3 ms·
> [an off the cuff promise] seems to be the same kind of "lie" [as charging $7,500 for future self-driving] No, it doesn't, and I cannot understand how they co
by me-vs-cat 2y ago
> [an off the cuff promise] seems to be the same kind of "lie" [as charging $7,500 for future self-driving]
No, it doesn't, and I cannot understand how they could seem so similar to you.
- 9rx 2y agoI assume the intent here is for it to be a question with a forgotten question mark? Otherwise, the comment devolves into ad hominem without any technical exploration, and there is no conceivable expiation for that. Unfortunately, I am not entirely sure how to grok the question. What I am able to gather is that Musk sold a unrealized future promise on the basis of hopeful optimism as its own line item for $7,500, while Jobs sold an unrealized future promise on the basis of hopeful optimism as part of a bundle in the ballpark around $1,000, with some variation depending on the specific bundle purchased. Is the contention around the price magnitude? Would Musk be less of a "liar" if it sold for $100 instead of $7,500? Is it being sold independently instead of as part of a bundle what is in dispute? Would Musk be less of a "liar" if that $7,500 included other features available at the time of sale? Perhaps you can elaborate?
- me-vs-cat 2y agoI would ask why you believe $1,000 was charged in exchange for a promise to turn FaceTime into an open industry standard -- which would be usable by all, by definition, regardless of whether they were even customers -- but you appear more interested in put-downs. "There is no conceivable expiation for that," so I'm done; good luck!