Apple's self-driving car plans emerge. But will Apple beat Google?

Apple's ultra-secretive approach to building a driverless car stands in stark contrast with Google's markedly transparent one. Which company will get there first?

Reed Saxon/AP/File
In this May 9, 2013 file photo, people walk near the Apple store in Santa Monica, Calif. Apple's mysterious plans to build a self-driving car were all but confirmed when the Guardian obtained a document in which an Apple official looks into booking space at a secure testing facility for automated vehicles.

Apple’s biggest secret may be out: Documents have come to light that strongly suggest the company is ready to test technology for a self-driving car.

“Project Titan,” as the operation is reportedly called, is all but confirmed. The Guardian obtained documentation of correspondence between Apple and GoMentum Station, a Silicon Valley naval-base-turned-autonomous-vehicle-testing-facility, in which Apple engineer Frank Fearon inquires about site usage.

“We would ... like to get an understanding of timing and availability for the space, and how we would need to coordinate around other parties who would be using [it],” Mr. Fearon said in the correspondence.

Apple and GoMentum have kept quiet since the Guardian’s publication of the information, but rumors of an Apple self-driving car have been floating around for some time. In May at the Code Conference in Ranchos Palos Verdes, Calif., Apple senior vice president Jeff Williams called cars “the ultimate mobile device,” and said the company was "exploring a lot of different markets.”

Apple CEO Tim Cook has been meeting with car executives and hiring experts out from under companies like Mercedes Benz, the Guardian reported.

Until now, Google has held a lead in the race toward building a driverless car. Unlike Apple, though, Google has been transparent about its efforts, generating an image for itself as the trailblazer in the movement toward safer, easier transit.

Self-driving cars may still sound like the stuff of science fiction, but Russ Rader, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety senior VP of communications, told Investopedia in 2014 the technology has been creeping into car manufacturing models for several years now.

“The building blocks of driverless cars are on the road now,” he said, pointing out innovations like self-parking features and front-crash prevention systems that detect obstacles and apply the car’s brakes automatically as the precursors to completely autonomous cars.

Investopedia also reported that Google’s self-driving car software and systems will most likely be ready to market by 2017, with major car manufacturers following about three years behind. Mercedes Benz and Honda have both used GoMentum’s secure testing site to conduct trials on autonomous vehicle technology, the Guardian reported.

According to Google, its project launched in 2009, and since then more than 1 million miles have been self-driven during testing. While originally the company was just developing systems to use in existing cars, it has started building its own vehicles “from the ground up.”

Where Apple stands in the process is unclear. Just because its engineers are looking to test does not mean the hypothetical car is anywhere close to road-ready, the Verge’s Chris Ziegler noted.

“If Apple intends to make its car self-driving in some capacity ... it'll need to start testing systems and components years before it has an actual car ready,” he wrote.

“Meanwhile, there will be bureaucracies to fight on multiple fronts, both with autonomous driving systems and with getting a production car approved for domestic sale. Apple will need to worry about crash testing, for instance, which is a little more involved than your everyday FCC approval.”

So even if the project is further along than previously thought, it seems unlikely that Apple will cross the finish line before Google or car manufacturers.

Follow CSMonitor's board Tech & Innovation on Pinterest.
You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.