I think you'd actually see the opposite. Tesla is building additional EV capacity at an absurd rate, onlining a 500k/yr capacity factory almost every year the last few years (Shanghai, Berlin, Austin) with more on the way (Mexico).
It would be a very interesting result if it were a controlled test in any way. Tell me, how do you test two cars in real-world driving conditions when one care goes 100 miles further than the other? The longer range car must go through more 'real world' than the other, right? Is Edmunds going on a 10 mile identical loop in identical weather again and again, or did they extend their existing circuit? I guess we'll never know.
Also, they "re-ran" the test? The went from real-world, to a test track, and then _only_ released the results of the 'buffer' range. Then they "re-ran" again but with just two of the cars. Then, they only shared the results for one of the cars they tested (noticeably missing is the data from the other car) calling it "validation" of their results.
You have to at least agree that not releasing the full data on their results is suspicious, no? It seems like they got caught with bad data and a hyperbolic headline ("Every Tesla we've tested has failed to hit its EPA range estimate") and then rushed to find any data that would help confirm their results. That's confirmation bias if I've ever seen it.
"Testing" implies the Edmunds report is in some way scientific while it is anything but. They drove the Tesla cars in temperatures as much as 20 degrees colder than the other cars. The EPA ranges are derived by testing in a controlled environment to ensure cars are treated in the same manner. There is variability in range when driving an EV, but this report is deeply skewed and unscientific.
I'm guessing what the article refers to is the entire solar industry being asked about how they calculate the tax credit benefits. Very different from that click-bait title.
Only public statement was in response to an analyst assuming Tesla was at $260. Their investor relations team confirmed they're below $190 (back in April).
Even outside the vehicle you're still in control. By default, Summon can only be used with the mobile app and with a 'dead man switch': lift your finger off the button in the app and the car stops. The driver had to specifically disable that protection to use the feature the way he did, and now claims no responsibility. Also, pressing any button on the key stops the car. Seems like a whole host of bad decisions.
I hope the perception leans more towards 'uber rich tech execs conspired to pay their employees less' and not 'some of the best paid employees complain about how little they make'.
I'm curious if this will have any impact on the practice other than companies getting better at not leaving a paper trail.
If it doesn't, the only people this settlement will help is those at the named companies and not the trickle down effect it's had on the rest of the industry.
IIRC, Apple even went so far as to revoke iBeacon usage from companies that tried to make an Android library (Radius Networks, the creators of this spec, being one of them).
I can't speak for the other three cities, but San Francisco has a number of problems that would make it difficult for a Google Fiber rollout.
First, AT&T is already in the process of rolling out fiber to the home, or in some cases, fiber to the node with last mile copper. They have faced nothing but problems trying to do this from people in the city: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Groups-sue-S-F-trying-...
Density can be a nice benefit, but lack of space makes it hard to place the equipment necessary to serve fiber.
Second, a local provider Sonic.net is also rolling out fiber by taking the approach of starting in the closest thing San Francisco has to a less dense suburb (the Sunset). They've faced exactly the same issue (battles over placing Utility boxes).
Mat Honan's article was a valuable critique. And interesting. Gruber's reaction on the other hand...
> It’s a cool lab demo that they’re presenting as a finished product.
Google couldn't be any more clear that it is a beta and they've never once said that the current price is what it will hit the market at (or if it will hit the market, for that matter). So that's just flat out wrong.
> It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does.
Again, assuming it's a mass market product and not the experiment in wearable computing it is.
> In the meantime, to me, Google Glass is the new Tablet PC.
And there it is. Glass is Microsoft's failed foray into tablet computing. He's not even sure that this form factor will be popular, yet he compares it to a technology that took off in spite of an initially poor execution. He's convinced it will succeed, I guess, when someone other than Google does it. I wonder who he has in mind.
It's been a while since I've played games like this, but if I could just point my modern browser to a URL, subscribe for a few bucks a month, and start playing, I might just start again.
Google doesn't have to make a YouTube app for every platform, especially when people can still use YouTube via the browser on the phone.
The Platform Vendor making the app ignored the rules for using that API and got blocked.
Instead of changing it, they spend time deciding not to change it, release it again with only some of the issues fixed, and are then surprised when it gets rejected due to the outstanding issues already mentioned.
If everybody maxes out a 1 Gbps line, no one will get a 1 Gbps line.
The implication is that the broad terminology will prohibit computers doing common consumer things in addition to servers. Except that hasn't happened.
The complaint was filed by a potential customer, not someone who ran in to the restriction. In fact, it sounds as though Google Fiber keeps making exceptions for even less consumer-like things (Gaming servers in this case).