988 karma · joined November 9, 2010
Rather, Mercedes has access to better credit terms and availability than Tesla because they produce 100x more cars per year. And because of that, they don't need to recoup future R&D money from current cars. Ergo when you buy an expensive mercedes, more money goes into the car you bought than future cars.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Techno...
Unrelated: but after Clapper I don't know how anyone has any faith in the US Gov't. this is just another reinforcement.
Recently I've tested all the auto-sensing, autopilot, and what not features of the latest generation of cars. I've gone on dozens of test drives and I think that something around as good as Honda Sensing will be sufficient for the next car cycle (5-7 years). If they can make iterative improvments that will be even better, but I don't think we are as close to the kind of car Apple would want to sell in the autonomy field. Well understood driving cities like NYC and SF are just not a big enough splash for Apple.
Why Apple will be very successful: Recently they've started to revamp and expand their retail Flagship stores all over the world have recently been remodeled, all to be much larger. I think this footprint of stores, larger than Teslas, will be huge in getting people to buy the cars, thereby circumventing the dealership model. Tesla was the pioneer here, and Apple will ride on their coattails. Apple has incredibly supply chain leverage and capability. In the last 5 years, the cost of batteries has gone down significantly. Yet all the hybrid cars utilizing batteries are still very expensive. The brand new Volvo XC90 is $20k more expensive for a 9kWh pack. With Apple's supply chain and margin control capabilities, they should be able to comfortably source Li-Ion batteries in the $200-$300 range per kWh. Apple also crushes every single other computer and phone manufacturer when it comes to their onboarding experience. This and their experience in UI/UX will be key. The knob-less experience in cars is total dogshit. No one does a good job of realizing that the user experience should not be a monolithic touchscreen for things that are NOT media related. Sure make all Media touchscreen enabled/driven. But not the AC/Heat, and in my mind the volume for the AV system at the lest. If apple can solve that, and make it easy to pair a phone with the infotainment system, then with their competitive pricing and superior experience they will destroy the competition. All the legacy manufacturers are still stuck in the wrong paradigm. Only Tesla is positioned to compete with Apple, it's a shame they didn't buy Tesla earlier and let Musk run both companies. Tim is great don't get me wrong, but with Musk at the helm they would have been totally unstoppable. Tim is a genius at what he does, but he's not the kind of visionary CEO that can launch the car like an Elon or Steve could.
Generally, I think this is a pretty good analysis. I think that it's very difficult to predict when this shift is going to happen though. Clearly the demographics are not in traditional TVs favor, but there are still significant lock-in effects due to sports and other live events. There is also a tremendous amount of media content that is owned by these traditional networks, and on top of that they seem to be verticalizing.
As a milllenial, I don't have a cable TV subscription, I pay for Netflix/Amazon due to the amazing original content and the non-stupid delivery on my internet devices. I do watch a ton of TV shows through 'alternative' means. For live sports, I either opt-out of the sport altogether, go to a bar, or go to excruciating lengths to pick up an online stream. There is no easy way to be a cord cutter due to a cluster-f* of blackouts, poor distribution systems, and ancient players trying desperately to cling to their old business models. My household is probably worth another $20-$50 a month for a competent streaming service. I will check out Cheddar. I'm also not alone, basically everyone in my income, age, and geographic breakdown is the same.
1. I work for the CDN Fastly, if you are from Chedder we can help get your site back online, email me at [myusername] @ fastly.com if you need assistance.
If it's not, well, uhh, yeah this is kind of a problem.
1. http://www.arm.com/products/processors/technologies/trustzon...
Also your plan is impossible because it's not Apple or Facebook or Google the US listed entities that own this money, it's independent country specific subsidiaries. The US Gov't has no territorial claim on their asset reserves. The fact that the big companies report the money as their own is a GAAP sleight of hand that everyone knows already understands both sides of in the marketplace.
Money is only useful at a macro scale if it's in motion. These cash reserves are worthless if they just accumulate. Better to take them back into the US, and be distributed as dividends to shareholders or through buy backs than to leave them.
If that money could be invested internationally it would, and so basically the mere fact that the money is sitting idle in the bahamas is a huge vote of no-confidence in the other economies of the world. Every once and a while you used to see the big companies buy stupid expensive office space in London and other European/asian cities that were experiencing real estate growth. We see that less now probably because they are already well allocated in that asset class.
Now you may be thinking, well if it's better to take the money home then leave it sitting there for a decade, consider the following. If you repatriate the money and pay anywhere near the 35% corporate tax rate to do so you have to invest it in the US for at least 5 years with a 10% rate of return before you get back to what you had held internationally. Outside the fact that this is basically impossible to do with hundreds of billions of dollars... Absolutely no quarterly venture (wall street) is going to be allowed to do that, they will be sued into oblivion by their shareholders just for trying. Especially since the US regularly holds repatriation holidays. The only tenable long-term solution to this problem is to not tax corporate earnings from overseas. Tax them through individuals later, but not the corps. Otherwise Apple could exist in one form or another for 100 years with 100s billions of dollars just sitting overseas. Of course people who don't understand economics will argue that this is defrauding the US gov't of legitimate tax revenue, but my argument is the US is not the jurisdiction in which this money was earned, so it should see none of it.
fastly-debug.com.
The goal of our site is to gather debug information but I use it as a reliable speed-test to a good portion of the internet's websites. I think this is a good tool like fast.com because unlike the 'official' speedtest sites, if you optimize ours or Fast's you're actually making the internet much faster for a lot of sites for users.
To answer homelessness, we need to understand the responsibilities of our civic institutions, the limits of their theoretical jurisdictions and the underlying causes of homelessness. Ultimately, your view on who is responsible stems from your understanding of the purpose of different forms of government. My views start from a strict constitutionalist point and then evolve as various judicial outcomes have moved the goalposts.
Another great example is homelessness. Homelessness is actually something which should be addressed at the Federal (for Veterans) and State (for people who should receive medical help) levels, not the city. Oh well.
The end result of this solar initiative will be to increase costs for the poor. The 'real' solution is for CA gov't to stipulate that all dwellings of X and Y quality that receive Z amounts of sunlight are required to offset A% of their annual energy consumption with Solar/wind energy. You can either build it on your own home or buy a share in a solar/wind farm.