2026: Announce objective of 90% EV by 2040
2027-2035: Do nothing
2036: Announce that the 2040 objective of 90% is not realistic and must be scrapped. But all current politicians involved are going to be out of office/retired.
That's basically what they did with the 2035 objective.
How about they set a realistic objective for the next 4 years (one mandate)? It could be like having 15% EV by 2030.
Other people find it somehow a real flex about the phone or computer they own. Their sense of worth is based more on not owning an Apple product than much else. The idea that the most popular is somehow best means that the 2018 Toyota Corolla is inarguably the best car on earth.
You are getting it the other way around. More people buy an Apple device because it is a status symbol and/or it increases their sense of worth, compared to people (hardly any) who avoid Apple for that reason.
People avoid Apple for various other reasons, mostly price, performance/flexibility, being used to Windows/Linux, and to avoid vendor lock-in.
2025 world-wide data: Android has ~76% and iOS ~19% market share. Apple never had anywhere close to 28%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Every now and then, a manufacturer will try to make an open source phone, or a reparaible phone, or a privacy-phone. They all fail for the same reasons. Their volumes are two low, they get outdated components, which means they sell you something for $800 that would otherwise be worth $200. They don't have the same quality assurance as big corporations like Samsung. So expect annoyances that you can't guess from the spec sheet such as crappy microphone, software bugs (which they won't have the resources to fix), poor battery life, etc.
But I wish them good luck.
None of this is anywhere close to Trump stupidity. Pardoning war criminals and January 6ers in its first days in office, doing everything to deligitimize a free and fair election, threat to invade allied countries, stupid trade wars. Even his board of peace is a joke (lifetime Trump chairmanship, even after he leaves the white house, really?) This is doing long term permanent damage to the US reputation that will be much worse than any short term gain that may happen.
The car market is more competitive than the cell phone carrier market.
In a truly competitive market, there wouldn't be any SIM-locking. Because developing that feature cost money, and a carrier using it would need to pass the bill to customers, who would all flee to the competition and refuse to buy lesser phone for the same price or higher.
I love all the folks that are "just buy the phone outright, unlocked, then this isn't a problem". Not everybody has the money to do that. So, you're saying that poor people should get screwed?
Poor people SHOULDN'T get screwed. They SHOULDN'T finance $1000 phones on 2 years. If you can't afford a $1000 purchase outright, you can't afford that phone.
Still, SIM locking should be banned. It works just fine in Canada.
why should Verizon unlock it if the terms are not met?
That's how it works in civilized countries. I have a subsidized phone that I can use with a foreign SIM card when I travel. I still have to pay my phone. I'd have to pay it even if it stops working.
There is no valid reason for SIM locks. Just like if you lease a car from a dealer, you can still chose to fill it with gas from any provider. Are you suggesting it would be OK to lock it down to "Toyota gas" until it's fully paid for?
"tech sales professionals" isn't that a white collar job? And director of multiple car-repair shop locations as well.
I just read on that car because it's not available in my region. According to Wikipedia, it will have either a 38 or 56 kWh battery. The 38 kWh battery likely won't have that 450 km range. This is most likely with the large battery, and even then, they must be using the very optimistic WLTP test cycle to get those numbers. I expect more like 300 km real-world range in ideal summer conditions.
and gets out of whack for others when fuel prices swing (because road maintenance cost doesn't swing with fuel prices; and the tax doesn't change, it is just a percent per unit of fuel, regardless of the fuel price).
You can have a fixed tax, let say $0.5/L. Problem solved.
But it doesn't work at all with EV's, and less effectively with HEV's
EVs tend to be subsidized one way or another. So you may remove other subsidies and keep this one (not having to pay for gas tax). With about 1% EV on the road, this is far from a problem anyways.
What we want is for those who drive the most to switch to EV, so that we can have cleaner air.
But we can put a separate yearly distance tax on EV at some point.
Actually it is very simple. Drop the gas/diesel tax completely, and tax based on annually-collected odometer readings instead, adjusted by vehicle weight. Problem solved. Most states collect the readings annually already with vehicle inspection. What I very much oppose is the government forcing people to put spy devices in their vehicles (in any form) that can monitor ANYTHING except distance.
Gas tax is far less easy to cheat compared to odometer reading, however. So as long as there are less than 10% EV on roads, I think gas tax is the best solution.
It's far from a perfect system. It's not as if people had the choice being a toll road and an alternative in most places.
Some roads have tolls, and some don't. And it's quite arbitrary and unfair.
Two persons pay the same amount of tax and drive the same distance per year in the same model of car, but person A has a toll road between his home and his job, while person B has a free road supported by taxes. Why does person B deserves a free road and A doesn't?
Sure, person A could avoid the toll by making a detour but it's still unfair. The more you drive, the more you should pay for roads. Gas tax is quite a good proxy for that. And there aren't enough EV yet for it to be a problem.
Those deals also exist in some countries who banned SIM-locking. So again, there is no good reason to allow SIM-locking of phones.
Not it's not a good way. Unlocking them is easy, and developing and maintaining the SIM-lock feature also cost money.
Also it prevents legitimate uses cases. Just because I am leasing a phone from a carrier doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to swap the SIM card when I travel, or say, because I want to continue my current plan on a different phone and give that phone to my kid which has a plan on another network.
Overall, SIM-locking is a net loss to society. A text-book market failure. In a true competitive market, there wouldn't be any SIM-lock because all carriers SIM-locking phones would lose all their customers to the competition. Just like any car manufacturer that only allows you to use half of the roads during the first 2 years would go bankrupt.
Sim locking makes sense as long as there in is Phone deal such as they give you a $1200 phone for "free" as long as you promise to pay their inflated service pricing for 3 years.
No it doesn't. You can still stop paying for the phone and sell it to someone else who will get a cheap plan on the same network. Or even better, will unlock it for free or for $10 (which won't go into Verizon's pocket).
It's not as if society needed that we finance cell phones from carriers. Just like you don't finance your computer from your ISP.
But anyway phone financing plan are gong just as strong without SIM-locking in many countries. So using that excuse is lame.
Would you people stop playing these stupid games?!?!?!!!!
