AppleZulu

Let’s not forget that this started with Mr. Musk talking sh** for some mixture of reasons including ego and his desire to loosen Twitter’s policies regarding restrictions on the spread of disinformation. Musk talked a big game about purchasing Twitter for a ridiculous sum of money, sure that such a bluff would demonstrate his masculinity while pushing Twitter’s execs around in public. 

Installed here with no problems. 

maltz said:

According to a comment on the Ars Technica article about this, the problem appears to just be the user agent string adding the (a) to Safari's version number.  So if you already installed it and don't care about Facebook, etc. (or know how to change the user agent string)... feel free to leave it installed.

I’d seen that suggested somewhere, but this is not the first ..(a) rapid patch, yet this issue didn’t happen before. 

danielchow said:

jeffharris said:

Does the world REALLY need another car? Apple or otherwise.

nope, we do not need another car. what we need are more walkable and bikeable passages.

if we must continue building roads and highways for multi-passenger vehicles that usually transport one person per vehicle, then there should be as many continuous millions of miles of walkable and bikeable passages as there are roads and highways built; and all parking lots should have at least 25 percent soft scape with trees and solar panels to provide shade to help reduce the heat island effect. apple's corporate office is an example (not the only one) of how all developers from small to large should think when they "develop". we can do better, but is anyone else willing to think and do outside of the box?

Outside of 'the last mile,' passenger cars are the least efficient way to travel. Unfortunately, in places like the US, most governments are not  prioritizing and investing in public transportation the way they should. Other companies are already making EVs and self-driving cars. What could Apple do differently? For one thing, they could attack that efficiency problem. Everybody else's self-driving cars are focused on being the best "driver": focused, alert, and experienced. That's great, but it's still setting a route and then just reacting to the immediate environment in order to drive that route. What if your car did a lot more to gather and respond to information beyond your immediate space, and what if all the Apple cars in the area shared data so that each one is better able to respond to circumstances along the entire route?

Such interconnected vehicles could actually improve traffic efficiency. For instance, if there were enough connected cars mixed into a given section of highway traffic, they could actually serve to clear traffic jams by making subtle adjustments to speed that would intuitively cue other drivers as well, and safely erase the stop-and-go effect that lingers on the highway long after an obstruction has been cleared. Interconnected cars could respond with greater agility to choose detours and alternate routes that not only improve travel time for the individual, but for the whole of traffic flow as well. It's not necessary to control all of the cars on the road to do this. This is just one imagined way an Apple Car could be Apple-like, by entering an existing product category with a new paradigm. You'd buy an Apple Car not just because it's an Apple-branded thing, but because it would actually do the job of getting you from point A to point B more efficiently.

jdiamond said:

Guys, no one is implying Apple will make a physical car.  It's like AppleTV - initially, everyone hoped for an amazing Apple TV that was transparent and thin.  But it ended up just being a little box you hook up to a normal TV.  There's no reason to think this wouldn't be similar in concept to car play.  Apple would just be helping car companies that need to play catch up on things like self driving features, etc.  And they could go to town integrating the infotainment/entertainment systems with their own stuff.

Apple is already publicly moving forward with enhancements to CarPlay. That's not the Apple Car. CarPlay is simply a dumb terminal in your car that displays a customized interface with your iPhone.

Also, AppleTV didn't end up being the whole TV because Apple couldn't get all of the other content providers to agree to integrate into an AppleTV standard. If they were going to be the TV, it was going to be a device that seamlessly provided you with content from your cable provider, from streamers like Netflix and HULU, from things like YouTube, for purchased content, and on-air TV. For the user, it would all just work. Without that, they made a box that's better than the other boxes and dongles, but it doesn't require everyone else to play ball for it to be usable. You'll note that on your ATV box, HULU and Amazon integrate into the Apple search and 'Up Next' feed, but Netflix refuses. Xfinity only made their cable content available in an app a few months ago. When HBO became "max," their app dropped Apple's API and went with their own crappier one. Apple wasn't going to be the seamlessly integrated TV device unless they could do it all the way, all their way. None of this is analogous to their situation in developing a car.

Why wouldn't Apple produce an entire car? Apple has thirteen times the market capitalization of Toyota, the largest "established" automaker, and 55 times the market cap of GM. There are many new EV companies coming on line, and they don't have Apple's resources. See Fisker, Rivian, Lucid, and even DeLorean is apparently resurfacing as an EV company.

It seems entirely likely that Apple may contract with another company to manufacture their car, just like they do for production of iPhones and iPads, but they will not launch a new initiative as Apple Car and simply have it be CarPlay on steroids, living as an insert inside other companies' cars. That would subject Apple's reputation to the whims of other companies' design and manufacturing decisions. That's not how they do business.