Does everyone know about the other Tesla hitting a police car in Laguna Beach yet? Or are we all exhausted from hearing about so many autopilot accidents.
What happens when another firmware update breaks the fix? No pun intended. Any vehicle with this amount of change possible in firmware should be tested regularly. Tesla certainly won't let anyone know about it.
The cold weather reduces the range and one option you definitely want is heated seats. It's much more efficient to heat the seats than it is the whole cabin, - which the car can do of course, at the expense of range.
When EV owners say stuff like this it concerns me, because I like to warm the cabin and have heated seats. Where I live it is colder as well.
So what if you get the EV and suddenly your family wants to go camping in some remote place without electricity? I wouldn't want to rent a vehicle for that, too expensive. You'd be defeating the purpose of having an EV.
It's not about whether they 'would' work for people. It's about how many will accept having a car with these limitations for the price. We do road trips to remote areas and having no ICE or an unreliable ICE would prevent that. This means I need an ICE that is highway worthy for long distances; or else I am bound to my local area with it. Therefore the ICE must still be the newest and most reliable and expensive vehicle. Currently we are making do with the one vehicle, but may at some point consider a second. Electric car costs have to come down a lot further for me to justify fitting it in as my second "grocery-getting only" vehicle. I would say I would be interested in waiting five years or so and buying one used, but I am concerned how affordable that will end up being since the battery life is sketchy by that time. I think a lot of people who have a vehicle might think one day they may want to drive somewhere remote. Renting in that case is very expensive, and riskier. I am aware they are getting better at building EV charging stations but as you go away from population it becomes more likely you will get caught without a place to charge.
Automation is happening equally everywhere no matter what happens. It's still better to have a factory here with 10 non-automatable jobs then to have it in China with any number of jobs, provided cities don't give up so much to have a company there they fail to reap any net benefits for it *cough*Amazon*cough*.
Yet every time people come over to my house to enjoy a movie, they all comment on how good the sound is. You get alot for little money these days. I'm not saying these speakers aren't twice as good for the price, I'm just saying I don't see any concrete evidence in this thread.
Ok so you are speaking from a position of knowledge. I assume you have audio quality measurements in hand that are independently done. No, you sound more like someone who has blind faith in a company telling you they are better. You come with empty insults, but no evidence to back them. Can these speakers match the bass of a full subwoofer? I didn't pretend to know. What I did say is that I have heard other similar speakers and they did not have the bass.
Facts please. How are these speakers better and by how much? Maybe they are worth $700. I haven't ruled that out yet. The thing is, no one seems to know. All I hear is logic like, "don't worry, Apple is better".
Ok so how do these speakers measure up against a home theatre? Educate me with some actual facts and independent measurements instead of saying over and over and over, Apple is better.
You're talking about a speaker that costs more than twice as much as most theatre systems, yet physically it can't have the same sound range. So if not sound range, what makes a higher quality speaker? It might have more fidelity but I can't see it having twice the fidelity. Can't say I've ever had a speaker wear out on me, so longevity can't be the reason. Again, list in a religion, you're sounding like you simply have faith that the cost must be worth it *somehow* even though no one can really put their finger on what would make a speaker worth that much. Faith in Apple, that's what it's all about.
I have a two year old macbook and I got a Thinkpad Carbon at the same time, for two different contracts. The macbook's USB-C ports are wearing out, the power cable is fraying, and the keyboard is exhibiting signs of the issues that the class action lawsuit is about. The Thinkpad pretty much behaves as it did when I got it, and I treat it a lot worse. It's just made more sturdy.
I'm not bitter, because I didn't pay for it, but don't claim Apple products are higher quality.
Because Apple makes a business of taking advantage of people. Some people like that. Some people think $700 is worth it for a speaker that is simply 'prettier', even when they are making claims that aren't true in a physical world sense. If they were warned and they still want it then fine. But there may be many people reading this that simply don't realize that they could otherwise be doing it for free and helping the environment at the same time. If I see people paying $10 for a head of broccoli in the grocery store and it's cheaper next door, I tell them. If people are paying $50 for a Monster (TM) HDMI cable, I tell them they may want to reconsider.
I don't understand why this is offensive at all. It's almost like the reaction you get when you tell a devoutly religious person why you are athiest. Apple has become a religion I guess, and people just want to believe. I don't really think "I do it right", is it just that my world is so far away from theirs it is interesting to discuss my side of it with them. Maybe I *am* missing an understanding about this product and I should be corrected. that If that offends them, then I think they need to be a little more open minded about things. All I can do is explain how I see things and try to understand why anyone would buy this.
I have friends and family that don't look down on me because I don't have the newest fancy-dancy. They care about hearing music, not looking at the device that makes the music. Be free from your ego.
I have not heard these, but I have heard many high end compact speakers. All of them sound like small speakers when it comes to low-end bass response. You're not going to be watching a movie with lots of explosions on these.
I would have never bought the squeezebox devices. As with any of these solutions, the point is to not get locked into these devices which will be made crappy. The point is that a better solution is possible with an old netbook running linux and squeezeplayer.
Then what's the point of having a multi-room solution at all? Also, having to buy more devices that I don't have goes against my point. I want to put to use the devices I already have. Yes, they're older, no they don't have bluetooth. They sound way better than a 'cheap Bluetooth speaker' and still have a lot of life left in them.
If you are going the multi-room route, it is incredibly inefficient to put a separate pair of $700 speakers in every room. Yes, maybe those are decent for a primary space such as an entertainment room; but what if I want to set up a speaker in the bathroom so I can listen while I'm taking a shower? Or the garage for when I'm working on something? I'd prefer to just have reasonably decent but ultimately cheap speakers in those places. I have three stereo clock radios that sound pretty good and have aux inputs. I also have older devices I don't use any more. Again, this is part of a culture that throws out devices instead of reusing them.
Yaay, Apple caught up to squeezebox! Created by Slim Devices in 2000 and later purchased by Logitech. Of course, with squeezebox you can have squeeze player on Android/iOS/Windows/Linux/MacOS driving a $5000 amp and speaker or a $20 one. But.... enjoy your vendor lock-in Apple fans. I'm sure you will tell yourselves the sound is fabulous.
Slashdot Mirror
Does everyone know about the other Tesla hitting a police car in Laguna Beach yet? Or are we all exhausted from hearing about so many autopilot accidents.
What happens when another firmware update breaks the fix? No pun intended. Any vehicle with this amount of change possible in firmware should be tested regularly. Tesla certainly won't let anyone know about it.
That would be difficult for me. I like to be comfortable both temperature-wise and distance-wise.
The cold weather reduces the range and one option you definitely want is heated seats. It's much more efficient to heat the seats than it is the whole cabin, - which the car can do of course, at the expense of range.
When EV owners say stuff like this it concerns me, because I like to warm the cabin and have heated seats. Where I live it is colder as well.
So what if you get the EV and suddenly your family wants to go camping in some remote place without electricity? I wouldn't want to rent a vehicle for that, too expensive. You'd be defeating the purpose of having an EV.
It's not about whether they 'would' work for people. It's about how many will accept having a car with these limitations for the price. We do road trips to remote areas and having no ICE or an unreliable ICE would prevent that. This means I need an ICE that is highway worthy for long distances; or else I am bound to my local area with it. Therefore the ICE must still be the newest and most reliable and expensive vehicle. Currently we are making do with the one vehicle, but may at some point consider a second. Electric car costs have to come down a lot further for me to justify fitting it in as my second "grocery-getting only" vehicle. I would say I would be interested in waiting five years or so and buying one used, but I am concerned how affordable that will end up being since the battery life is sketchy by that time. I think a lot of people who have a vehicle might think one day they may want to drive somewhere remote. Renting in that case is very expensive, and riskier. I am aware they are getting better at building EV charging stations but as you go away from population it becomes more likely you will get caught without a place to charge.
Yup you're right. Ah the power of marketing. 30 million devices that are destined for a Thailand landfill in 2 years.
Pretty hard to sell 30 million of something that no one wants.
Automation is happening equally everywhere no matter what happens. It's still better to have a factory here with 10 non-automatable jobs then to have it in China with any number of jobs, provided cities don't give up so much to have a company there they fail to reap any net benefits for it *cough*Amazon*cough*.
Yet every time people come over to my house to enjoy a movie, they all comment on how good the sound is. You get alot for little money these days. I'm not saying these speakers aren't twice as good for the price, I'm just saying I don't see any concrete evidence in this thread.
Ok so you are speaking from a position of knowledge. I assume you have audio quality measurements in hand that are independently done. No, you sound more like someone who has blind faith in a company telling you they are better. You come with empty insults, but no evidence to back them. Can these speakers match the bass of a full subwoofer? I didn't pretend to know. What I did say is that I have heard other similar speakers and they did not have the bass.
Facts please. How are these speakers better and by how much? Maybe they are worth $700. I haven't ruled that out yet. The thing is, no one seems to know. All I hear is logic like, "don't worry, Apple is better".
Ok so how do these speakers measure up against a home theatre? Educate me with some actual facts and independent measurements instead of saying over and over and over, Apple is better.
You sound like you paid too much on speakers.
If I spend $50 on speakers that sound great, and you spend $2500 on speakers that sound great, how am I not less efficient in financial terms?
You're talking about a speaker that costs more than twice as much as most theatre systems, yet physically it can't have the same sound range. So if not sound range, what makes a higher quality speaker? It might have more fidelity but I can't see it having twice the fidelity. Can't say I've ever had a speaker wear out on me, so longevity can't be the reason. Again, list in a religion, you're sounding like you simply have faith that the cost must be worth it *somehow* even though no one can really put their finger on what would make a speaker worth that much. Faith in Apple, that's what it's all about.
I have a two year old macbook and I got a Thinkpad Carbon at the same time, for two different contracts. The macbook's USB-C ports are wearing out, the power cable is fraying, and the keyboard is exhibiting signs of the issues that the class action lawsuit is about. The Thinkpad pretty much behaves as it did when I got it, and I treat it a lot worse. It's just made more sturdy.
I'm not bitter, because I didn't pay for it, but don't claim Apple products are higher quality.
Because Apple makes a business of taking advantage of people. Some people like that. Some people think $700 is worth it for a speaker that is simply 'prettier', even when they are making claims that aren't true in a physical world sense. If they were warned and they still want it then fine. But there may be many people reading this that simply don't realize that they could otherwise be doing it for free and helping the environment at the same time. If I see people paying $10 for a head of broccoli in the grocery store and it's cheaper next door, I tell them. If people are paying $50 for a Monster (TM) HDMI cable, I tell them they may want to reconsider.
I don't understand why this is offensive at all. It's almost like the reaction you get when you tell a devoutly religious person why you are athiest. Apple has become a religion I guess, and people just want to believe. I don't really think "I do it right", is it just that my world is so far away from theirs it is interesting to discuss my side of it with them. Maybe I *am* missing an understanding about this product and I should be corrected. that If that offends them, then I think they need to be a little more open minded about things. All I can do is explain how I see things and try to understand why anyone would buy this.
Secondary speakers, at more than twice the price than most home theatres.
I have friends and family that don't look down on me because I don't have the newest fancy-dancy. They care about hearing music, not looking at the device that makes the music. Be free from your ego.
I have not heard these, but I have heard many high end compact speakers. All of them sound like small speakers when it comes to low-end bass response. You're not going to be watching a movie with lots of explosions on these.
The way the summary reads, you have to have Homepod speakers for multi-room support.
Something tells me you're not going to replace a decent setup with a subwoofer with many small speakers, no matter how hard you try.
I would have never bought the squeezebox devices. As with any of these solutions, the point is to not get locked into these devices which will be made crappy. The point is that a better solution is possible with an old netbook running linux and squeezeplayer.
Then what's the point of having a multi-room solution at all? Also, having to buy more devices that I don't have goes against my point. I want to put to use the devices I already have. Yes, they're older, no they don't have bluetooth. They sound way better than a 'cheap Bluetooth speaker' and still have a lot of life left in them.
If you are going the multi-room route, it is incredibly inefficient to put a separate pair of $700 speakers in every room. Yes, maybe those are decent for a primary space such as an entertainment room; but what if I want to set up a speaker in the bathroom so I can listen while I'm taking a shower? Or the garage for when I'm working on something? I'd prefer to just have reasonably decent but ultimately cheap speakers in those places. I have three stereo clock radios that sound pretty good and have aux inputs. I also have older devices I don't use any more. Again, this is part of a culture that throws out devices instead of reusing them.
Yaay, Apple caught up to squeezebox! Created by Slim Devices in 2000 and later purchased by Logitech. Of course, with squeezebox you can have squeeze player on Android/iOS/Windows/Linux/MacOS driving a $5000 amp and speaker or a $20 one. But.... enjoy your vendor lock-in Apple fans. I'm sure you will tell yourselves the sound is fabulous.