have Lidars on every car, if that would make our cars safer.
Imagine if China does a huge supply chain of Lidars, I bet the cost would be very tiny. And this is supposing there aren't any more automation and productivity gains in the future, which is very unlikely.
Lidar production just doesn't have that big scale, because it's a very tiny market as of now. With scale, those prices would fall like batteries and other hardware have fallen with the years.
"Tesla will never release a truly self driving car" unless they significantly change direction.
It is possible to fool a camera with some specs of dust at close range. They have interior safety camera, and everyone I know put a cover on it all the time.
Of course it’s not only possible but virtually a certainty that an approach to doing anything difficult will be refined, modified and improved as lessons are learned.
Does anyone now care how much SpaceX changed their reuse strategy for the falcon 9?
Of course not. It only matters that they found a way that works.
>You mean to say a company or person will change their approach, adapt and grow as they learn how to best achieve their goal?
There's nothing wrong with that in a vacuum, but it's objectively a different story when the company chooses to turn it into an enormous financial liability. That is a massive practical difference, with extremely pertinent example being Tesla vs SpaceX. SpaceX has had enormous success running a hardware rich testing regime, and they're very willing to move fast and break things... but NEVER with customer payloads. Which is how that aphorism was supposed to be applied. You can and often should be extremely aggressive exploring the entire problem space in testing before you move into final build and then production, but once you're dealing with customers then it has to be done very differently.
Tesla absolutely could have experimented to their heart's desire without making any financial promises let alone actually entering into end customer contracts and taking hundreds of millions of dollars in preorder money for a future feature on ass-pulled timelines. But that's not the path they took, and that leaves them in a much uglier position when it comes to reacting to data and changing their approach because they've already locked in hardware to paying customers. That's the exact opposite of what SpaceX or any normal responsible company does.
It would be sad if Tesla or some other entity doesn't compete in the space? I dont want a monolpoly or even a duopoly. Give me 4 or 5 players for true choice and competition.
Has Waymo become successful reaching a critical mass of users yet? If so, they would most likely shut it down based on historical examples. Imagine if they had sold those deprecated products instead. Maybe not a financial significance, but there'd be some interesting products still kicking
Considering Boston Dynamics sat around for like 15 years being a research lab and only started commercializing when they were sold... I'd agree.
Argue with that as you like but Google _loves_ to sit around on good ideas and, in my opinion, hamstring them away from pushing their products to commercialization.
What's the highest revenue product that Google shut down? Maybe Google+? But I wouldn't be surprised if Waymo is already making way more revenue than Google+ ever did, while barely scratching the surface of immediate demand.
was G+ around long enough to generate revenue at all? there was no activity on it that would have been worthy to buy ad space within it. obviously, theGoog had the advantage of owning the ad space just like they had an advantage of converting all G users to G+ users without consent from those users. Even with that, they still had no users
Yeah, I don't blame anyone for thinking Google shuts down products constantly, but to be fair, they're making hundreds of billions per year and the stuff they shut down are almost all little hobby projects that people love, but are a terrible business for them. That's pretty different from shutting down Waymo.
Isn't the lesson from the success of TSLA, that you don't compete on price? That's what made Tesla the first successful EV. Because unlike the rest, they didn't try to compete on price and offer a mass market consumer vehicle. Instead they started with a roadster and then a luxury saloon both targeting the upper end of the market.
I don't see the point of a budget taxi car. After all even the human driven counterparts tend to be higher end luxury saloons or SUVs.
Robot Taxis will be competing on price. Whoever can release the lowest cost per mile and most reliable taxi will take lion's share simply because consumers are generally price conscious about transport. Very few will be analyzing the data if two are judged to be 'safe enough', it will come down to price.
Companies like BYD and Tesla are positioned well for that if they can get their AV functionality proven out as both are fully integrated car manufacturers.
Waymo doesn't have in-house manufacturing and is, to my knowledge, purely software so they have lots of vendors along with a relatively low output of vehicles. Their 2025 and 2026 plan is to build 2,500 new cars per year. Each Waymo car currently costs over $100k. Even if Tesla was pushing out Model Ys as their robotaxi platform, they could flood the market very easily in both scale and price per mile _if_ UFSD (unsupervised FSD) was proven.
I did a basic napkin calculation in the other comment. The price of the car is not that relevant per km than you make it to be.
I think self driving will be a commodity in the long term and every car will be able to do it. If Tesla will solve it purly by cameras, every other car manufacturer will be able to add this too. Perhaps a few years later but they will be able to do it too.
So Tesla has to leverage the first mover advantage, and they are loosing this already.
And while Musk says robot taxis are fundamental to tesla, the taxi market is actually not that big. All the broad nice areas like small cities etc. will buy a small fleet of cars and i don't think the price point of a Tesla will that crazy much cheaper than whatever everyone else will have that it will be obvous for everyone to just buy the Tesla model.
I alone will not use Tesla alone for Musk. Despite that, people might want to pay a euro more to have a SVU to have space or higher entry point than choosing the cheapest Tesla model to drive with.
Tesla can't flood the market very easily. If they could, they would have done it. And its expected that Tesla will not suddenly find the solution to their problems. They are optimizing away the next 9 at the 9x% reliability. Every additional 9 will take the same amount as the previous 9. And the nines are quite relevant if you look how many km these cars will have to drive.
If Americans were price conscious about transport they wouldn't be driving $60,000, 15mpg, oversized pickup trucks to go drop off their kids at daycare and commute to their office job, they'd be riding the bus.
Most Americans don't seem to consider the cost of their transportation in the slightest.
> If Americans were price conscious about transport they wouldn't be driving $60,000, 15mpg, oversized pickup trucks to go drop off their kids at daycare and commute to their office job, they'd be riding the bus.
> Most Americans don't seem to consider the cost of their transportation in the slightest.
Time is also an important cost. It would take us about 90 minutes from home to school to drop off my kid by bus (plus walking, since no bus stops near the school).
By car, it is 15 minutes worst case if I hit all red lights.
By car we leave home 8:15, kid is in school on time and I'm in my work meetings easily by 9:00.
By bus, we'd have to leave home at 6am and I might just barely make it in time for 9am meetings, or often be late.
So yes, people do consider the cost of transportation but it is not just dollars, also time.
The level of bus service is a societal choice. One could get bus service to be a lot more competitive in time. But I do agree, individuals do not have much control over bus schedules and people do what they can with what's currently available.
The context of the previous comments was clearly about monetary cost though, not other kinds of cost. There's also obviously environmental, health outcomes, etc, costs in question.
People who use ride share use more than one app because they can pick the one that is the cheapest. The people who use these will be price conscious.
Of course there will be other factors like amenities.
Personally, I think 'style' is going to be a non-insignificant factor to it as well. Few normies will want to get out of a 'nerd car' that has bulbous sensors all over it if they can pay a bit more to have a cooler looking ride, it's the Prius effect.
The style thing is just my opinion though but price will be the major one. People will tolerate an ugly robotaxi if it is significantly cheaper or more convenient.
With ride share you can take the cheap option 99 times out of 100, and then rent a limo for your hot date. And then rent a truck or movers when you need to move something. People buying vehicles usually buy something that covers all their needs, however rare.
So in other words, they value other things much higher than cost? Gee, sure sounds like exactly what I stated. People care more about other things than the cost, like how cool they look or how much departure angle they can achieve while they drive around in a parking garage. Overall TCO rarely figures into it.
I think other people might be smarter than you give them credit for and (for example) may chose a 30 minute car commute (plus associated dollar costs) over a much longer and multi-step public transportation trip.
Do other people not receive the same psychic damage from driving, especially during rush hour? Hopefully you're not texting during that 30 minutes that you're driving, but regardless, it's really draining to drive. Advanced lane guidance that actually works is amazing tho.
That 1 hour train commute's a nice way to unwind while doing something much more relaxing; reading a book, writing poems, making jewelry, knitting, writing letters to friends, etc
That's not to say every train commute's automatically better, 2 trains, a bus, and a tram over 1 hour would be annoying timed. I'm just saying wall clock time isn't the end all, be all metric.
Everything else held constant and I actually do have the time in my schedule, I'd generally prefer a 1 hour train ride to a half hour drive. I can spend that time doing lots of things I'd much rather do than force myself to stay focused on boring and at the same time stressful situations. I'm far more relaxed when I arrive. I'm probably getting dropped off closer than the parking garage. I'm not worried about my car getting vandalized/broken into/hit by other cars. I don't have to worry about finding a place to park or pay for parking. And its a considerably safer trip in the end.
> So in other words, they value other things much higher than cost?
This is what PP said:
> > Have you considered that Americans might value their time differently than you?
Not random other things, specifically time
Time is a lot more valuable than the other things. If I'm billing $250/hr and the bus round trip takes 3 hours, that's $750 per day lost. That completely dwarfs any of the other costs like car payment (which you don't need - buy a used car) and maintenance/insurance.
What you might not be considering is they didn't need a $60k+ oversized truck to go commute to their office job or a massive $70k 3-row SUV just because they have one kid now. That's the other side of my comment.
Not only do people tend to ignore (or even actively vote against) cheaper options they tend to then massively overbuy their more expensive form of transportation, at least if what they cared about was cost.
But it's not about cost. It's about comfort, style, lifestyle image projection, personal enjoyment, and more. Cost barely figures into it for so many.
If I were to ask the people I know "how much do you spend on transportation monthly on average", most probably wouldn't come close to having an answer. Many might be able to say their car payment. I doubt many would come close to factor in all the rest of their costs. It's crazy to me to see people balk at a $3 train fare to go into the city, "that's expensive!". Then when we calculate the cost for them to drive their oversized truck into town and back it's more expensive.
The premise you established is a false dichotomy. Original text:
> If Americans were price conscious about transport they wouldn't be driving $60,000, 15mpg, oversized pickup trucks to go drop off their kids at daycare and commute to their office job, they'd be riding the bus.
In reality, those are not the only two choices.
Riding the bus is extremely expensive unless your time is free, so that needs to be taken into account.
One can get a cheap efficient car and have all the time-saving benefits of a car and all the cost-saving benefits of a cheap one.
> One can get a cheap efficient car and have all the time-saving benefits of a car and all the cost-saving benefits of a cheap one.
They could, but they often don't.
The top selling passenger vehicles in the US are a pickup truck, a pickup truck, a small SUV, a pickup truck, a mid-sized SUV, a mid-sized SUV, a pickup truck, then finally a full-sized sedan, then a pick up truck, and then a compact car. I guess we're just all farmers and off-roaders here in the US. Maybe one day we'll get paved roads to commute to our office-based farming jobs, 'till then I guess we really need all that ground clearance.
You think all these people are basing these purchasing decisions of buying those pickup trucks entirely because its the more cost effective option to go get groceries and go to their office job?
Calculate how much a car can drive (200-400k km), then the avg cost of a car (50k vs. 100k) and the avg taxi route (5-30km).
The car itself is a price point of 10 to 40 cent pro km which has impact on the journey for sure but a lot less that it might be the reason.
if you tell me, that i can take the saver car and pay 1 euro more with a 20 euro fair, I wouldn't care.
Nonetheless, economy of scale has happened already at lidar and continues to happen.
If tesla can't get it running properly in bad weather but waymo can, they can also compensate it just by driving at situations were tesla doesn't want to drive.
But hey its just brainstorming at this point as tesla is not close enough to waymo to compare it properly. And while waymo exists, plenty of other companies exist too doing this. Nvidia itself will keep building their car platform which will level the playfield even more.
Whatever market selfdriving cars are, it will be split between everyone and no tesla will not just 'win' this. It will be a race to the bottom for everyone reducing the revenue to a commodity.
Amazon has their own PaaS offering called Elastic Beanstalk, with support for running docker containers and other popular platforms. It's not complicated to set up and is customizable if you need to tweak things. Any idea how Flightcontrol compares to this?
We acquired a company that use EB and they have no dedicated DevOps engineer. It was bad because every deploy is a full VM boot which takes a long time and you can't do things you can do with Argo Rollouts. We migrated them to EKS.
I casually asked our account manager "Do you know any local customer with EB success story?" Their answer was "Do you want to be one?"
garble actually sounds like an excellent utility to add some protection around things like keys/secrets in a binary. Is there anything like this for Swift binaries?
Obfuscation tools like these only slow down attackers, they can never stop them. Even the best in the game, where there are strong financial incentives on the line, fall to attackers typically in a matter of months.
As such, you should never use them to protect data that needs to stay secret indefinitely (or for a long time), such as keys.
That was my reasoning as well, I used to work for a company that really wanted code to be obfuscated because they were terrified of corporate espionage. Even though the one I was working on was just a configuration interface, and the configuration was plain text files, and the application didn't do anything special, just complicated (mobile network routing / protocols, lots of domain specific knowledge but as far as I know nothing secret or difficult to reproduce with enough resources).
Apps and websites get copied all the time. Somebody throws up a duplicate with ads and steals your traffic and search rankings and customers and whatever.
Adding code to prevent your product from working when it's not on the right app/domain, and obfuscating your code to obfuscate those checks, can be sadly necessary. It doesn't need to defeat a determined attacker, but just be hard enough they'll spend their time cloning something else instead.
There are occasions where you just want to make it a little harder to impersonate an official client where it can be useful to store a secret in the binary. It's still vulnerable but requires intention and actual effort.
Might have the opposite effect. Like a Streissand effect... hacker sees that the app is mysteriously hiding a secret? Makes you want to hack it just for the challenge, even if you had no intention before.
Probably a much better solution would be to store those as environment variables. I can't think any sane way where adding secrets to a binary would be useful unless you want to do something malicious with it.
Unless you’re launching the binary with c&c infrastructure receiving remote commands to start the binary, I don’t see how you would obtain the values to inject them into environment variables.
But even this case doesn't make much sense. I expect that instead of adding the secrets inside the binary you will go through to the more traditional ensuring that the client is logged in and that the secrets are stored in the server.
Unless you want your app to be used anonymously, but then why have secrets?
The use case I have encountered was for anonymous users where the company wanted to prevent unauthorized clients (copies of the app) from relying on the same server-side HTTP API used by the official app. The point wasn't to make it impossible for an unofficial to be used, but to make it harder than "trivial".
So the app used a digital signature / request signing with a key that was obfuscated and embedded in the binary. With anonymous users I don't know how else you could avoid use of the private API.
I am not saying that it can't be done, but I still find it a flawed solution. It probably works if your product is not really popular, but once you have anything remotely interesting and popular you can be sure that people will be analyzing your binaries and leaking your secrets faster that you can replace them.
An AI assistant lessens the fear of the blank page. It gets you started creatively so that you can work and it offers ideas which, even when they are bad, can lead you to something creatively satisfying. The important thing is that the AI is only an assistant and not the complete author. The human has to guide and tweak and rewrite a TON.
https://youtu.be/6Wv1btxCjVE?si=_1mvIHT3r_CQsuTZ