I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Microsoft--Apple sells Microsoft software in its stores right now. Apple has by no means broken ties with every non-Apple company. They have to make nuanced decisions about how to deal with partners and competitors and they just might have more information on which to base those decisions than you do.

I just always find it hilarious when some random internet dude living in his Mom's basement is certain that Apple is doomed. I found it hilarious when Apple was at a $10B market cap, and again at $50B, and then again at $100B, and then again at $200B, and then $300B, $400B, $500B and now $600B.

It's so misleading that it is effectively dishonest. Apple makes approximately 0% of their revenue off of ads; they make hundreds of billions of dollars selling actual hardware to willing consumers. It would be absurd for them to threaten their main cash cow by building a perception that they are spying on their customers.

The truth is: they needed to enable advertising supported applications and so they created a platform which supported demographic targeting and analytics while properly anonymizing user info and keeping third party companies in-line.

Again, this has nothing to do with their 'ethics', it has everything to do with economics.

It needs to be robustly demonstrated or else it is essentially a worthless claim.

That's the problem with insisting on a proof of a negative--it's really just a transparent way of spouting lies.

So...we all done here?

Apple has an excellent track record on privacy issues. Not because they are super nice people, but because that's not their business model.

They don't make money by selling user information to third parties or by selling ads, they make money by selling actual physical objects to end-consumers. I'm not sure what you mean by "it's to be expected from Apple", but I'm pretty sure you just made that up because you don't like Apple's customers (probably because you met somebody who likes Apple products who has a more expensive haircut than you).

Those guys are so bad at selling things, that's why they barely even have a market cap of $600B.

that implements the application of cooking something--why don't you expect to be able to re-write that program? Why don't you expect that you can re-write the code on the dozen micro-controllers in your car, or your refrigerator. What about your cable box? your DVR? your DVD player? How about that PS3 your kids play?

You probably own a few dozen processors which are similarly handicapped by the manufacturer to function as an appliance.

Your ethical criteria is arbitrarily created to castigate Apple for doing the same thing that hundreds of other manufacturers have done over the last 100 years. The point of technology is not "to let you tinker"--the point is to perform a specific function. Enabling tinkering is valuable and there are lots of computers made for that purpose (including Apple's entire Mac line)--but it is hardly the only valuable thing out there.

Can you program it? It is perfectly reasonable for lots of people to want a "mobile device as an appliance", if that's not your brand of tea then shop elsewhere.

I thought we were done with all this walled-garden hysteria.

Due to losses in transmission you'll need to apply somewhat more than 85kW on average over an hour to fully charge an empty 85kWh battery.

That doesn't have anything to do with the charge rate of Lion cells, though. The cells and assocated hardware limit the charge rate as one approaches capacity, so you charge at 120kW early on and much lower than that as we approach capacity. The average power will be ~85kW to charge an empty 85kWh battery in one hour (plus maybe 10% for transmission losses).

This entire thread is full of jackasses computing the peak power draw and saying retarded things like "does it come with it's own fusion reactor?".

1. It's not a big deal to supply constant MWs to a relatively small number of charging stations along interstates. Next time you're driving along a highway look up slightly and notice the power wires carrying hundreds of MW's right next to you.

2. You don't have to size the power grid connection to cover peak demand, capacitors and batteries located at the refilling station are good at averaging out the peaks so that you just have to worry about some windowed average demand--and average demand is just not that stressful. Think of it this way, gas stations would also run out of gasoline quickly if they were refilling 8 cars at a time every 5 minutes for the entire day. OMG is the gas station right next to a refinery?!?

3. The vast majority of miles driven are daily commuting miles, which will be covered by low & slow charging at home.

4. Tesla basically does this *already* with their supercharger network. Why is it so hard to grasp this concept?

Math is hard.

You're being hysterical.

I agree that we should get more serious about tracking travelers from infected regions and enforcing quarantines. The answer isn't to invent a nonexistent pattern of official misinformation and then switch into pitchfork and torch mode.

As far as I can tell the central thesis in the "mpg vs. gpm" link is basically: "An increase of 5 mpg on a vehicle with base efficiency of 10 mpg makes a much larger difference in total fuel consumption than an increase in 5 mpg on a vehicle with base efficiency of 30 mpg--using the reciprocal mpg form masks this difference."

It took me awhile to understand this argument because I (like most people, I imagine) see the first case as a 50% increase in efficiency while the second case is a 17% (5/30 == 1/6th) increase in efficiency--so of course the first case leads to a much larger reduction in fuel efficiency.

and you seem to be so wise about energy issues, but you're not a greenie. Wow, the complete package. How much does your SUV weigh?

in California, I see on average one every few days in NYC. Tesla sales are very asymmetric, they have deep penetration in certain markets and almost none in others.