genovelle

badmonk said:

JP234 said:

This will go down as the second costliest mistake Apple Inc. ever made. Only the firing of Steve Jobs was worse. History has not been kind to automakers, not even great ones like Auburn, Cord, Duesenberg, Packard and Studebaker. Or even large ones like American Motors. Or Chrysler, whose history of bankruptcies, bailouts and buyouts is so littered it's impossible to keep track of them all (the current owner, Stellantis, just announced the closing of the Belvidere assembly plant, which makes Jeeps, laying off about 1,300 workers. Merry Christmas, at least they're giving the required 90 days notice, so workers can sabotage Jeeps on the line for the next 3 months). Why does Apple believe that they can start up a car company from scratch??? Why would ANYONE want to start a car company? Money can't assure success in this field. Heavy manufacturing is NOT the same as technology manufacturing.

If it happens, that is. Not sure the board will approve this venture when they get a true cost analysis.

Or so they said about the cell phone industry (Nokia, Blackberry, Erickson, etc etc) before Apple entered it.

I don’t think Apple will do their own automobile manufacturing, have they ever made any of their products in recent memory?  Think Foxconn and their other assembly manufacturers at present.  LG or another Asian manufacturing behemoth seems like a likely partner in my mind.

Tesla is starting to show its age and weaknesses….static design, poor build quality, a suck of corporate profits into Elon’s wealth and especially the long-standing beta-project known as AutoPilot…a combined class action lawsuit and FTC fine waiting to happen, not to mention Elon’s toxicity in general which alienates employees and customers.

avon b7 said:

DAalseth said:

I’ll be in the market for an EV, but this looks like it’ll be way out of my budget. 

My sister-in-law has had a 100% electric ioniq for the last five years and loves it. The ioniq 6 is now getting rave reviews. 

slow n easy said:

The lawsuit makes no sense. Obviously the AirTag is a safe device because the victim was notified that “they” was being stalked and all devices were found. So what’s the problem. Also I’m really not trying to be mean but I like to have all of the informationkdupuis77 said:

I have a bunch or AirTags and find them quite useful for our vehicle keys, suitcases and my briefcase. You shouldn’t get rid of something just because a handful of bad actors use them for evil. It’s the same argument for firearms in my book. Guns don’t get up and shoot people any more than AirTags jump off the table and stalk women in their cars. Prosecute the offenders to the maximum extent of the law and allow the rest of us to go on with our lives enjoying our technology and toys. 

Guns are a bit different as some popular ones used in mass murders are weapons of was designed for only that purpose. 

Is the reason for using the pronouns they/them because the victim is non-binary? I have nothing against such a person. I was just wondering.

hmlongco said:

How am I supposed to be able to get 90% of the profits if Apple insists on getting 30%?

zimmie said:

bloggerblog said:

I haven't read the iMessage API documentation, but if it can be done 'legally' then Google would've jumped on that bandwagon ages ago. I'm skeptical

There is no iMessage API documentation, primarily because there is no iMessage API (at least not for writing iMessage clients). They probably reverse-engineered iMessage's traffic flow and found a way to write their own client. It wouldn't be hugely difficult. The techniques to do this (and to keep it legal) are very well understood. They're time-consuming, though, and the result could be fragile.

I doubt Apple could target this client and ban anybody using it. I also don't see them going out of their way to break it, but if a change eventually does break it, Apple definitely won't care.

DAalseth said:

We want to right a wrong that exists,

No, you want to line your pocket, you greedy SOB.