It seems like Tim Cook just thinks more before speaking so he doesn't have to backtrack, not because of any of arrogant, line-in-the-sand, Donald Trumpian narcissism that only lets him double-down on the stuff he says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsteeler
He's no fool. This is a win win for him. He's getting Apple-sized media coverage and provoking them to enter his technological space. Something he clearly wants them and others to do.
He got confused. He was trying to channel John Legere rather than Jobs or Tony Stark....
no. the first iPhone and iPad were great, and toasted the status quo before. they just weren't the final destination, and that's fine. they just got even better. they weren't some unfinished Google-esque beta products.
Sorry I disagree. Maybe the first iPhone because it introduced the world to multitouch, but even Tim Cook said looking back on it he's a bit embarrassed by the first iPad.
Tesla loses more than $4K on every model S it sells yet Musk is this genius we all are supposed to bow down to. Sorry no thanks. Glad I'm not a Tesla shareholder.
"The drag is of great importance when it comes to velocities over 60 kph."
That is only about 37 miles per hour. Not high speed in the slightest. Other than residential areas, most cities allow travel of 35-45 miles per hour. Of course there is highway travel where people often travel at least 70 miles per hour.
"The mirrors increase the total amount of drag by 2-7 percent."
"The mirror plays a major role in drag contribution for the entire car and therefore mirror optimization is considered very important."
That is significant. Every percent counts when you start adding them all up. Like this article points out:
Theoretically, yes, but most people already drive so inefficiently that it probably would make little to no difference. People drive with a heavy foot, accelerate to a stoplight, stop sign or the car in front of them and then suddenly hit the brake, etc. And people take multiple trips with their cars for shopping or whatever when they could take one. We could save billions just by changing our driving behavior a bit, but no one wants to, either because they can't be bothered or they consider it an infringement on their freedom. And now that gas is relatively inexpensive again, people will waste far more.
The other issue is that States are not going to change laws requiring side-view mirrors because they'll be afraid of lawsuits if there are accidents related to one or both drivers not having them. Why would any politician or government official take the risk of proposing such a change when it's far easier just to leave the status quo?
What's funny is all the Watch haters think Musk's tweet was a diss of the Watch. But no where did he say the Watch as an IDEA was bad, just that it's going to take a few generations for it to become really good and you could say that about almost any Apple product. The first really good iPhone was the 3GS. The first iPad and first MacBook Airs weren't great; subsequent generations were much better. The same will be the case with the Watch.
no. the first iPhone and iPad were great, and toasted the status quo before. they just weren't the final destination, and that's fine. they just got even better. they weren't some unfinished Google-esque beta products.
Indeed. They were utterly revolutionary, and mind-blowing. I can recall few purchases in my life -- including houses and cars -- producing greater consumer 'utility' (in the economists' sense of the term) for me as did the first iPhone and slightly less so, the first iPad. Things of spectacular beauty (I thought that the 3G was the weakest iPhone, design-wise).
Sorry I disagree. Maybe the first iPhone because it introduced the world to multitouch, but even Tim Cook said looking back on it he's a bit embarrassed by the first iPad.
Tesla loses more than $4K on every model S it sells yet Musk is this genius we all are supposed to bow down to. Sorry no thanks. Glad I'm not a Tesla shareholder.
I was mainly saying that every percent counts, even fractions of a percent, and it starts to add up to very significant numbers.
Just that little lip you see on the top of the tail gate on newer pickup trucks is enough to make an effect on drag and it adds up to a significant fuel savings at the scale of numbers pick up trucks are sold and driven.
Perhaps the innovation that Apple brings will be even a higher level of small efficiency gains, but it will likely be more user friendly design and improved manufacturing processes. Apple can definitely afford the budget to make that happen.
no. the first iPhone and iPad were great, and toasted the status quo before. they just weren't the final destination, and that's fine. they just got even better. they weren't some unfinished Google-esque beta products.
Sorry I disagree. Maybe the first iPhone because it introduced the world to multitouch, but even Tim Cook said looking back on it he's a bit embarrassed by the first iPad.
Who cares about what Tim Cook thought about the first iPad (although, it would have been nice if you provided a cite or a link). Here's what Jobs and other key commentators thought, and a bit of history for you: http://www.imore.com/history-ipad-2010
I'll put it to you as a Mechanical Engineer, the rear view cameras fail and you must still remain the same Factor of Safety all automobiles must exhibit. All mirrors must still be adjusted even when the servo motors fail, by using your hand.
Rear end view cameras to back up are effing dumb. Always have been. It makes driver dependent on technology that will fail.
Rear view cameras are stupid? I strongly disagree. I use the cameras in my car all the time. They are a fantastic driving aid (assistant). Even something as simple as parallel parking is easier. If there's a small spot I can back up until I'm literally inches from the other car (which is made possible by the camera). The front/side view cameras are also great. I can stick the nose of my car out 1 foot from a blind alley (where some ass decided to park their delivery truck) and see all the way up the street to look for oncoming cars or bikes before pulling out.
On my SUV I can back up to my trailer hitch first try without needing another person to guide me (or getting out of my vehicle several times to see how close I am). Admittedly this is a much less common scenario, but still highly useful.
Cameras aren't something that should replace mirrors (and your own eyes/common sense), but they are a great "additional" source of information.
Who cares about what Tim Cook thought about the first iPad (although, it would have been nice if you provided a cite or a link). Here's what Jobs and other key commentators thought, and a bit of history for you: http://www.imore.com/history-ipad-2010
If Cook literally said he was disappointed in the original iPad for not being good enough then I would call that a huge faux pas on his part. It's just a stupid thing to say.
Rear view cameras are stupid? I strongly disagree. I use the cameras in my car all the time. They are a fantastic driving aid (assistant). Even something as simple as parallel parking is easier. If there's a small spot I can back up until I'm literally inches from the other car (which is made possible by the camera). The front/side view cameras are also great. I can stick the nose of my car out 1 foot from a blind alley (where some ass decided to park their delivery truck) and see all the way up the street to look for oncoming cars or bikes before pulling out.
On my SUV I can back up to my trailer hitch first try without needing another person to guide me (or getting out of my vehicle several times to see how close I am). Admittedly this is a much less common scenario, but still highly useful.
Cameras aren't something that should replace mirrors (and your own eyes/common sense), but they are a great "additional" source of information.
I use mine all the time, but I can back up within a fraction of an inch of something hitting my bumper.
When musk makes even $1 of profit for his stockholders he might be entitled to opine on the world's most valuable company as measured by market share value. His Tesla company is a hobby designed to make a small fortune out a big one. He is PR savvy but not really a great CEO. He should keep his comments to himself until he starts delivering consistent profits to shareholders
When musk makes even $1 of profit for his stockholders he might be entitled to opine on the world's most valuable company as measured by market share value.
His Tesla company is a hobby designed to make a small fortune out a big one.
He is PR savvy but not really a great CEO.
He should keep his comments to himself until he starts delivering consistent profits to shareholders
Did you also suggest Steve Jobs to shut the fuçk up when he was started NeXT and bought Pixar because I'm pretty sure he had things to say about Apple, MS, IBM, and many others, or was that different.
Considering Elon and his enterprises haven't generated a single dollar of profit and still relies on government subsidies, I'd consider this subject to be moved from the Inbox to the Trash with his big stupid mouth.
You're right on target here bro. Apple isn't the greatest company in the world just because they're the most profitable alone; they've fight every battle and won. Tried, True, Tested, Persevered, AND Profitable. When Elon lets go of his government subsidies and then 20 years later with nice profit distributions to shareholders and tens of thousands of successful employees, facilities, and profitable products later; maybe, just maybe he can speak. Jobs & Cook are THE BOMB!!!!
Who cares about what Tim Cook thought about the first iPad (although, it would have been nice if you provided a cite or a link). Here's what Jobs and other key commentators thought, and a bit of history for you: http://www.imore.com/history-ipad-2010
If Cook literally said he was disappointed in the original iPad for not being good enough then I would call that a huge faux pas on his part. It's just a stupid thing to say.
I use mine all the time, but I can back up within a fraction of an inch of something hitting my bumper.
Some of Cook's comments came off a bit awkward. While he praised the new iPad Air as "really profound," he added that "when we looked at our first iPad, it looked great. But now when we look back at it, we're kind of embarrassed."
I'm not denying that either product is really profound and changed the world and technology as we know it. But if we're talking in context of the Watch and how it might take a couple generations for it to be really good then to me the parallel is with iPhone is the 3GS. I think that was the first iPhone really firing on all cylinders. Tony Fadell made a similar observation in a BBC interview earlier this year.
“The same thing happened with the iPhone. If we go back in history when the iPhone first shipped there were a few things that weren’t so right about it. But the second version, the third version started dialing in the right amount of each of those pieces and it really, you know, hit the ground running. So, I hope and I would fully assume they will do the same thing with the Watch as well
Some of Cook's comments came off a bit awkward. While he praised the new iPad Air as "really profound," he added that "when we looked at our first iPad, it looked great. But now when we look back at it, we're kind of embarrassed."
1) Thanks for providing a source and quoting it.
2) That was a stupid thing for him to say. Looks like he's human after all.
Some of Cook's comments came off a bit awkward. While he praised the new iPad Air as "really profound," he added that "when we looked at our first iPad, it looked great. But now when we look back at it, we're kind of embarrassed."
'Awkward' is putting it mildly. He is plainly off-base, IMHO. The first iPad is an utterly gorgeous design. In fact, to this day, I prefer the lines and curves of its back far more than I do those in the current version. Granted it was a tad heavy by today's standards, but to say that it was 'embarrassing' is just completely off-base. Cook couldn't be more wrong.
Comments
It seems like Tim Cook just thinks more before speaking so he doesn't have to backtrack, not because of any of arrogant, line-in-the-sand, Donald Trumpian narcissism that only lets him double-down on the stuff he says.
He's no fool. This is a win win for him. He's getting Apple-sized media coverage and provoking them to enter his technological space. Something he clearly wants them and others to do.
He got confused. He was trying to channel John Legere rather than Jobs or Tony Stark....
Sorry I disagree. Maybe the first iPhone because it introduced the world to multitouch, but even Tim Cook said looking back on it he's a bit embarrassed by the first iPad.
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-insight-tesla-burns-cash-loses-more-than-4000-on-every-car-sold-2015-8
Not according to this:
http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/143193.pdf
"The drag is of great importance when it comes to velocities over 60 kph."
That is only about 37 miles per hour. Not high speed in the slightest. Other than residential areas, most cities allow travel of 35-45 miles per hour. Of course there is highway travel where people often travel at least 70 miles per hour.
"The mirrors increase the total amount of drag by 2-7 percent."
"The mirror plays a major role in drag contribution for the entire car and therefore mirror optimization is considered very important."
That is significant. Every percent counts when you start adding them all up. Like this article points out:
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/28/ford-could-save-america-billions-if-it-gets-rid-of-side-mirrors/
Theoretically, yes, but most people already drive so inefficiently that it probably would make little to no difference. People drive with a heavy foot, accelerate to a stoplight, stop sign or the car in front of them and then suddenly hit the brake, etc. And people take multiple trips with their cars for shopping or whatever when they could take one. We could save billions just by changing our driving behavior a bit, but no one wants to, either because they can't be bothered or they consider it an infringement on their freedom. And now that gas is relatively inexpensive again, people will waste far more.
The other issue is that States are not going to change laws requiring side-view mirrors because they'll be afraid of lawsuits if there are accidents related to one or both drivers not having them. Why would any politician or government official take the risk of proposing such a change when it's far easier just to leave the status quo?
Indeed. They were utterly revolutionary, and mind-blowing. I can recall few purchases in my life -- including houses and cars -- producing greater consumer 'utility' (in the economists' sense of the term) for me as did the first iPhone and slightly less so, the first iPad. Things of spectacular beauty (I thought that the 3G was the weakest iPhone, design-wise).
I figured you would.
Don't worry, and enjoy it while the fun lasts; we've dealt with far worse, in these pages.
Source?
Read the link you posted. It does not say the cost to make each vehicle is $4k higher than what they charge for it.
All good points.
I was mainly saying that every percent counts, even fractions of a percent, and it starts to add up to very significant numbers.
Just that little lip you see on the top of the tail gate on newer pickup trucks is enough to make an effect on drag and it adds up to a significant fuel savings at the scale of numbers pick up trucks are sold and driven.
Perhaps the innovation that Apple brings will be even a higher level of small efficiency gains, but it will likely be more user friendly design and improved manufacturing processes. Apple can definitely afford the budget to make that happen.
Who cares about what Tim Cook thought about the first iPad (although, it would have been nice if you provided a cite or a link). Here's what Jobs and other key commentators thought, and a bit of history for you: http://www.imore.com/history-ipad-2010
Rear view cameras are stupid? I strongly disagree. I use the cameras in my car all the time. They are a fantastic driving aid (assistant). Even something as simple as parallel parking is easier. If there's a small spot I can back up until I'm literally inches from the other car (which is made possible by the camera). The front/side view cameras are also great. I can stick the nose of my car out 1 foot from a blind alley (where some ass decided to park their delivery truck) and see all the way up the street to look for oncoming cars or bikes before pulling out.
On my SUV I can back up to my trailer hitch first try without needing another person to guide me (or getting out of my vehicle several times to see how close I am). Admittedly this is a much less common scenario, but still highly useful.
Cameras aren't something that should replace mirrors (and your own eyes/common sense), but they are a great "additional" source of information.
If Cook literally said he was disappointed in the original iPad for not being good enough then I would call that a huge faux pas on his part. It's just a stupid thing to say.
I use mine all the time, but I can back up within a fraction of an inch of something hitting my bumper.
His Tesla company is a hobby designed to make a small fortune out a big one.
He is PR savvy but not really a great CEO.
He should keep his comments to himself until he starts delivering consistent profits to shareholders
Did you also suggest Steve Jobs to shut the fuçk up when he was started NeXT and bought Pixar because I'm pretty sure he had things to say about Apple, MS, IBM, and many others, or was that different.
Why not get shot of the front and back windscreen as well, and replace with retina displays?!
I had a virtual window in my van once, loved it. Especially if you park up somewhere depressing, just change the image to a picture of a Hawaii beach.
Source?
Considering Elon and his enterprises haven't generated a single dollar of profit and still relies on government subsidies, I'd consider this subject to be moved from the Inbox to the Trash with his big stupid mouth.
You're right on target here bro. Apple isn't the greatest company in the world just because they're the most profitable alone; they've fight every battle and won. Tried, True, Tested, Persevered, AND Profitable. When Elon lets go of his government subsidies and then 20 years later with nice profit distributions to shareholders and tens of thousands of successful employees, facilities, and profitable products later; maybe, just maybe he can speak. Jobs & Cook are THE BOMB!!!!
Here is the source. And considering Tim Cook is CEO I do believe what he thinks is relevant.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25250440/no-fireworks-at-apple-shareholders-meeting
I'm not denying that either product is really profound and changed the world and technology as we know it. But if we're talking in context of the Watch and how it might take a couple generations for it to be really good then to me the parallel is with iPhone is the 3GS. I think that was the first iPhone really firing on all cylinders. Tony Fadell made a similar observation in a BBC interview earlier this year.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/07/25/fadell-apple-watch
1) Thanks for providing a source and quoting it.
2) That was a stupid thing for him to say. Looks like he's human after all.
'Awkward' is putting it mildly. He is plainly off-base, IMHO. The first iPad is an utterly gorgeous design. In fact, to this day, I prefer the lines and curves of its back far more than I do those in the current version. Granted it was a tad heavy by today's standards, but to say that it was 'embarrassing' is just completely off-base. Cook couldn't be more wrong.