I think their headcount surprises a lot of people. SpaceX has gotten very big over the past few years trying to carve out market share and evolve F9. The old incumbent competition (ULA) has around 3500 employees. Part of the difference in headcount is likely because SpaceX does a lot more in-house manufacturing, but still it seems like a large differential.
$5,000-$10,000, plus integration costs- this is on the cell level, not the pack level. Tesla's integration is somewhat more complex than others, although it has given them more performance.
But that's a huge part of the car, and the majority of the drivetrain cost. The motor costs probably a few hundred. When you consider all the things it actually replaces -fuel and exhaust, starter and alternator, a number of ancillaries- it's really starting to close in on an internal combustion engine. Not to mention that that level of drivetrain is high end in terms of power output.
Yes more or less. It’s critical because now it is on cost parity with an ICE drivetrain. Once it goes below it across the industry ICE drivetrains for consumer cars is toast.
Why is a battery alone being compared with an "ICE drivetrain" which consists of many, individual components? Also, drivetrain and powertrain are two distinct things, I believe you meant powertrain.
Powertrain is technically correct, since only the flywheel/torque converter/transmission/driveshaft (and occasionally the differential) are really replaced from a drivetrain.
The battery has represented ~80% of an electric powertrain's cost, so it's a reasonable proxy for replacing most of the powertrain. Even parts that aren't fully replaced, like the heater core, A/C and radiator are made significantly cheaper. It's very much an estimate, but it isn't inaccurate.
Recently it's becoming less representative. Drive stages (electronics) are getting more exotic and expensive as manufacturers recognize the value in them, and motors are probably going to continue using limited amounts of neodymium magnets. And of course, batteries have become far cheaper. Personally I can't wait- I want more focus to be on the motors and drivers, which are way more accessible from an aftermarket perspective. It takes tens or hundreds of millions to get into battery manufacturing, but only a few hundred thousand to get into making world-class motors or electronics. Crate engines for EVs are just waiting on the demand (and a friendly nod from manufacturers).
The size of the display is actually the important measurement for one handed use. My thumb can reach the far corner of the screen on the 8 but not the X.
The swipe-based navigation system on the X family actually makes a huge improvement on the old “reachability” feature of the 6/7/8/Plus. Instead of the awkward double-touch-the-home-button-without-pressing gesture to slide the screen down for one-handed use, you can actually just swipe the little home indicator down instead of up and it will do the same thing, only faster.
For some reason, this isn’t enabled by default, but it’s a big enough usability improvement that I would actually consider a large X-family iPhone because of it.
I just wanted an updated mac mini...not a "pro" model. Whenever Apple attaches the word 'pro' on a product it usually means "a fuck ton more expensive".
You know what would have made developers happy? Regular refreshes on the cheese grater tower. THAT IS ALL ANYONE HAS EVER WANTED. Nope, we get a trashcan that is over priced, can't be upgraded, and also still gets zero updates.
The cheese grater mac was really incredibly designed. it's a shame they decided to limit things with the trashcan one. apple if you are listening please let people upgrade or at least replace parts when something goes bad in the desktop line. don't make the desktop a huge ipad.
The original goal of the Mac Mini was meant to be an entry level Mac. Which was perfect at the time for getting your feet wet on iOS/MacOS development, or getting a taste for the OS. That wasn't a problem because there was the iMac and Power Mac to fulfil the Pro/Developer markets.
If Apple released another consumer grade Mac Mini to fulfil the same segment (i.e. entry level) I actually think people would be quite positive. But it won't take away from the fact that the Pro/Developer market remains largely neglected.
A "Pro" Mac Mini might be the worst of both worlds. No longer entry level price, and not powerful enough (due to cooling) for Pros/serious developers.
> If it was a “consumer” Mac Mini, you’d complain “Apple has given up on Pro users”
I agree that in the current context, this is true. But this is primarily because the Mac Pro hasn’t been updated in eons and the current MBPs are so controversial that many pro users are sticking with 5-8 year old MBPs instead of “upgrading”.
If there were current Mac Pros and MBPs that see unequivocally better than older models, people would not jump to this complaint
As a long-time Mac owner (just bought a refurb one from Apple) I agree with the parent poster... their "pro" stuff is just too expensive.
I don't mind paying a bit of a Mac tax on my hardware. Honestly, I feel that up to perhaps 30-40% is fine. Macs have generally high build quality, contain some bespoke hardware, and I find they have a lower cost of ownership than Windows.
(Also, traditionally, Macbook Pros often priced pretty similarly to high end Windows laptops like Thinkpads anyway)
But, even as somebody that writes software for a living, it's tough to pay astronomical prices for "pro" hardware.
I understand why those pro models cost so much; they use Intel's Xeon chipsets (ECC RAM, etc) and bundle very pricey GPUs. Thing is, those features simply aren't that useful for a lot of "pro" buyers like most software developers. Even most design apps don't make much use of the GPU IIRC.
On the Mac side of things, I'd be looking at paying a minimum of $3K (Mac Pro) $5K (iMac Pro) or $2K (iMac) for something comparable. Now obviously, the iMacs include a monitor (duh) but I already own nice monitors.
Now, what will Apple charge for this "Mac Mini Pro?"
If it's a few hundred bucks more than a high-spec Intel NUC that sells for $1K, fine. I'll pay it. If it's $2K, they can go take a hike.
Beyond a clean look on a desk, what's the advantage of having the computer and the monitor in the same device? It seems a bit barbaric to me, like sacrificially killing and burying the slave when their master dies but in a (shallow) sense worse because with iMac the master must also die when the slave does, by which I mean that if either computer or monitor craps out, you get to trash them both. What happens when it falls off of the desk or is dropped when moving or hit by a baseball or your clumsy girlfriend/boyfriend/kid/coworker/neighbor or falls during the earthquake and on and on? You've automatically doubled your sorrows? Yes this is true of laptops but why import the weakness to desktops?
Surely there are many purchases in your life where you trade some money for convenience!
1. Failure rates on computer hardware (particularly things that sit on a desk, and aren't banged around in a laptop) are pretty low these days. The odds of an all-in-one Mac reaching the end of its useful lifespan without a major failure are, I'd think, overwhelmingly good.
2. Look at all the monitor choices out there. HD? Full HD? QXVGA? WXVASDCJndDF? TN? IPS? I mean, it's kind of alphabet soup.
3. Look at all the cable and connector options. DP, HDMI revisions, etc. Again, easy for you and me, but not something everybody wants to figure out.
4. Obviously it happens, but I don't know too many people that have managed to physically destroy a TV or non-laptop computer by accidentally smashing it. Odds of it happening are pretty low.
Now, I'd like to purchase my monitor separately, thanksverymuch. And I think there are enough buyers like you and I to make it worth Apple's while. But, I totally get the need/desire for models that are as integrated as possible.
Yeah, I can see the convenience, and in fact I've used iMacs and enjoyed them. They're dead simple to set up, they look great, and importantly for the company they keep the Apple logo on the desk instead of under it while keeping the screen manufacturer's logo away.
I think it's when I see the iMac Pro that I start to really balk.
The irony is that Apple's design is pretty much a descendent of Bauhaus' and Braun's form-follows-function design -- and yet at least at the pro level they often appear to be sacrificing function for form.
Yeah the iMac Pro is one of the most ridiculous products I've seen in ages, from any company in any market.
I don't mind some "Apple tax", like a few hundred bucks, but the iMac Pro is literally like 3x the cost of its competition.
(Though I'm sure Apple would tell us that there's no direct competitor. That's true, in a way -- I don't know of anybody else selling a Xeon machine with an integrated monitor -- but for the more typical use case of "I just want a really powerful desktop and I don't need/want a Xeon-based system" there are equivalent Windows machines for far under $2K)
same here. Touch Bar is something I have no need or desire for, and I wish that it was a BTO option instead. And if you're in a house with a dog, magsafe is an absolute lifesaver. I was shocked that they eliminated it.
It's amazing that they're getting rid of it given how it clearly solves an actual problem. Personally I've had to re-solder two laptop power supply connections on older non-Mac laptops.
>I suppose one could reserve them for races and train with cheaper shoes.
That's what I would do. You'd have a slight boost on top of the usual race day boost and $250 to get ~4 marathons/8 half marathons isn't bad. I mean that would probably be 4+ years for a lot of non-serious runners.
People train months (and years) to take minutes off their time, especially as their times get lower and the returns diminish.
4% of 3 hours is more than 7 minutes! That could be equivalent to tens of hours on the road. $250 is a _great_ investment at that rate.
This is the "Why go to that expensive restaurant?" argument all over again. When it's your hobby, and it's important to you, the thought process behind the purchase is very different.
I have to say, running is a little more than a hobby to me, (obsession perhaps?). So I understand how runners think about running, and the gear they purchase for running.
There's literally NO WAY I'd buy a pair of shoes I can run in for 100 miles for $250. I wouldn't be able to NOT think about every mile just costing me $2.50.
Call me frugal, but that's two pairs of any other shoe, and I can run in those for most of the summer.
A $250 pair of shoe is nothing but a luxury item for an extremely simple pastime. It's absolutely marketed to make you first feel inferior, then offer a solution. You always lose out when you fall for marketing.
Even with these shoes (provided these shoes do what they say they do), there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who can run faster than me, even if they all wear flip flops. I would be embarrassed to even consider purchasing shoes that promise to make me faster like these are marketed to do.
> This is the "Why go to that expensive restaurant?" argument all over again.
I mean, I guess so: "expensive" doesn't mean, "best". It just means, "expensive". The food may be good, or people pay because of the exclusivity the price creates. I'm not really about that sort of classicism. I like good tasting food too, but you know what I learned to do?
Cook.
To be a better a runner, I decided to run. Running taught me a lot about keeping things simple, and to get rid of the b.s.
I think your justification for your opinion is sound, but I think the justification for the other side is sound as well. An elite runner may have only a handful of marathons in a year they really want to trim time off of, and another $250 on top of the many months (and dollars) that go into training for them seems reasonable. Perhaps the best argument for why this plan seems reasonable is that many ordinary people already seem to be doing it.
But surely the reason people value a 7 minute reduction so highly is because of what it represents -- a successful effort to get fitter and/or mentally tougher. If you're simply 'buying' that reduction, what is the point, unless you're at the level where other benefits (public glory, sponsorship) are within reach?
I don't run competitively, but in the gym I feel like spending on better shoes takes away a false limit due to inappropriate technology. Unless you are running barefoot, I can see how a runner might feel the slower number is just false due to an arbitrary limitation. There is a decent chance, if you can afford it, that these shoes might help you progress faster as well. In the end it's all about how effectively your effort is translated into movement.
> I don't run competitively, but in the gym I feel like spending on better shoes takes away a false limit due to inappropriate technology.
Explain to me how, in a gym setting there are, "better" shoes that "take away a false limit due to inappropriate technology" What does that mean?
Honestly, I thought the best shoes to use in the gym were just a pair of All Stars. I would use the weight room barefoot, but they yell at me too much.
Are you talking about Oly Shoes? 'cause those just counteract a mobility problem. Kinda better to solve that mobility problem. But thinking that's cutting edge technology is garbage. It's just a raised heal.
I agree, I don't spend more than you do it sounds like - but I do spend on a specific shoe because coming in a pair of cross trainers or running shoes is just counter productive. But the point was completely separate from arguing about what a good gym shoe is.
Good point, and I can understand that mindset in some cases. But even though the line between removing an obstacle and gaining artificial assistance is hard to draw sharply, the way these shoes are described makes me think they're clearly in the second category:
> Unlike most running shoes, they have a carbon-fiber plate in the midsole, which stores and releases energy with each stride and is meant to act as a kind of slingshot, or catapult, to propel runners forward.
> Unlike most running shoes, they have a carbon-fiber plate in the midsole, which stores and releases energy with each stride and is meant to act as a kind of slingshot, or catapult, to propel runners forward.
That's like literally every single midsole "technology" companies like Nike try to market their shoes with.
Your foot already has one of those catapult like things - it's called the Achilles. Just let it do it's job.
But a 3:50 marathon is what a lot of people can do after a few beers, and having a few beers whilst doing. Ask me how I know.
You'd have better return on investment by just going to yourself, "Hey for every 10 miles you run this week, you get a beer!" and using that as a reward for actually following your training plan.
I mean try it out: $250 buys a good few slabs of beer!
And if it doesn't work - well, the beer was delicious.
Throwing technology as something as simple as running shouldn't be the first idea to get better. It should literally be the last. If you're marathon pace is some-a-wheres near 2:25 - then let's talk.
At that pace, good chance someone is buying your shoes for you.
* when the broadcaster screws up their RDS signal after a traffic report leaving you stranded on the wrong station.
* Or FM stations that run at different frequencies from different transmitters (this used to be a massive problem when driving long distances even just 20 years ago but now even the analogue car radios are digital devices that scan multiple frequencies to hop to the next frequency aired by a given station so you don't experience much cutout).
* Then there is the obvious issue of "dead zones" where the signals cannot reach (tunnels, some industrial locations, etc).
* Digital radio also suffers from frequent, albeit brief, cutouts while driving too but I've found that to have fewer dead zones than analogue.
* Bleeding used to be massive problem with analogue radio as well - this is another problem that was solved when radio started going digital.
So this is with 100 years of research and development into a protocol that requires an order of magnitude less bandwidth and yet most of the improvements have only been in the last 20 years when things like RDS (digital packets in analogue signals) and DAB have been introduced. Given that IP streaming video content isn't that far behind, just imagine how good it is going to be when that technology finally matures.
> but now even the analogue car radios are digital devices that scan multiple frequencies to hop to the next frequency aired by a given station so you don't experience much cutout
Wait, is this really a common thing? How would I know if a car radio does this, because I'm 99% sure my car doesn't.
The name of the feature is usually AF (RDS), all my car radios since 90s have supported it and all multi-transmitter FM stations here make use of it. I'm in Finland - no idea if it is less common in US.
Maybe it's not a thing any more? Or maybe it's not as clever as scanning multiple frequencies? I've not listened to analogue radio in the car for long distances in a while but I do remember there used to be a big problem with national radio spanning multiple different frequencies and your signal would drift out as you changed regions. This problem seemed to solve itself when RDS and "smart" radios started becoming a thing. However my experience is with video broadcasting rather than radio so I might have gotten some of the details wrong.
I love things that just work but it's a little unfair to compare radio technology that has been around for over 100 years and backed by huge public infrastructure investments with internet-based live streaming that has been around for (being generous) maybe 10-15 years at the most?
I remember an anecdote from an old school broadcast engineer I knew about 15 years ago. He recalled some sales guy from Real coming in and saying "with this new box we can broadcast to 5 thousand people". Engineer pointed to a picture of crystal palace transmitter that happened to be in the room -- "with that we can transmit to 5 million".
I'm not convinced how muliticast works to mobile devices, but it's a painfully edge case. This type of event occurs in the UK once every 4 years (the olympics doesn't pull in these numbers -- except for 2012 when it was hosted in London), and even then only when England do well (so once every 20 years)
That said, ITV latency seemed far shorter than BBC latency, watching ITV player seemed acceptable. Apart from the lackluster commentary and the adverts.
Not really when theres a good chance its ending up going through radio technology still anyways (wifi).
And its a matter of complexity - its obvious why OTA would have less problems to solve in order to get the same performance and behavior of something more complex.
OTA doesn't have less problems to solve. You have all the same problems of digital encoders etc (since all the media is digital anyway) PLUS the problems of transmission towers, solar events (I kid you not), wildlife, etc. You have the safety and cost problems supporting those hazardous and highly expensive equipment in remote locations.
IP streaming does actually solve a lot of problems. Plus these days OTA transmissions are all digital anyway. So serving that digital content via the internet is a natural progression. Sure things are superficially more complex at the moment but the technology hasn't matured yet.
