Good point on Apple (their stuff is overpriced and underperforming--their screens are crap, for instance), but with Tesla, yes: their cars aren't that expensive, that honor goes to companies like McLaren, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, etc. You can easily get a Tesla for well under $100k. That's a lot compared to a Honda, but not compared to a Ferrari or Bugatti or a high-end BMW or Mercedes even. There's no shortage of cars topping $100k out there.
More importantly, Tesla's whole approach is to aim at the higher end of the market (people with $70-110k to blow on a car) to fund their R&D so that they can push to the middle portion of the market ($30-40k is the target price of the Model 3). So they haven't gotten there yet, but all indications are that this is where they're going in the next couple of years, so yes, affordability is a key component of their decision-making.
Even Apple isn't that bad: their phones are overpriced, but their direct competitors aren't that much cheaper for the main product (phones or tablets). Apple makes a bunch of money by trapping its customers into its walled garden and making profits off the apps they buy, the music they buy, profits from overpriced accessories like cables and headphones, license fees from 3rd-party accessories by using proprietary patented connectors, etc. So there's a certain focus on "affordability" there too: they try to price their stuff low enough that fashion-middle-class people aren't going to completely balk at it (monthly payment plans linked to carriers help a lot here), but high enough to get a good profit, while using the other tactics I just listed to get really obscene profits overall.
Almost every company has to worry about affordability to some degree. The only exceptions are ones which cater to truly wealthy people, companies like Vertu (horrifically expensive phones costing $20k!), Rolls-Royce cars, various handbag companies, etc. If you want the middle class to buy your stuff, affordability is going to be part of the design process somewhere, to some degree.
Not sure why you're comparing Teslas to Bugattis, McLarens and Ferraris. They have a completely diffrent target customer base I'm talking about mainstream consumer cars, not specialized racing and/or luxury cards.
Isn't that the point? In business in order to capture the entire market you have to release products at different price points. Some people want to pay Ferrari prices for their car, some people want to pay civic prices.
Apple does this: even though the 7 is the current line, they still sell the 6 and SE. You have to figure people are actually buying these older models, even though they're not that much cheaper (the SE starts at $400 and has the iPhone 5s design)
I'll add another example: Campbells makes soup in three tiers, from the cheap condensed stuff, to the premixed stuff, to Campbell's Slow Kettle Style which comes in nicer packaging and better design (I haven't tried it, maybe it tastes better too)
Yes. The Apple II was the first computer that was affordable and approachable to consumers. How have we forgotten history this quickly?
In terms of Tesla, their entire plan was to make affordable cars for everyone. They are using high end car sales to subsidize the lower end production.
Palantir has consumer products?
Do you consider sales to finance (where they started) B2C or B2B? I would say it's more B2B - but irrespective of that - the point is that private technology companies like Palantir have to make all of those same evaluations that the president stated weren't happening.
Since I live a few blocks from Zuccatti Park and was present for most of the Occupy rise and fall, I'm pretty sure I know what it was about, but feel free to share. And yes, I personally feel that a clear parallel is shaping up.
To be fair, it's really hard to tell from the outside because the messages were all so muddled and the actions amounted to hanging out in a park. What's your take?
> If Russia (as a country) wants to spread destabilizing propaganda that might weaken another nation, I don't think it's the "right" guaranteed by free speech.
Your definition of what might 'weaken another nation' is your own and doesn't represent the views of everyone in the country. Just because something might deflate your nationalistic commie-hating boner or whatever doesn't mean it should be banned.
So your whole point is 'its okay to infringe on freedom of speech in the west because it happens in russia' ? Are you a retarded stalinist or what? Also pretending to have sources and then telling people to google it is just a hilarious way of showing people what a clown you are.
I am not saying it's okay to infringe freedom of speech.
I will speak in general of Russia's television networks (because in my country there are not only RT, but more), but they are blatantly using this term to spread to say whatever they want. But what if they say that oppression against occupied soviet countries didn't happen? [&][0]( original sources not in english). Their defence is of course 'freedom of speech'. But what if that 'freedom of speech' breaks laws (usually it's on the brink of the law)? What if their reporters are filming themselves near infamous rocket artillery launchers[1][2], launchers who are hitting civilians [3][4]?
I recommended googling to see 'two opinions' yourself and how they present themselves. Someone like RT will never say two different opinions and most importantly not even mention another opinion exists. How they will disgustingly disguise and create a "mist of lies" around some fact that they know they are wrong about it. E.g. clearly fake satellite pictures how russia managed to picture a fighter jet in the process of firing it's weapons into MH17 (that fighter jet is an infantry support jet, with 7km flight ceiling (or 5km loaded)) [5]
Russian information channels work very well, they just work with KGB and Goebbels strategies.
"Freedom of speech" is no more freedom of speech when it breaks laws or is blatant and utter photoshoped lie.
[&] It's the same that Deutche Welle would start showing documentaries that holocaust and concentration camps didn't happen, a huge insult to victim countries and people, not to say it would be break the law in many countries as well.
> but they are blatantly using this term to spread to say whatever they want.
That's what pretty much all major western media outlets do as well.
> Their defence is of course 'freedom of speech'. But what if that 'freedom of speech' breaks laws (usually it's on the brink of the law)?
Like what laws?
> What if their reporters are filming themselves near infamous rocket artillery launchers[1][2], launchers who are hitting civilians [3][4]?
Whats wrong with filming action? Seems like courage and dedication to me.
> But what if they say that oppression against occupied soviet countries didn't happen?
You don't realize how hilarious that is? You can find 100 equivalent western propaganda pieces for every one of RT's. I don't see people like you being against those media outlets.
> Someone like RT will never say two different opinions and most importantly not even mention another opinion exists.
Yes they will. They invite plenty of people for interviews that criticize Putin and Russia, and actually give them decently long time which Western media almost never do (like Noam Chomsky - youtube it).
> Russian information channels work very well, they just work with KGB and Goebbels strategies.
Not nearly as well as Western media channels. Russian propaganda is children's cartoons compared to Western propaganda.
> "Freedom of speech" is no more freedom of speech when it breaks laws or is blatant and utter photoshoped lie.
Funny how you only have a problem with this when its a particular party expressing views you happen to disagree with.
> How much more should the rich pay before they reach their "fair share?"
Take their age and approximate hours worked, multiply hours worked by 2x median hourly wage (cause we're nice), take away and redistribute the rest of their money.
Wait, the two companies with some of the most expensive products in their industry took the affordability approach?
> palantir etc...
Palantir has consumer products?