13485

jcc said:

Why?! Her forefathers raped and pillaged countless people all over the world. Did no one take any history lessons? Did Tim Cook not study history??

Who, the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas? 

toddzrx said:

Somewhat surprisingly your post is the first to discuss what’s been going on in the EV market over the last 6 months. Apple is canceling the car because reality just set in across the EV auto landscape: all the rich people who want one have largely bought one, government subsidies have mostly run out, repair costs are abysmal on an EV because even the slightest accident can cause fire risk in the battery, leading to increased insurance costs, and public charging costs have gone up.  Of course there’s the ever-present issue of long charge times/range anxiety/charge station availability. EV’s are the first large scale product that the public is having to deal with and consider in their economic choices in the government mandated “green revolution”, and the EV’s are losing.

You're largely right. Of course on the ElecTrek web site it's still all sunshine and lollipops.

cgWerks said:

mark fearing said:
What? It’s doing well? Half the audience or more left it. Advertisers left it. He bought it, overpaid because of ego, and they will write it off as it falls apart.

Sorry, that's total baloney. A few people left. Advertisers virtue-signaled and have been returning. He probably did vastly overpay, but he seems to have done that at least partly in principal (which, makes him a hero for that aspect, at least).

Lots to unpack here. First. Twitter lost 89% of its ad revenue since Musk took over, and lost 50 of its top 100 advertisers. That's not virtue-signaling, that's flight. They have lost 4% of users so far in 2023, and a projected 5% in 2024 (Business Insider) for a total of 32 million dropping out or switching. In the US, average daily active users declined 15%.

As far as overpaying "in principal" (I assume you mean "principle"), rich people, even Musk, don't do that, that's why they're rich. They use their wealth to leverage the best deal. Hmm, he didn't do that. We assume he's extremely wealthy because we are told he is, based on evaluation of his properties. Of course, until someone writes him a check, it's just an evaluation, not cash.

As far as SpaceX being successful, absolutely. Profitable, maybe not. According to Motley Fool, they made 0,2% on $1 billion in revenue. Tesla, on the other hand, is quite profitable--but the profit right now is from selling regulatory credits to other auto makers, not from selling cars.

I'm not sure how promoting their important environmental achievements is considered "virtue signaling" (which is apparently code for "I disagree with whatever that is"). Regardless, you can have the exceedingly dry product pitches that have been the norm since Jobs, or you can have a little creativity mixed in. The skit was OK, and it beats having Tim Cook read the same data in front of the camera.

We all miss the showmanship of Steve Jobs, and, it must be said, his interaction with the live audience. These canned presentations, very well done though they are, are kind of boring, especially for an incremental product intro. 

charlesn said:

OH PUH-LEEZ.... yet another "Apple is doomed" IDC estimate. Yawn. Honestly, Apple Insider, it's a disgrace that you publish this as "news" instead of "fiction." As the saying goes, if I had a penny for every fake doom headline about Apple published by IDC, I'd be a very wealthy man. Once again, when Apple actually releases its Q1 earnings in a few weeks. we will see that this is utter nonsense as we always do. 

IDC has been doing this for decades. They used to have Microsoft and Intel as major clients, so it always seemed to have a built in bias. True nowadays, I don't know.

nubus said:

freeassociate2 said:

Also, I’d like the EU to open up all transportation systems to third party availability, with no tax subsidies. No more government monopolies.

Eh... USPS is running a government monopoly on letters and mailboxes with subsidies. Are you really that happy about service and pricing at USPS? And Amtrak... seems you just can't get enough services from government monopolies loaded with tax funding.

EU forced competition on rail in 2010 and the postal directive has opened competition on letters as well. We do add subsidies as needed, but we let real companies compete on services and pricing. No USPS or Amtrak here.

Per the USPS: "The Postal Service is generally self-funded. This means that no tax dollars are used to keep the lights on at its many facilities across the country. The Postal Service, instead, relies on the revenue it generates from the sale of stamps, products, and services to fund its operations."

Per Investopedia: "Amtrak receives considerable subsidies from both state and federal governments but it's managed as a for-profit company. This isn't unusual. No country in the world operates a passenger rail system without public support."

That was an outstanding piece of work!

andyring said:

I have no idea if this kind of thing is Apple's "target market" or not but here we go...

I think this field in general will explode for the training realm. I'm not into gaming and hardly ever watch a movie.
.
This type of thing is where I believe the future of VR is headed.

Yes, I think so, too, at least in the beginning. That locomotive thing sounds fantastic.

sbdude said:

Xed said:

rob53 said:

Apple was correct in dumping Project Titan. They don't have any expertise in building any type of car. They would need land and millions of dollars worth of manufacturing equipment. If they wanted to buy Rivian for a fire sale price to get manufacturing facilities and some expertise, I might go for it but they'd need to do a lot of work on fixing Rivian's vehicles plus come up with a respectable sedan. There is room for an American EV manufacturer, Tesla can't build all the EVs without building several more manufacturing facilities. 

What expertise did any car company have before they existed? You mention Apple buying Rivian and Tesla so why doesn't their lack of expertise and experience before they made a single automobile carry over to your argument that if you hadn't done something before that you should never try to do it?

Land and millions of dollars available, you say? How could they ever manage that. LOL

Both Tesla and Rivian purchased factories previously established by automakers. I forget, which manufacturing plant did Apple buy in the intervening ten years they've been hacking away at a car?

They don't need a large plant to build one-off prototypes. But that aside, there are manufacturing plants available. Modern automotive plants incorporate well understood design considerations, and can be built. How much money do you want to throw at it? None of these comments present real barriers to entry. The problem was Apple management and commitment, as well as their understanding of the industry and market.

avon b7 said

In fact I question the whole notion of this supposed Jobs claim. 

If people were taking notes, it's because it was, always has been and still is normal to take notes at meetings. Even at Apple. Anywhere.

The simple fact that someone stepped in and basically told them to stop taking notes, when they had already started, raises concerns. 

Think about it for a second. Jobs is there. People are taking notes. Where's the problem? What pushes you to tell them to stop a completely natural process? Even if you are Jobs. 

There is no decent reason to tell people to stop taking notes. Literally zero. And the one given only serves to highlight the concerns raised.

Even at that point in time Apple was a multi billion dollar operation. 

It does not raise any concerns. And if you are familiar with Jobs' ofttimes withering comments to employees that sounds like exactly what he might have said.

But more to the point, notes, real or not, from meetings in 2008 are irrelevant to the current court case, as are initial projections of financial benefits.  The why's and how's of the pricing set up in 2008 are irrelevant, because the issue is whether there is some consumer/developer harm being done today. Given that 30% is an often-applied charge in the retail markets, which vendors have to accept or go elsewhere, that charge is not unreasonable for what is provided.