Apple Hires Blackberry Exec for Car Project; Project Team Heads in New Direction

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Apple’s annoyingly mysterious self-driving unicorn car project has a new team member.

Dan Dodge, founder and former CEO of Blackberry’s QNX automotive software division, has already joined the ranks of Apple’s shadowy “Project Titan” team, Bloomberg reports. After endless speculation about the future iCar (and what it will look like), sources close to the company say the project is now moving in different direction.

Is the Apple car fading from view?

The sources, who claim knowledge of Apple’s self-driving car project, told Bloomberg that the team’s leader, Bob Mansfield, is shifting the focus onto developing autonomous driving technology. The car project reportedly still exists, but the effort now lies elsewhere.

Recently, Apple announced plans to open an R&D facility near QNX’s headquarters in Ottawa, Canada. The proximity of the two facilities raises eyebrows.

Last year, we were told that the car would exist in some form by 2019. That meant anything from a production-ready vehicle to a blueprint. The unveiling date was then pushed back to 2020. Now, we’re hearing that the wraps won’t come off until 2021.

Apple is treating Project Titan like the Manhattan Project. Little, if any, usable information leaks out. At least, not from official channels. Research and development spending is up at Apple, but CEO Tim Cook didn’t have much useful to say during a conference call this week.

“There’s a lot of stuff that we’re doing beyond the current products,” Cook said. You can almost feel that car, can’t you?

While the Apple car exists as a celebrity ghost for now, there’s some reason to believe a driveable product will one day roll out of the company’s labs. (Though possibly not as a production vehicle.) If Apple wanted to test its autonomous technology through a fleet of road-going vehicles, it could have gone the Google route.

In May, Google partnered with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles to test its technology on a fleet of 100 Chrysler Pacifica minivans. That option is still open to Apple, but the company’s been dead silence on the possibility of partnering with an automaker.

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
9 of 17 comments
  • JMII JMII on Jul 28, 2016

    I wonder if all this Apple Car stuff is actual the development around a software / hardware package to add safety features to other cars and not an Apple designed and built car. In other words, this is imilar to CarPlay but way more advanced. My though process is this - Apple does a huge mount of R&D work in many fields: miniaturization, battery tech , cameras, user interface, software optimization and most recently upscale marketing (Apple Stores, the AppleWatch). These don't point to making a car, they point to making a system an OEM would buy to add to their car. Which of course would then be sold onto a consumer as an upsell. IE: you can have our standard package or the "Apple Safe" package for $$ more. This way you could buy a Ford, BMW or Chevy with "Apple Safe" baked in. Such a product would include a unique user interface to manage options such a limiting a teen drivers speed, to active safety like auto braking, to fancy pants stuff like Telsa's "find a parking space and automatically park my car there". My guess is there would also be a monthly fee similar to OnStar for other services like finding the nearest charging location.

    • See 5 previous
    • Stuki Stuki on Jul 29, 2016

      @dash riprock Tesla. By a million miles. Bodyslamming Navy Seals into the sides of trucks at hyperloop speeds, beats death by a million NDA's, lawyers, hush-hush', credentialisms and stealth modes any day. I mean, one company is ran by a dude who wants to go to Mars on his own dime. The other by a bunch of geriatrics more concerned about "leveraging their brand and their IP portfolio." I'm not convinced Bambrogan will ever live to see the day when regular Joes zip around in near-vacuum tubes. But by settling for the slightly downdream version of the somewhat higher air density at the top of Donner pass, he may well get to hyperloop, or at least superloop, his way from Reno to Fremont before he retires. While his comrades in Cupertino will have made the cellphone two millimeters thinner. And sued out of existence all those who dared dream of three.

  • Pch101 Pch101 on Jul 28, 2016

    It would be better to develop the technology, brand it, and let automakers license it, akin to what Bose does with car audio. I have to assume that this is what Apple is doing, and that any car that it may assemble would be for demonstration purposes only.

    • Angrystan Angrystan on Jul 29, 2016

      Yes, that would be the smartest thing but Apple doesn't license technology. I also note that the maker of the buggiest consumer OS currently available tied their first phone to AT&T back when that meant "No Data" and pulled it off. Apple could put that $10-12 billion in a place where it could do some good, or see some obvious return but that's not the fashion.

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next