MplsP

JinTech said:

MplsP said:

I was thinking that Apple may come up with an OS for a self driving car and license it for use but that would completely go against their entire history of products. I can see them partnering with another company. 

The fact that ‘Apple doesn’t make anything’ is irrelevant. As has been pointed out, virtually every complex product on the market is made of components from various suppliers. Cars especially so. The main thing going against Apple making their own car is the fact that automobile design and manufacturing are completely unlike anything apple has done prior. 

Some could argue that CarPlay is an OS for cars. 

Even though Apple has not made anything related to an automobile, some could argue that was the case with the phone and look where that took them. I know that the Newton was a similar product but still not a phone. 

Apple has hired a lot of outside automotive experts, and as someone else mention, you don’t just pick up talented people for just CarPlay. 

And people have been saying that they do not ‘make anything’ this is false. They do not make products that ship, but they do make prototypes. 

robin huber said:

Then there's the service aspect, which you may not know is where car dealerships make the most money per vehicle.

I’m curious as to how much less income EVs bring in for service than ICEs. Had a Chevy Bolt for a year now with no regular service necessary. Only time it’s been to the dealer was to update charging software at the dealer’s expense. With no ICE with its attendant mechanical devices (cooling system, transmission, exhaust, differential, etc.) there are far fewer things to go wrong. Electric motors are devilishly simple devices with basically one moving part! About the only things that need changing are brake fluid, tires, and cabin air filter, and those are very infrequent. With regenerative braking (one pedal driving) I rarely touch my brakes. Unless there’s something I’m missing dealers are going to take a big hit. 

rob53 said:

It's interesting how governments demand Apple change its charging port to USB-C, which is standard's based, then allow Ericsson to sue Apple over the use of a cellular standard. How can a government demand a company use a standard while allowing one company with a standards-based patent force another company to pay for its use? 

As for using the corrupt eastern district of Texas, that shows that Ericsson really has no basis in the lawsuit. 

wood1208 said:

We don't want government gets into business telling tech companies how they should design the products. That certainly kills Innovation and not good for humanity. But, in this case, ok to have unified charging system long as it covers all bases and have room to improve/innovate. As a side note, USB-C is an Apple invention and that they gave it to the standard bodies and Apple wanted to keep it's name silent from the list of contributors. But, possibly later Apple found that it's lightening port/protocols/etc better so adopted it for it's products.
Apple may have to support USB-C on iPhone sold in Europe starting 2024. For that reason Apple may move usb-c to all 2023 end release iPhone models, earpods,etc. OR Apple may go port less and the problem is solved for ever.

AniMill said:

The Mac Studio is an excellent value -v- performance deal…not so the Display. It’s stupid overpriced! Stupid. Way.

if it had been $990 with adjustable/removable stand, it would have been just barely acceptable - especially with the terrible reviews of its cam and software integration.

if the Pro model comes out as expected, it’ll be $3000 w/o adjustable stand. Again, Stupid overpriced.

but this does all beg the question: with this designation, will we be getting an Apple Studio Pro, instead of a Mac Pro? Hmmmm…🤔