These are expensive unnecessary gimmicks

He speaks like a man with a brain.

Most people don't. Most people just spend a long time in traffic driving short distances

He speaks like a man who commutes on vastly different routes everyday

@@KamiInValhalla no

You are missing the underlying point. This lawyer--me--spent the better part of 20 years commuting 2 hours or more per all over the Bay Area. I know exactly how bad the 101, 280, 580, 680, 24, etc can be. The point is this: the longer your commute the more enjoyable the car should be to DRIVE. It does not have to be fast, it should be engaging. It does not require a Porsche or a sports car to get that. There are lots of well designed daily drivers that are fun to drive.

I don't know man. I was the Gameboy generation, extra batteries and all. But every time we went somewhere new, My eyes were glued out the window. I think it depends on the kid, you know?

Murdock, I feel sorry for your teen.

@@sethtenrec Don’t be, he is fine. Smart as a whip and happy! I’m sure his generation will figure out what they want for themselves. If that doesn’t include the same fascination that we had with cars, I don’t see that as a serious problem. 😀 it’s just different.

@@octavius8562 I am largely the same. I don’t really enjoy driving and I am looking forward to the option of self driving cars. However, I don’t think they will come as soon as most people believe. I mean they have been “right around the corner” for 15-20 years now. 😀

@@undefined7141 I think you are making some really big assumptions. 😀

8gb 256gb 😂😂

I definitely agree, Thank you for saying this because he did not understand anything lol

Actually, it's a glaring fact that SUVs and crossovers are more profitable than sedans and coupes. Manufacturers don't just react to demand. They create it as well. Yes, Americans "want" bigger spaces because we're told that's what we want by tons of marketing. Back in the day, the must have family vehicle was the station wagon. Then Chrysler introduced the Voyager and Caravan in 1984 and the minivan era exploded. Supply creates demand. Second, an SUV/XO doesn't mean a dull driving experience. The first SUVs were based on truck chassis and well drove like trucks. There are a number of SUVs that still are based on truck chassis, but the driving dynamics have been vastly improved. And crossovers are by definition built on car chassis, again in part to provide improved handling and ride characteristics. And I've owned 4 SUV/crossovers, and picked those that were at least modestly enjoyable. True most folks are not driving "enthusiasts." But then why do so many car commercials emphasize the driving experience?

@@rsachs the marketing has cracked me up for years now. But it works and people rush to buy these cars that they’ll be bored of just 3 months later .. then after being stuck with what ended up being just another car for the last 2 -3 years, they rush out to trade-in for or lease the new and way better model that they keep seeing on cool commercials and that the YT “car enthusiast” channels are all raving about. Rinse and repeat.

Spoiler alert, it has more to do with Apple corporation making money.

"Driving is tedious"---to you. Perhaps you drive tedious cars? Lots of cars are as dull as dirt, but plenty are not. There are many affordable sedans today that offer plenty of power and handling that 20 years ago you could only find in a sports car. The Kia Stinger, for example, has 300 Hp and does 0-60 in 4.7s. The 2002 Corvette had 350 Hp and did 0-60 in just over 5s.

@@rsachs Cars are expensive money eating machines. To most people, driving cars is an unpleasant necessity to get from A to B. Getting there as fast and comfortable as possible, is what most want. Car enthusiasts are a minority.

See my first comment. The more time you spend driving a car, the more enjoyable the car should be to drive.

Apple has your iPhone data which can be located and see your speed. If you connect your phone to the apple car it will have a better connection. I’m assuming this is apples plan

@@ashranbakth5861 Apple recognizes that cars will be the next great entertainment platform and they want to be able to include cars in their ecosystem. Sony is thinking the same thing, and the orientation of the large Tesla screens is no accident either, nor is Tesla just dabbling in video games for kicks. Robo taxis will be summoned based on price, availability, and entertainment options.

😂

Exactly. The patent industry has become a farce! It is starting to cause problems. Many patents are awarded that should not be.

A year later Vision Pro says hold my beer.

Lol what?

Good use case

I’m sure people said the same thing about automatic windows. Who needs to pay extra for that when I got my ArMs?!?

I have owned an EV for several years now and can honestly say I have never thought of plugging it in as a burden. It’s kinda enjoyable really, because it is a regular reminder of the money I save and the hassle I avoid going to get gas.

I am sure said the same thingh about automatic indicator switch off after the turn coz it just a mini second to turn off the indicator.

The patent expert totally missed this so I do not blame you for missing it to, but the point is that Apple is planning on having autonomous driving robo taxis, and EV robo taxis will need to be able to go and charge themselves without having someone there to plug them in.

But this solution also assuages some of that fear people have of forgetting to plug in their ev and not having enough juice to make their commute (slightly irrational, but a real reason why some people aren’t getting evs)

Only the first time? 😂🤣

@@CNET nah u good!great channel

Have you watched all the others? Maybe you should have given up earlier it was a long time to keep waiting for a good one ☺️

💀

Or adding motion sickness even more.

I did realize this. Not all of the patents here "makes sense for this autonomous car." The active glare suppression and the AR patent assume a human driver.

Good call. Thanks

If they don't, there's always the choice to just not buy their car! :-D

Lmmfao

People don't understand that the lighting port is 10 years old now, at that time everyone had different charging ports, but mostly it was micro USB, the worst port to ever exist, apple chose to make their own port that didn't break after 3 charges

At least he doesn’t have apples garbage

I was an early adopter of Apple products, from the Apple II and the original Mac 128 in 1984 to a pile of Air notebooks (that I sold at a garage sale last weekend, at a very steep discount) and everything in between. I was a complete Mac fanatic from many years, probably well before you were in short pants. Today, I simply take issue Apple's design philosophy.

Oh calm down, fan boy. I own multiple apple products, so don't accuse me of being anti-apple. Some of these patents show implementation of technologies that will cost 2 arms and a leg (good thing they're autonomous). Like others have suggested, much presented here could be specific to transpo vans/vehicles that aren't for personal ownership and use. Stay tuned! (How's that for an antiquated saying?)

Maybe we’ll do another round of this 🙃

Or an amusement park vehicle?

Expect the apple tax

You have no idea how most patents are. They are all mostly abstract ideas from which technologies develop from.

@@well7885 hilarious. That's like being able to patent feelings or philosophy.

I boiled down the patents to make them easy to understand in 30 seconds. The actual details--the real legalese--is more complex, and so I only briefly touched upon it.

I did not miss the the point. First, the alternate route technology does not apply to "people who driver the same route day after day." You can't be the driver and use this tech. You'd be the passenger. And that means you are off in VR land. Now assuming there is a driver, then at best you could be telling the driver about what you are experiencing, but that's a bit dull for the driver. True, if there is no driver, then entertain away.

There will be no drivers in the future. Only passengers.

Apple never had the experience of phone design either. Now see where they are.

Our patent system is not about "genuine innovation." We don't know a priori what inventions are real innovations and what are not, and it's not appropriate for the government to decide that--that is the function of the marketplace. Indeed, Britian had a restrictive patent system based largely on identifying what you would call "genuine innovation" and investment. The problem is that this very anti-democratic. It excludes those without the money and the research labs. The Framers of the Constitution were well aware of this, and intentionally created a system that was open to everyone. Read Khan, "Premium Inventions: Patents and Prizes as Incentive Mechanisms in Britain and the United States, 1750-1930." She shows that "the inventors in the U.S. were drawn from a much broader spectrum of the population than were their counterparts in Britain,", that " much of the important invention during the early stages of U.S. industrialization came from individuals with only very limited formal schooling, [which] raises questions about what sorts of technical or scientific knowledge were really required to make a significant discovery," and "the examination of the record for the great inventors and the prizes or honours that they were accorded for their discoveries provides little evidence that this approach toward encouraging private investment in inventive activity was especially effective."