0:00

I have a ridiculous product category

0:02

that I would like to briefly review.

0:05

This is going to be interesting. Carry on. Do

0:10

you remember a few, maybe six months ago, it was

0:12

a while ago, I remember exactly what it was, it

0:14

was when the new iPhones came out. Remember they ran

0:16

a little warm and we were discussing

0:18

briefly how isn't it annoying when you first get

0:20

a new iPhone and it has to like re-index

0:22

everything as it's being all set up and everything

0:24

and it's indexing all your photos and it gets

0:26

really hot and maybe like slows

0:29

down and throttles its performance as a result

0:31

and we jokingly discovered

0:34

that Razer, the gaming PC company,

0:37

they make a magnetic

0:40

clip on, a mag safe mounting cooling

0:43

fan with a thermal electric element slash

0:45

Peltier, however you pronounce those, with one of

0:47

those in it to help cool

0:50

phones while gaming. Are

0:52

you about to pull a KC? What

0:54

does that mean? Talk about something that we've talked about

0:57

in past episodes already. Oh fair, that

0:59

is 100% pulling a KC. Let's see, let's sit

1:01

back and watch. He just said that we spoke

1:03

about it in the past though, he's clear, he's

1:05

acknowledged it. Go ahead and also... Well

1:09

I thought, I have

1:11

to try this. Wait, wait, wait, slow down.

1:13

Why? Why do you need to cool your phone? About

1:16

once a year, I need that because when I'm like

1:18

setting up a new iPhone, it's really kind of terrible.

1:21

So I thought, you know what, what the heck, let

1:23

me try it. I can talk about it on

1:25

this show. I placed an order

1:27

on Amazon like shortly after we recorded that

1:29

episode. It was back ordered immediately

1:31

and just has never arrived. It

1:33

never will arrive at this point. In the

1:36

intervening times, random Amazon sellers with

1:38

those vowel combination names that,

1:40

you know, they last about six months before they

1:42

disappear and make new vowel combination names, they

1:44

have come up with entries in this product category.

1:48

And at the same time, I have been facing

1:50

a problem as I am using my iPhone

1:52

15 Pro on the

1:54

dashboard of my car, like in the dash mount on

1:56

road trips. As it's getting warmer, it's starting to get

1:58

warmer. air

6:00

but you know the fact is

6:02

my phone doesn't overheat. Can

6:04

you put a link to this certainly in the show notes can

6:06

you share it with us so I can laugh at how ridiculous

6:09

this is? Oh yeah it's bad I mean

6:11

it because it's it's hideous I mean here let me

6:13

show you. So you said like the Rivian vents like

6:15

you can't clip anything to them they're just too they're

6:17

too weird like weird electric car type vents and they're

6:19

down too low? They are weird electric car events but

6:21

yeah the bigger problem is they're they're mounted down like

6:23

at the bottom of the dashboard it's actually it's not

6:25

a great place for them even just to be vents

6:28

although Hops loves them. Alright

6:30

so I just put a link in

6:32

the chat. It's like a big tongue.

6:36

It's like a gigantic tongue licking an

6:38

ice hockey puck. So I have that

6:40

I mean I'm using that mount

6:43

with this second one

6:45

that with this charging pad because this one

6:47

was a little bit bit like had a little

6:49

bit stronger cooling. I love the artwork makes

6:52

it look like it's gonna make frost form on your phone which

6:54

I think would not be good. Truthfully

6:57

it's not as bad as I

6:59

thought but it's

7:01

not great. No I mean it look it's ugly but

7:03

you don't see and one thing I was surprised by

7:05

the fan really is not loud like

7:07

you don't you really don't hear the fan in

7:09

a car. Cars are loud like if it's gonna

7:11

be drowned out by that. Not his. Yeah electric

7:14

cars aren't I was I was actually concerned about

7:16

that. Just like the wind noise and tire noise

7:18

alone. Yeah I mean the tire noise yeah for

7:20

sure like you do hear that but I was

7:22

I was very pleasantly surprised that it actually is

7:24

really not too loud. Here this

7:27

and this one if you just want

7:29

a cooler not a charger.

7:31

This is the other one that actually cools

7:33

it substantially better. I think they're

7:35

all kind of limited by how much power they're

7:37

going to draw from USB. Like I have one

7:39

of those little USB power meter things. The one

7:41

that the lysen one that one

7:43

draws the most that's about 20 watts while charging the

7:46

phone and cooling. That seems to be

7:48

the max. Everyone else is around like 12 to 15 watts.

7:51

So like they could theoretically use USB power

7:53

delivery to have like even higher rates but

7:55

for some reason they don't do that and

7:57

I haven't looked into that further but like

7:59

I I haven't found one that does for

8:01

whatever reason. But look, these are fine. They

8:05

work fine. And

8:07

look, this is ridiculous. You shouldn't

8:09

need to do this. Our phones shouldn't be

8:11

overheating when just operating in a car. But

8:14

they do. And here we are. Well,

8:17

I don't know if you can blame it on the phone. I mean,

8:19

I would blame it on the car maker for making you use your

8:21

phone in that way. But because the car is like, even when

8:23

you're driving, I know it's like air conditioner

8:26

or whatever, but it's like in direct sunlight, right? Pretty

8:29

much. And it's like a little

8:31

greenhouse. It's a difficult situation. Yeah, and I'm

8:33

using wireless charging, which of course generates

8:36

some heat. And I have

8:38

a case around the phone, which of course also basically

8:41

insulates the heat on the inside.

8:44

So there's a lot of factors working against it.

8:46

But it is kind of a ridiculous problem. But

8:48

a ridiculous problem deserves a ridiculous solution. And I

8:50

found one. All

8:53

right, let's do some follow up. CyWazam

8:57

or something like that. We're hope with regard

8:59

to the Snapdragon X10, whatever

9:01

this is, trillions of operations

9:04

per second. And that person wrote, well,

9:06

40 tops is the minimum spec

9:08

for something to be called a copilot

9:10

plus PC. All Snapdragon X elite and

9:12

plus chips are actually rated at 45

9:15

trillion operations per second. Apologize for

9:18

underselling the Snapdragon X, 45 tops.

9:21

Excellent. I am glad to hear it. Justin

9:24

Long has come back around. I don't know.

9:26

I actually really liked him when he was

9:29

very popular like 15 years ago. But he

9:31

is the actor that you would know as

9:33

the Mac to the foil of John Hodgman's

9:35

PC. And he came

9:37

back to promote Qualcomm

9:39

powered Windows PCs. I don't even know what to

9:41

make of this. But the Verge writes, Apple's

9:44

former AMMA Mac actor Justin Long defected to Intel

9:46

a few years ago. And now he's looking to

9:48

switch to a Qualcomm powered Windows PC during Qualcomm's

9:50

Computex 2024 keynote today. Long

9:52

appeared in a brief 30 second skit where he

9:54

was bombarded by macOS notifications and nag screens causing

9:56

him to start searching for a Snapdragon powered PC

9:59

instead. Cool. Well,

10:01

I'll put a link to Ruber's post about this,

10:03

which covers pretty much everything I wanted

10:05

to say about it. But yeah, the main thing that's

10:07

really baffling is like, okay, so you know, you get

10:09

the actor that was in an Apple ad campaign, you

10:11

try to ride an Apple's coattails, you do a thing,

10:13

Intel has done it before, apparently he's done this for

10:16

Huawei as well, whatever. But

10:18

like, you have to have some motivation for

10:20

the person in the ad to be saying,

10:22

I'm dissatisfied with Apple, so I'm

10:24

going to get a Copile Plus PC or whatever, right?

10:27

But the reason he's dissatisfied is

10:31

he gets notifications, like

10:33

the email has arrived and stuff. I

10:36

mean, you can turn off notifications, like they should have asked an

10:38

actual Mac user, what's annoying about Mac OS? We can tell you.

10:41

Like there are things you could put in the ad that are legit, but

10:43

what they had in the ad was like, why does this make

10:45

him want a new computer? It is just not

10:48

a sensible ad and it shows like real,

10:51

just not, again, just ask anyone who

10:53

has a Mac, they'll tell you what's annoying about Mac OS.

10:55

For example, like the, I think the people have done ads

10:57

on this, all the stupid permission things, right? The pop up,

10:59

you know, we've been complaining about for ages that Jason Snow

11:01

had a big post about when he had to set up

11:03

a new computer. That's actually annoying. Show

11:05

those flying in his face and saying, boy, I just tried

11:07

to set up a new computer and I had to give

11:10

a million different permissions to a million different apps. I'm going

11:12

to get a Snapdragon X Copile Plus PC

11:14

because then I want to deal with that. I don't

11:16

know if that's actually true, but that would be a

11:18

sensible ad showing an actual pain point, but this failed

11:20

to do that. So anyway, I'm glad he's getting paid

11:22

to do ads. And it is really

11:26

just a, it's

11:28

not, I don't know, uh, embarrassing

11:31

move to, uh, be

11:34

trying to play off of a very

11:36

now very old Apple ad campaign rather than

11:38

making your own ad campaign. But you know,

11:40

advertising is what it is. All

11:42

right. So windows recall, uh, everyone seemed

11:44

to be really worked up about how

11:46

this was going to be a security

11:49

nightmare. And I'll actually admit

11:51

that I assumed that no,

11:53

the, the Microsoft knows what they're doing.

11:55

This surely can't be as bad as everyone fears. Well,

11:58

it's as bad as everyone fears, if not worse. secure

14:00

that it can't be hacked because then the user wouldn't be

14:02

able to see it either. Like for

14:04

it to be useful, you have to be able to go

14:07

back in time and look at stuff. If

14:09

you take away that ability, you can make it real secure. It's

14:12

not a very useful feature, right? So

14:14

that I think is just, that's

14:16

never going to be fixed. People are just

14:18

going to have to live with it and deal with it

14:20

and be fine. But the second part is, okay, but you

14:22

should at least make it so that other

14:24

people can't see it easily. Like it should

14:27

be encrypted on disk and stuff like that. And they

14:29

didn't even do that. Like in a plain unencrypted SQLite

14:31

database that's accessible to, of

14:34

course, the logged in user, apparently it's also accessible to any

14:36

admin user on the system. It's just a plain text file.

14:38

Like they didn't even encrypt it at rest. So

14:41

implementation of this does not look great and turning it

14:43

on by default does not seem great. And

14:45

it's basically giving the copilot plus PCs kind of

14:48

a marketing black eye before they have a chance

14:50

to impress people with all the good things about

14:52

them. You know what I mean? Like this

14:55

is not the fault of the Snapdragon X processor. This

14:57

is not the fault of the hardware. It's

14:59

the fault of Windows, including this feature and turning it

15:01

on by default and apparently implementing it poorly. So

15:04

I don't know, Microsoft, they've got a lot

15:06

of work. By the time you hear this episode, presumably Microsoft will

15:08

have issued an apology and said they're not going to have it

15:10

on by default and yada yada. But right now things don't look

15:12

good. Yeah. I mean, I assume they

15:15

will have it off by default before its release because

15:17

there are just there's way too many problems. And, you

15:19

know, we talked about all this when, you know, when

15:21

Rewind AI came out, you know, whenever we talked about

15:23

that like months ago. And then

15:25

again, on our overtime a couple of weeks

15:28

ago, you know, as you said, like

15:30

there's really no good way to have

15:33

this data be like, you know, quote

15:35

only accessible to good reasons

15:37

or good people or whatever. I

15:40

think the ultimate like as long as this

15:42

data is being collected somewhere

15:44

on your computer or on some service, like whatever it is,

15:47

like even if you have it all local, all

15:49

encrypted, it's still being collected.

15:52

And there will be ways to exploit that. People

15:55

will find security holes, malware will try

15:57

to access it, some malware will succeed

16:00

accessing it. There are also things

16:02

like legal discovery risks and things like that too,

16:04

that will make a lot of companies not want

16:06

to do it. And just plain old social engineering,

16:08

because again, the user can access it. So if

16:10

you can convince the user to do something, like

16:12

that's most of hacking and malware is based on

16:14

tricking people into doing something, right? And there's,

16:17

there's no, again, there's no way to collect this and

16:20

have it be totally safe. If the user has access to

16:22

it, the user is the weakest link.

16:24

And there's, there are so many like practical

16:28

and privacy concerns and just legal

16:30

concerns with this. Like I, I,

16:33

how are they getting around things like wiretapping

16:35

laws? Like I, there's just, there's so many problems

16:38

with, with these kinds of approaches. Like I

16:40

think it's, it's interesting that these tools

16:42

exist. They make for fantastic demos and

16:45

some people will use them and will

16:47

love them. It is

16:49

so far from being appropriate to be

16:52

on by default. Like that

16:54

is, we are nowhere, it is nowhere

16:56

near that universally

16:58

good that it should be on by default. This

17:00

should be something that it's fine for

17:02

companies like Rewind to have products that do this.

17:05

It's interesting that Microsoft's doing it at the OS level now.

17:07

It's, it's wonderful to have that as

17:10

an option for those like power productivity

17:12

users who know about it, who know

17:14

exactly what it's doing and who will

17:16

opt into it. It, it

17:18

has to be only for them though. It cannot be

17:21

everyone opted in by default. That's that

17:23

is just irresponsible. Yeah,

17:26

not good, Bob, but here we are. AMD's

17:28

next generation of AI laptop processors have been

17:31

announced reading from the verge AMD announced at

17:33

Computex 2024 it that it's next generation

17:36

of Ryzen laptop processors for generative

17:38

AI workloads. The Ryzen AI 300

17:41

series. It's a rebrand of its top tier

17:43

Ryzen nine ships. The new Ryzen AI chips

17:46

are built on AMD's latest architectures for neural

17:48

integrated graphics and general processing. The first two

17:50

processors in the series of the Ryzen AI

17:52

nine HX 370 just rolls right off

17:54

the tongue and the similarly eloquent

17:57

Ryzen AI nine 365. 50

18:00

trillion operations per second on their MPUs, but

18:03

the HX variant is the higher end of

18:05

the two. You know that because it says

18:07

HX. So we mentioned last

18:09

episode or whenever we talked about the Copilot

18:11

plus PCs that AMD, you know, and Intel

18:14

also have processors that they're going to be rolling

18:16

out that are going to qualify as Copilot plus

18:18

PCs is not just an arm thing. So they're

18:20

behind, but they're catching up and look, there's AI

18:22

right in the processor name. I'm sure they'll never

18:24

regret regret that branding and it won't look dated

18:26

when we look back on it. But 50 tops.

18:29

Hey, better than 45, right? So good job, AMD.

18:32

All right. All right. Intel

18:34

has also detailed its new lunar Lake

18:37

CPUs that will go up against the

18:39

aforementioned AMD, Qualcomm and Apple reading this

18:41

time from our technical lunar Lake will

18:43

be Intel's first processor with a neural

18:45

processing unit or MPU that meets Microsoft's

18:48

Copilot plus PC requirements. Intel

18:50

rates lunar lakes, MPU raw performance at

18:52

48 tops. Lunar Lake has two functional

18:54

tiles. The compute tile combines all of

18:56

the processor's performance and efficiency cores, the

18:59

GPU, the MPU, the display outputs and

19:01

the media encoding and decoding engine. And

19:04

the platform controller tile handles wired and wireless

19:06

connectivity, including PCIE and USB Thunderbolt four and

19:08

wifi seven and Bluetooth high point four. Another

19:10

big packaging change that Intel is integrating Ram

19:12

into the CPU package. Oh, just like Apple.

19:15

So does this sound familiar? This is, you

19:17

know, the Apple sort of led the charge

19:19

here in the mass market PC for the

19:21

market for mass market PCs, right? They, they

19:23

made their system on a chip. It's got

19:26

the Ram and the same package. It's got

19:28

the whole thing in a giant SOC. Here's

19:31

Intel finally catching up with that philosophy.

19:33

I think the AMD one is similar with the chiplet

19:35

type thing, but this is,

19:37

I really feel like this is Apple

19:40

leading and people are going to say, well, Apple isn't

19:43

the first one to do that. Lots of people have

19:45

done it before or so on and so forth, but

19:47

Apple showed that it can perform very well in personal

19:49

computers that they sell millions of to regular people. The

19:52

GPU on there, but

19:54

the neuro processing, the media encoder engine and everything.

19:56

And so here's Intel basically

19:59

many years. as

22:00

we record. However, the equivalent webpage on

22:02

many of Apple's regional stores still lists

22:04

the M2 iPad Air as having a

22:06

10 core GPU. Eventually, a

22:08

statement was provided to 9to5 Mac

22:10

and Apple said that that the details it

22:12

shared with the iPad Air's performance were always

22:14

based on a nine core GPU. So Apple

22:16

said and I'm quoting, we are updating apple.com

22:18

to correct the core account for the M2

22:20

iPad Air, all the performance claims to the

22:22

M2 iPad Air are accurate and based on

22:24

a nine core GPU. Whoopsie-dipsies.

22:26

What a weird flub. Like, yes,

22:29

I mean, it doesn't even seem like it's a

22:31

last minute decision. This is something that had to have been

22:33

decided a long ago. But like maybe there was a miscommunication

22:35

like they decided to go with the nine core instead of

22:37

the 10 core to save money on the iPad Air and

22:39

just did the web team didn't hear about

22:42

it, even though that decision was made four months ago,

22:44

like it's not like they started manufacturing the iPad Air

22:46

on the day of the announcement or something. Very

22:49

strange. Not a big deal for the iPad Air. That's

22:51

fine. But I don't know what's going on over

22:53

there. We

22:55

are brought to you this episode by

22:57

Squarespace, the on one website platform for

22:59

entrepreneurs to stand out and succeed online,

23:02

whether you're just starting out or managing

23:04

a growing brand. Squarespace makes it super

23:06

easy for you to make a beautiful

23:08

website, engage with your audience and sell

23:10

what you make, whether it's products or

23:12

content or even your time, all in

23:14

one place and all on your terms.

23:16

Squarespace makes everything super easy. You don't have to

23:19

be a nerd to use this. So that's great.

23:21

Like not only you as a nerd listening to

23:23

the show, you don't have to like waste your

23:25

time dealing with like installing packages and servers

23:27

and stuff. But also, if you're recommending it

23:30

to someone else in your life, they can

23:32

do it themselves. It's super empowering. They don't

23:34

need to go through a gatekeeper nerd like

23:36

us to do their own website, they can

23:38

do it themselves. And Squarespace supports everything you

23:41

might need, especially for business sites. You can

23:43

of course sell products, digital or physical. They

23:45

have all sorts of features, tax

23:47

handling, shipping, handling, inventory, all this stuff.

23:50

You can also sell content. Suppose

23:52

you maybe you're selling exclusive content by having

23:54

a paywall to sell memberships or courses,

23:56

or you can sell files to download like

23:59

PDFs or music. use

44:00

screen like the five most commonly used setting screens

44:02

and I'm sure Apple knows what those are Handly

44:05

them out makeup bring in an actual good UI

44:07

designer remembers what Mac years of recent user interface

44:09

It was like hell bring someone who's ever used

44:12

a web form because I can't remember any time

44:15

I was asked to like update my passport on

44:17

a web page and the text field was right

44:19

aligned in English Doesn't

44:21

it doesn't make any sense? I thought of that

44:23

or the labels were like massively far away from

44:25

the values just Disappointing.

44:28

Yeah, it's a it's a

44:30

it's an adventure in there, but we'll see what happens

44:34

vision OS 2.0 There

44:36

haven't been very many rumors about this Somebody

44:39

pointed out I don't have the toot in

44:41

front of me But somebody pointed out that

44:43

hey vision OS shipped, you know in the

44:45

middle of the software life cycle for Apple

44:47

And so it would not be surprising if

44:49

vision OS 2.0 is really just getting all

44:51

the low-hanger or some of the low-hanging fruit

44:53

That didn't ship for 1.0 But

44:56

one of the things that's been rumored Maybe

44:58

is that some or perhaps even all of

45:00

Apple's iPad apps that are running in compatibility

45:02

mode on the vision Pro Perhaps those will

45:05

become real honest-to-goodness vision Pro

45:07

apps. So things like home calendar

45:09

podcast pages, etc which

45:11

I think is Possible although it

45:13

would not surprise me if that was issued

45:15

in favor of Doing

45:17

something more whiz bang, but we'll see maybe

45:20

we would be able to rearrange the home screen. That'd

45:22

be cool So if these

45:24

apps if the things that ship does

45:26

iPad apps are native it makes me think that they were already

45:30

Being developed. They just weren't ready for launch right because it

45:32

doesn't I don't feel like they would launch The

45:34

the vision Pro and then say okay now all those

45:36

things we had to ship as iPad apps Let's get

45:38

teams on those to make them like Seems

45:41

like they would have to be in progress already and just didn't make the

45:43

deadline but either way this is embarrassing when you launch

45:45

a new platform and Whole

45:48

bunch of your really important apps are

45:50

the iPad versions, but you know Apple's has Done

45:53

that in the past like with the iPad not getting

45:56

Versions of Apple's own pro apps for years

45:59

and years and years. Sometimes it takes the Apple a

46:01

really long time to get around to doing stuff. And

46:03

it was the iPad OS rumor that's going to get

46:05

a calculator now. It's just, they just never got around

46:07

to it. Right. And so I mean, if they do

46:09

this, at least it shows if they have, if they're

46:11

all, if all the iPad apps are now native, I

46:14

think that does show some level of commitment that they

46:16

realized it was embarrassing not to have that. And it

46:18

was just a timing thing. And now they're, you know,

46:20

fixing that. But I agree with you,

46:22

Casey, that I don't expect vision OS 2.0 to

46:25

be massively different. There's just

46:27

so many obvious things

46:29

they need to fix and enhance, fix bugs, add

46:31

minor features. I don't even expect them to have

46:33

a big home screen rearranging thing. If they do,

46:35

it'll be very rudimentary because this is really just

46:37

kind of like the, you

46:39

know, make it what we wish 1.0

46:42

could have been if we had an extra, you know,

46:44

six months. Yeah. Because that's really

46:46

all it's been like, you know, you

46:48

think about every year you think about these platforms

46:50

going up by one whole version number and there

46:52

being a certain kind of minimum amount of improvement.

46:55

But keep in mind, like vision, vision pro was

46:57

a half year release. And so it

46:59

really hasn't been that long since 1.0. And from all

47:02

we've heard, it seems like software was the

47:04

the like gating factor of when it can

47:06

be released, not hardware. So like, it's not

47:08

like they have a bunch of software work

47:10

saved up for years, you know, waiting to

47:13

be released. Like, no, you know, what we

47:15

got so far, like that's, that's what they

47:17

have so far. And so I'm not expecting

47:19

a lot of movement on the

47:21

vision pro software side yet. It's just it's too soon.

47:23

And that being said, like, keep in

47:25

mind, too, this is a very

47:28

like distant forward looking platform for them. This

47:30

is not going to be a big seller

47:32

for a long time, if ever. And

47:34

so I think the

47:37

level of improvement to expect for vision OS

47:39

releases even going forward, even when they have

47:41

full years to do it, I'm

47:44

expecting something more like watch

47:47

OS releases or TV OS releases like not

47:49

I'm not expecting like major new changes and

47:51

major new features to be coming out every

47:53

single year. I think it's going to be

47:56

a slower update pace like it I think

47:58

this is a very long game. Badness

56:01

because it is such a non apple

56:05

non controlled non careful Just like Wild West

56:07

talk to chat GPT. Good luck. It's not

56:09

our thing Hey, how is

56:11

that a selling point? How are you going to promote

56:14

that as like a new feature of your

56:16

operating systems? Non hardware

56:18

WWDC. I don't think there's probably going to be

56:20

a developer story unless Apple is gonna like pay

56:22

for your API tokens and now you can Write

56:25

an iOS or a Mac app and use their

56:27

framework and get free access to chat GPT because

56:29

Apple did some multi-million dollar deal With them or

56:31

something This baffles me. That's

56:33

why I added this thing of the whole opt-in like

56:35

what does that mean? What are we opting into? What

56:37

are you providing? I've

56:40

red flags all over this Yeah,

56:44

I I don't know I I'm

56:46

so turned

56:48

off by Sam Altman and

56:50

open AI. I don't know

56:53

it's it's funny the dude who we all

56:55

snickered about Wearing, you know the two popped

56:57

collar polo shirts. It wasn't a WWDC like

56:59

a day ago long time ago Yeah, yeah,

57:02

and we all laughed and had a

57:04

good you know laugh at his expense

57:06

And you know look at this Silicon

57:08

Valley bro just being the world's bro

57:10

eist bro and fast forward five ten

57:12

years and it seems like same

57:14

as it ever was nothing's ever really changed

57:16

like it's you know move fast break things

57:18

and have no consequences and I

57:21

don't know like again. We'll see what happens

57:23

like I am cautiously optimistic and again. I

57:25

like to think of Apple as Generally

57:30

one of the more mature in adult organizations in

57:32

the Valley. I'm sure there's exceptions I'm sure that's

57:34

not always true, but broadly I think that to

57:36

be the case and I

57:39

don't know I feel I hope and I I so

57:42

desperately want Apple to

57:45

be deliberate be considered be mature

57:47

and not just put the AI

57:49

at dust on everything they see

57:52

but Hey, we'll see

57:54

I mean I like I don't I

57:56

find chat TV useful. I use in my

57:58

rotation the

1:00:00

Windows Recall thing, right? That's a sign of

1:00:02

something like, we think it might

1:00:04

be okay, but there is some danger here.

1:00:06

So if you just hit, you know,

1:00:08

okay, okay, okay, during setup, whatever

1:00:10

we're doing, you won't be exposed to,

1:00:13

right? But if you

1:00:15

opt into it somehow, then, then,

1:00:17

you know, again, when you talk to Siri, and it can't figure

1:00:19

out the answer, instead of telling you to check the web, it'll

1:00:21

ask chat GPT or something. Yeah,

1:00:24

yeah, I don't know. We'll see what happens.

1:00:27

I mean, that's all the items that we had

1:00:29

in the show notes. I just,

1:00:32

I really don't know what to expect. And

1:00:34

I am so very, very interested to see

1:00:36

what the AI story is. It seems that

1:00:38

Apple's previous dedication to ML or

1:00:41

machine learning, as we've talked about in many

1:00:43

other shows and blogs have talked about, you

1:00:45

know, they finally embraced AI as a term.

1:00:49

And so we'll see what happens. I think it's

1:00:51

tough because, you know, Apple is a

1:00:53

publicly held company and publicly traded company.

1:00:55

And, you know, I think investors and,

1:00:58

you know, rank and file shareholders are

1:01:00

gonna expect them to have that AI

1:01:02

dust sprinkled everywhere, you know, like a

1:01:05

graffiti cannon of, or not graffiti, a

1:01:07

glitter cannon of AI dust

1:01:09

just shooting all over, you know, everything

1:01:11

WWDC touches. But I don't

1:01:13

know that that's appropriate or reasonable. So we'll

1:01:16

see what happens. And I'm just curious to see, you

1:01:18

know, now that we've got a whole new platform, I'm so

1:01:21

excited to see what Vision OS 2 is. If

1:01:24

history tells us anything, it will be disappointing.

1:01:27

I think Vision OS will have AI dust sprinkled on

1:01:29

it. Oh, no. Anywhere? I'd

1:01:32

be surprised if iPad OS even has it.

1:01:34

Like keep in mind, like, you know, again,

1:01:36

we're still dealing with Apple's kind of hierarchy

1:01:38

of platform importance. iOS is gonna get

1:01:40

all the cool stuff first. I would

1:01:42

be surprised if we see

1:01:44

it anywhere else. I think it's gonna

1:01:47

be iOS certainly, you know, first, and

1:01:49

then maybe they'll put

1:01:51

some of the basics into iPad

1:01:53

and Mac. Well, the cross-platform stuff will get it.

1:01:55

The whole like removing people from the background of

1:01:57

photos, that's just gonna be everywhere because it's a

1:01:59

complex. framework, you know what I mean? Yes,

1:02:05

of course. But in terms of features specific to, say, the Vision

1:02:07

Pro or the Watch, I would be surprised to see anything like

1:02:09

that this soon. And

1:02:14

speaking of sprinkling AI, sparkles everywhere and everyone expects it to do it. At this

1:02:16

point, though, and this is what everyone expects, but at this point, it's true that

1:02:18

the only way for Apple to really make news is to do something different than

1:02:20

everyone else does. I mean, they can

1:02:22

make news by saying we're not doing any AI stuff and that would be

1:02:24

news, but that's obviously not what they're doing, right? But they're not going to

1:02:26

do what every other company did, which is like, AI everywhere, sprinkles, sprinkles, sprinkles,

1:02:28

sprinkles, you know, because that looks like everyone else did that, like throwing spaghetti

1:02:31

against the wall, right? Like Windows did. Anything we could think of, we're just

1:02:33

going to do. The only way Apple could actually make news is by saying

1:02:35

we're doing AI, but we're doing it the Apple way, where everything is useful.

1:02:37

And blah, blah, blah, they have to present it that way. That is a

1:02:39

marketing decision. We already know they're already doing that. We talked about that last

1:02:41

week. There's tons of features that I used to call ML that are just

1:02:43

features of our phone, right? If they do that

1:02:45

this year and they present it as we're not

1:02:48

doing AI like everyone else, we're not throwing speed against the wall. We don't

1:02:50

have a thing where you draw a picture and AI draws a picture, but

1:02:52

we're not doing AI. There's

1:02:56

tons of features that I used to call ML, that

1:02:58

are just features of our phone, right? If

1:03:00

they do that this year and they present it as

1:03:03

we're not doing AI like everyone else, we're not throwing

1:03:05

speed against it. We don't have a thing where you

1:03:07

draw a picture and AI draws along with you because

1:03:09

we didn't think that was that useful yet. So we

1:03:11

didn't put it in, right? That's the story. That's the

1:03:14

Apple story. And the news would be Apple, WWC, rolls

1:03:16

out a bunch of AI features, but unlike other people's

1:03:18

AI features, they only introduce the ones that are useful

1:03:20

and also a judge of the people, right? Because that's

1:03:23

the wild card, but I don't understand that, right? That

1:03:25

is the way to make news. Otherwise, the story

1:03:28

will be Apple catches up with everyone else and

1:03:30

does what everyone else has already done, which is,

1:03:32

I guess, better than the bad story, which is

1:03:34

Apple doesn't do any AI stuff and they're doomed,

1:03:36

right? Well, I mean, that's, I think that's the

1:03:38

most likely, like I think by far the most

1:03:40

likely reaction by the overall press and business

1:03:43

and Wall Street communities is going

1:03:45

to be they didn't do enough.

1:03:47

Now, as actual Apple users, for

1:03:50

me, like what you were saying earlier, I

1:03:52

would rather they do things that are useful

1:03:55

to me. I don't need them to do

1:03:57

the most stupid things with AI because other

1:03:59

companies, they're not. requirement

1:10:00

to have an NPU. That's why Rewind doesn't work

1:10:02

on my computer. That

1:10:05

may push the schedule forward. That wasn't really

1:10:07

a glimmer in anyone's eye back when we

1:10:09

were talking about this years ago. But

1:10:12

now the whole, like, the

1:10:14

Copilot Plus PCs requiring a 40-tops NPU, blah,

1:10:16

blah, blah, my

1:10:18

CPU doesn't have an NPU in there. And

1:10:21

so every single one of these, quote, unquote, AI,

1:10:23

if they bothered to add, quote, unquote, AI features,

1:10:25

yeah, they could just make them not work on

1:10:27

Intel, but they could all just not make Mac

1:10:29

OS. Also just not make Mac OS working

1:10:31

on Intel. So I feel like that nudges the possibility that

1:10:34

this is the year my Mac isn't supported. It nudges it

1:10:36

a little bit. I don't think it makes it a slam

1:10:38

dunk. I'm thinking it's a sure thing. I still think it'll

1:10:40

probably be supported and just won't have

1:10:42

features visible, but the LLM stuff is

1:10:45

a problem for me. Can

1:10:48

you reprogram the afterburner card to be

1:10:50

an NPU? It would stuff is so

1:10:52

bad, right? They're

1:10:54

not spending any time optimizing any of this

1:10:56

stuff. It's like, well, it runs in the

1:10:58

neural engine, and also someone did an implementation

1:11:00

for the SIMD instructions in the Xeon. Nope,

1:11:02

not happening. Yeah, sorry. You're

1:11:04

out of luck on that one. Yeah, so it's

1:11:06

really just, I mean, what

1:11:09

Mac has going for it is like, yeah, Apple

1:11:11

probably doesn't care that much. Oh, sorry, Intel Mac

1:11:13

users. You don't get these new features, right? Just

1:11:15

be glad Mac OS still, we still ship

1:11:17

it for your CPU. And

1:11:21

I feel like that has a likelihood because Apple's like,

1:11:24

yeah, it's just Mac. It'll be fine, right? But

1:11:27

it was the old Apple where

1:11:29

it's like, everyone on the same page, they'd be like, no,

1:11:31

we're cutting them off this year because we got so many

1:11:33

of the AI features, and they all require the neural processor,

1:11:35

and Intel doesn't have that. So tough luck. We'll

1:11:38

see. The

1:11:40

worst case scenario for me, it's like I was

1:11:42

going to ask you too what you're most looking

1:11:44

forward to, WWC. But the thing I'm fearing the

1:11:46

most is that I

1:11:49

won't be able to run this version of Mac OS,

1:11:51

or the feature that I want

1:11:53

in Mac OS doesn't run on my thing.

1:11:55

So for example, the photos features that use

1:11:57

quote unquote AI to do cool photo stuff.

1:12:00

Granted, there's ways I can use other AI tools to

1:12:02

edit my photos. I don't need this to be built in.

1:12:05

But if I can't even access those features,

1:12:08

like if the person removal thing is

1:12:10

built into the photos app, I'm like, this is great. Saves me

1:12:12

a lot of time. It's built in. I don't

1:12:14

have to edit it in an external editor. I don't have to go to a web page. Oh,

1:12:16

but not on Intel. That's a big fear

1:12:18

for me because even though I would

1:12:20

still, it's like, look, macOS still supports your system. No

1:12:22

problem. I'd be like, oh, but I really

1:12:24

want to use the new AI powered photo editing features

1:12:27

on my Mac. I'm sitting at my wife's computer

1:12:29

to do photo editing, and she's complaining that I'm

1:12:31

hogging our computer. And that hastens

1:12:34

the timeline for me getting

1:12:36

a new Mac. Which

1:12:39

Apple hasn't shipped yet, like an M4 based Mac Studio

1:12:41

or something. But anyway, that's I want to

1:12:43

throw it. Anyway, so what things are you most looking forward

1:12:45

to? Marco, you already said Siri, but is there anything else?

1:12:47

Like speaking of developer stuff, like developer tools,

1:12:50

Xcode, Swift, like what is what big thing

1:12:52

are you looking forward to at WWDC assuming there's no

1:12:55

hardware? So I mean, for me,

1:12:57

like, you know, I really want to see what kind

1:12:59

of what I was talking about last episode. I

1:13:02

want there to be good

1:13:04

models that developers can use on

1:13:06

the phone for free with no

1:13:08

limits. Like that's what I really

1:13:10

like. Give us built in AI

1:13:12

SDKs that we can just use

1:13:14

the same way we can use almost every other

1:13:16

API on the phone. Like that

1:13:18

would be game changing in so

1:13:20

many ways. And so that that's the big thing

1:13:22

I want in terms of capability. Now in smaller

1:13:25

ways, like, you know, other there's other like developer

1:13:27

tool type stuff. Xcode

1:13:29

is has had a lot of

1:13:31

bugs for me this past couple of years, a lot

1:13:34

of like issues that don't clear

1:13:36

that I've actually cleared a lot

1:13:39

of having to do clean in

1:13:42

clean builds just to clear weird compiler

1:13:44

bugs. My

1:13:46

rewrite of overcast I use a couple of

1:13:48

packages that I do locally. And

1:13:50

every time I change anything in the package, I

1:13:52

have to go like resolve package caches because otherwise

1:13:55

it just won't pick up the change. Like there's

1:13:57

all sorts of weird straight up

1:13:59

bugs. in Xcode or at least things that's

1:14:01

like behaviors that sure seem like bugs that

1:14:04

I would, I think Xcode really could use some

1:14:06

help in that area. I don't

1:14:08

think they're going to be working on that. I suspect

1:14:10

that. I think they are working on

1:14:12

that. It is the question of whether they'll fix

1:14:15

more bugs than they introduce them. Yeah,

1:14:17

like because I'm sure that whatever they're

1:14:19

doing like with AI stuff, I'm sure

1:14:21

there's obviously been massive demand for integration

1:14:24

into Xcode of some kind of AI based

1:14:26

tooling, whether it's like an AI based autocomplete

1:14:29

like the old version of what Microsoft called

1:14:31

co-pilot or other stuff. There's obviously

1:14:33

a lot of demand for that in recent years. There's

1:14:35

rumors for it. We didn't have much in the past,

1:14:37

but yeah, basically like, oh, Xcode will help you write

1:14:39

your code for you using AI. I'm assuming that's going

1:14:41

to be there. Can Xcode write

1:14:44

around its own bugs using AI maybe? Can it

1:14:46

automatically clear the issues for me so I don't

1:14:48

have to do it? When Xcode

1:14:50

makes SwiftUI view, the preview also won't work. Exactly.

1:14:53

There's a lot of Xcode, a lot of

1:14:55

the basics that I think could use some

1:14:58

attention. But

1:15:00

otherwise, in terms of the actual

1:15:03

APIs and the language, this

1:15:06

is going to be a big

1:15:08

year for Swift concurrency safety. This

1:15:11

is the year of like sendable really getting its

1:15:13

moment because I presume they're going to introduce Swift

1:15:15

6 and that brings with it

1:15:17

a whole bunch of strict concurrency checks and

1:15:20

theoretically some

1:15:22

language enhancements that make complying

1:15:25

with strict concurrency easier.

1:15:28

Right now, as I've been writing

1:15:30

the overcast rewrite and as I wrote

1:15:32

Blackbird, I have tried to make them

1:15:35

comply with the strict concurrency checks as

1:15:37

they've existed in the pre-6

1:15:39

Swift languages. You've been able

1:15:41

to opt in to these warnings

1:15:43

that will tell you like, hey, this thing that you're

1:15:45

doing over here with this mutable state in this object,

1:15:47

this will be an error in Swift 6. I've

1:15:53

been trying to comply

1:15:55

with the requirements before it's

1:15:57

even out and it's pretty

1:16:00

hard. and there are certain things

1:16:02

where this object here

1:16:04

clearly is not being mutable state, and it's

1:16:06

losing its state right here before this is

1:16:08

even returning from its init or whatever. There's

1:16:11

all sorts of things like that, and there

1:16:13

have been various proposals in

1:16:15

Swift Evolution to make some of that

1:16:17

stuff automatic and detect it so

1:16:21

you don't have to jump through hoops to go around it. I

1:16:23

haven't followed in detail of whether those

1:16:25

things are actually in Swift 6 or

1:16:27

whether they will be. A bunch of

1:16:29

them are. Yeah, I'm sure a bunch of them. What

1:16:32

I want to know is right now, all

1:16:35

the stuff that will be an error in Swift 6

1:16:37

concurrency checking mode, a lot

1:16:39

of that's pretty hard to work around. And so

1:16:41

what I want to see is have they made

1:16:44

it easier to work with for

1:16:46

the actual release of Swift 6? Because that's what

1:16:48

most of these proposals were aiming to do. So

1:16:51

let's see it. That's what I want

1:16:53

to know is as we go into

1:16:55

this new era of Swift concurrency and

1:16:57

Swift strictness, how easy is it

1:16:59

to do the right thing? I've

1:17:02

seen a lot of languages over time that make it hard to do

1:17:04

the right thing. So far, Swift has been

1:17:06

pretty good about it. So let's

1:17:09

see. And then beyond that,

1:17:11

I've been writing

1:17:14

this whole rewrite using Swift UI

1:17:16

and using Swift

1:17:18

async modern concurrency wherever possible.

1:17:21

And there are still a lot

1:17:23

of system APIs that do not

1:17:25

play well with Swift concurrency. I'm

1:17:28

still having to write callbacks here and there.

1:17:31

I'm still having to shell out to task to

1:17:35

do something in a function. There

1:17:38

are still areas in the system

1:17:40

frameworks that have not

1:17:42

been updated yet for Swift concurrency. I would love

1:17:44

to just see more of that, please. Give me

1:17:46

as much more as you can. Whatever

1:17:49

you've gotten done this year, every year it gets better.

1:17:51

So I just want to see, have everyone work

1:17:55

on the frameworks throughout the year as they have time. And

1:17:57

here and there, I get updates that may be.

1:18:00

things easier for me as a Swift async

1:18:02

programmer. So that

1:18:04

kind of stuff is most of what I'm

1:18:06

looking forward to. Most of like the boring

1:18:08

tooling and API stuff, but that's what actually

1:18:11

improves our lives as developers day to

1:18:13

day in the following year. It's

1:18:16

not like this one new hotness that we must

1:18:18

use. It's like some cool new API or something.

1:18:20

Like no, usually it's just like a bunch of

1:18:22

small life improvements that they made to the rest

1:18:24

of the system and the rest of the tooling

1:18:26

and the rest of the APIs. That's what I'm

1:18:28

looking forward to mostly. But also, yeah, give me

1:18:31

some of that cool transcription model, please. Thank you.

1:18:35

You know, I'm glad you brought up

1:18:37

Swift stuff because that sitting

1:18:39

here today, that's what I

1:18:41

think I'm most excited for is what is

1:18:43

the new hotness within Swift. And Swift can

1:18:45

get on my nerves from time to time,

1:18:47

but by and large 10 years on, because

1:18:49

the announcement was, you know, 10 years and

1:18:51

a few days ago, 10

1:18:54

years on, it is a really, really great language.

1:18:56

It is not without problems. It's not without faults,

1:18:58

but it is a really great language. And I

1:19:01

do think it is mostly moving in

1:19:03

a positive direction. And I feel like

1:19:06

now that there's big and exciting things happening,

1:19:08

like Swift concurrency, I feel like a lot

1:19:10

of the, what is the term of phrase,

1:19:12

like bike shedding is that what I'm looking

1:19:14

for that that was going on

1:19:17

in the like Swift two, three, four era,

1:19:19

where we were worrying about really, really useless

1:19:21

and dumb arguments that were happening all the

1:19:23

time. And I don't know, John, you're more

1:19:25

plugged in. I don't think there was some

1:19:27

dumb, but yes, there was some sort of,

1:19:30

you do have to hash that stuff out and it is

1:19:33

important to get it right. So it might have seemed like

1:19:35

a lot of kind of like, well, who cares what that

1:19:37

keyword is called? It's not that important. Just do stuff that

1:19:39

actually is kind of important because you get stuck with that

1:19:41

stuff. So I don't have many complaints about the process, but

1:19:44

either way, like, you know, spending a whole bunch of

1:19:47

time bickering about whether pre and post increment, you know,

1:19:49

the plus plus operator should or should not be in

1:19:51

the language, like whatever, you all

1:19:53

just move on. But anyways, that being said, you

1:19:55

guys really messed up substrings. Substrings

1:19:58

are such a, well, you know, there's a, There's

1:20:01

some lousy things, but the thing

1:20:03

is, if they come up with better ones,

1:20:05

you can just abandon the lousy ones and never use

1:20:07

them. You know what I mean? They've

1:20:09

not painted themselves into a corner, which is really what

1:20:11

you want to avoid with language design. Yeah. Everything they've

1:20:13

done with substrings and various

1:20:16

array index stuff, oh my

1:20:18

god. Every

1:20:21

time I have to manipulate an index or

1:20:23

a string, I have to look up code examples. I cannot

1:20:25

figure out how the heck do I do this. I just

1:20:27

want to. Substrings are not strings. Yep.

1:20:30

It drives me nuts. But I mean, it makes sense if

1:20:32

you know why they're doing it for implementation efficiency, but it's

1:20:34

like, I don't want to have to see that. But

1:20:37

just pretend it's not like that. Yeah, right. Exactly.

1:20:39

But we're getting off on a tangent. So a

1:20:41

lot of that bike, us, new way, a lot of

1:20:44

that bike shedding and yak shaving and whatever the turn

1:20:46

of phrase you want to use is, I

1:20:48

feel like that used to bubble up into my

1:20:50

world insofar as I don't pay attention to Swift evolution,

1:20:52

even though maybe I should. But a

1:20:54

lot of that, that navel gazing was

1:20:57

bubbling out into my world. And I haven't

1:20:59

seen much of that recently in at least

1:21:01

a couple of years, which I think is

1:21:03

a good thing. Because that means whatever is

1:21:05

happening instead of people going, ah, look at

1:21:08

this ridiculous argument. Instead, legitimate arguments are happening.

1:21:10

Good ones. And so I'm excited

1:21:12

to see what Swift 6 brings. I

1:21:14

am petrified. I cannot begin to tell

1:21:16

you how scared I am of turning

1:21:18

on the warnings for Swift for strict

1:21:20

concurrency checks, because I'm sure it's going

1:21:23

to be a mess. I'm not knowingly

1:21:25

doing anything wrong, but I bet you I'm doing

1:21:27

a lot wrong. You got to try it. You got to

1:21:29

see. It's not necessarily wrong. It's just like, I mean, I've

1:21:31

made several runs of this. And I'm sure we'll talk about

1:21:33

it more after WWC and following

1:21:35

episodes. But in the absence of

1:21:38

Swift concurrency, before it existed, we

1:21:40

all did our own things using the

1:21:42

technologies that Apple did offer at the

1:21:45

time, Grand Central Dispatch, callbacks, async-await. That's

1:21:47

all kind of like, it's not quite,

1:21:51

precursors to the big strict concurrency

1:21:53

checks. So if you

1:21:55

have an application that's already written, it's

1:21:57

like, OK, but I already. did

1:22:00

a thing to deal with concurrency. Maybe it's not as

1:22:02

good, but then you turn on the strict

1:22:04

concurrency checks and it's like everything you're doing is a

1:22:06

violation of strict concurrency. It's like, yeah, this is what

1:22:08

I had to do before you

1:22:10

existed to do things concurrently. And so it's like,

1:22:13

yeah, that approach, you should use a different approach

1:22:15

to do that. Our approach is safer, but you

1:22:17

end up having to like rethink stuff. It's not

1:22:19

like, I'll just add an annotation here and it'll

1:22:21

fix it. It's like, I

1:22:23

mean, this sounds dumb, but it's the

1:22:26

swift concurrency strict checking thing wants

1:22:29

you to use swift concurrency features. It

1:22:32

doesn't want you to use grand central

1:22:34

dispatch and queues. You can satisfy it, but

1:22:37

it's like if

1:22:41

you just use these, our features, like use strict

1:22:43

concurrency, use what we want you to use, use

1:22:45

actors. That's why they exist. And it's like, but

1:22:47

I already did it a different way. And it's

1:22:49

like, well, you're going to have real problems trying

1:22:51

to make me, the compiler satisfied about that. So

1:22:54

I'm sure there will be much discussion about that.

1:22:56

I mean, the good thing about Swift, the Swift

1:22:58

illusion process, it happens in public. Swift is open

1:23:00

source. It's like, there should be no, for

1:23:03

the most part, there should be no secrets revealed

1:23:05

to Apple about the Swift language, right? About what

1:23:07

they're doing with it. That'll be revealed. Like, cause

1:23:09

you know, if you looked at like all the

1:23:11

Swift language things and it was like, and then

1:23:13

Swift UI appeared, Swift UI wasn't developed in public,

1:23:15

but Swift was right. So, you know, we'll see

1:23:18

what kind of surprises Apple has for us, but

1:23:20

the Swift features they're adding, they know the pain

1:23:22

people have trying to, you know, comply

1:23:24

with Swift concurrency and they're trying to make it

1:23:26

easier. But fundamentally, I think the

1:23:28

problem they have is that they want people to use

1:23:31

actors and Swift concurrency as a way

1:23:33

to manage concurrent processes. And

1:23:35

that supersedes and replaces a bunch of things

1:23:37

that people had used in the past and

1:23:40

figuring out how to do

1:23:43

that without like changing your approach to concurrency. Like

1:23:45

Casey, I know you love to use the, what

1:23:47

is it? The publisher thing with

1:23:49

the source and sings and the events. What does

1:23:51

that call? Which I don't, it's combined. I don't

1:23:53

use that much of it in call sheet. I

1:23:56

do use some, but it compared to just a

1:23:58

couple of years ago, I use very, very little.

1:24:00

And I only use it in a handful of

1:24:02

places where it makes the most sense. Generally speaking,

1:24:04

the concurrency and stuff that I'm

1:24:06

doing is AsyncAwait, which is good insofar

1:24:08

as it's new, but it's bad insofar

1:24:11

as I'm probably doing a rudimentary version.

1:24:13

If your stuff is not sendable, I'm

1:24:15

sure. Yeah, for the most part.

1:24:17

Nor should you make it sendable. I mean, for

1:24:19

the, I, for whatever, I can, I can tell

1:24:21

you that I use a lot of combine and

1:24:23

AsyncAwait in the, in the rewrite. There's

1:24:26

places for both of it and I think

1:24:29

they actually play somewhat nicely

1:24:31

with each other if you don't do two

1:24:34

ridiculous things with them. But they,

1:24:36

those things do solve different problems. Yeah. And

1:24:38

like the solution is not like, oh, I'm

1:24:40

going to take all my data and I'm

1:24:42

going to make everything sendable because that's not

1:24:45

how to fix this problem. You can't like you,

1:24:47

you have to have mutable state somewhere. It should

1:24:49

be protected by actors. But like very often you're

1:24:51

sending, very often you're sending OS objects back and

1:24:53

forth and those aren't sendable. And you don't have

1:24:55

a way to change that because you don't define

1:24:57

that class. Nor can you make it sendable or

1:24:59

lie about it being sendable. And it's just, anyway,

1:25:02

I'm sure we're going off on a big tangent

1:25:04

because we're developers and we've all struggled with this,

1:25:06

but like, I think the way Apple presents this

1:25:08

story is interesting down to like the idea of,

1:25:11

you know, the, the warning Marco mentioned, this will

1:25:13

be an error in Swift six. Does

1:25:16

that mean you can't use Swift six unless you

1:25:18

have strict concurrency compliance, or is there a mode

1:25:21

in the Swift six compiler that lets you run

1:25:23

Swift five code and do you lose out on

1:25:26

any features in Swift six? If you decide that

1:25:28

like that's, that's a story that Apple will tell

1:25:30

like, and has been, has been telling in the

1:25:32

open, but they'll, we'll see how marketing presents that

1:25:34

like Swift concurrency. It's great, but if you're not

1:25:36

ready for it, don't worry. You can still use

1:25:39

Swift six. You just won't turn on the strict

1:25:41

concurrency thing. Kind of like it isn't Swift five

1:25:43

now. Yeah. And I think that's the case. I

1:25:45

could swear and I'm probably getting the details

1:25:47

wrong here, especially because my, my, my, uh,

1:25:49

my memory is John makes fun of me

1:25:51

justifiably is very bad, but I could swear

1:25:53

that Ben Cohen or someone on the Swift

1:25:55

team has publicly stated, Hey,

1:25:57

Swift six it's going. working

1:28:00

properly, but I think some of it should

1:28:02

be fun and exciting. And, you know, as

1:28:04

much as I will in one breath whine

1:28:06

about SwiftUI and tell you that it's, you

1:28:08

know, it neuters me here and there and,

1:28:11

you know, there's nothing you can do to

1:28:13

put a search bar anywhere, but in a

1:28:15

navigation bar, you know, and things of that

1:28:17

nature that it makes it very, very stodgy

1:28:19

and difficult and unwavering. But I'll also tell

1:28:21

you that it's just such a joy to

1:28:23

work with. And so, so

1:28:26

much nicer and so much faster than UI

1:28:28

kit. And so I'd love to see what

1:28:30

new SwiftUI stuff is happening. It certainly

1:28:32

seems like Apple internally is spending more

1:28:34

and more time and putting more and

1:28:36

more energy into consuming SwiftUI, which makes

1:28:38

me think they're doing the same for

1:28:40

the within SwiftUI itself.

1:28:43

The best way for Apple to make a good API

1:28:46

for developers is for them to dog food it. And they seem

1:28:48

to be doing that more and more. So I'm excited for that.

1:28:50

I don't know. I'm really

1:28:52

excited leaving aside the fact that, you know, I'm going to see you

1:28:54

two and that really leaving aside that I'm going to be there, that

1:28:57

I'm going to be on at Apple Park. All

1:28:59

of that is, of course, incredibly exciting. We covered that last

1:29:01

week, but I'm just really excited to see what's

1:29:03

coming because there's so little that has leaked out.

1:29:05

Like we said that I, and what we, what's

1:29:07

leaked out is more of a, oh, there's AI

1:29:09

dust to come in, you know, there's a dust

1:29:11

storm, a Bruin and that's about it. So I

1:29:13

still think the leaks have covered a lot.

1:29:16

I don't, I don't expect to see tons of

1:29:18

stuff that wasn't leaked. It's just that the stuff

1:29:20

that's leaked is, I don't know, obvious or like

1:29:23

not, not shocking. You know what I mean?

1:29:25

It's also a bit vague, like particularly around the AI stuff.

1:29:27

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it is vague, but like, you know, we

1:29:30

won't get the details, but I don't

1:29:32

think, well, we'll say, will there be something that was

1:29:34

like totally not rumored that is shocking? I think it'll

1:29:36

just be in, you know, in

1:29:38

the details of how things work. And by the way, speaking of testing, I forget,

1:29:41

I think there's a bunch of open source projects to do this.

1:29:43

And I kind of hope Apple like adopts one of them or

1:29:45

takes one under its wing or makes it official. But the

1:29:48

XC test framework, which Casey may be familiar

1:29:50

with, it's not great. It's kind

1:29:52

of stodgy and old. And if you've ever used,

1:29:54

if you've used a modern testing framework and like

1:29:56

a language like node or whatever you kind of,

1:29:58

or even, I mean. Obviously all my

1:30:01

testing experience comes from Pearl, the great

1:30:03

great great grandfather of good testing and

1:30:05

programming languages just

1:30:07

the fundamental stuff that you expect from

1:30:09

a test framework is Either

1:30:12

doesn't exist or is very awkward in XC tests

1:30:14

because it's old and so what does the Swift

1:30:16

UI for testing look like? And there are a

1:30:18

bunch of open source projects that try to do

1:30:21

this like make a sort of Swiftie type API

1:30:23

that looks Kind of like

1:30:25

the you know the popular testing packages

1:30:27

for node or you know Like just

1:30:30

a nicer testing framework. I would love

1:30:32

Apple to Bless one

1:30:34

of those and adopt it or to come out with its

1:30:37

own I mean this kind of falls in the category of

1:30:39

a marker was thing is like hey We've got a bunch

1:30:41

of old API some of them aren't really Swiftie, right? They

1:30:43

don't they don't match the language. Well, they don't take advantage

1:30:45

of the features. They look kind of old They're kind of

1:30:47

awkward to use we know better ways to do things now

1:30:51

Test framework is one of those things I think that

1:30:53

would be a big quality of life improvement for people

1:30:55

of course they have to keep supporting the old one

1:30:57

basically forever because people use it and make huge test

1:30:59

suites, but Swiftie testing again,

1:31:01

there's no rumors about that. I've just been looking

1:31:04

at a lot of the open source ones I'm

1:31:06

like these are all good ideas pick one Apple

1:31:08

and do it or you know I miss fluent

1:31:10

assertions is one that I used in my dotnet

1:31:12

days And so, you know, I'm looking at the

1:31:14

about page trying to remind myself how it works

1:31:16

and basically, you know Say you have a string

1:31:18

that's an account numbers the example they use and

1:31:20

you the way the code you write is account

1:31:22

number should Be you know

1:31:25

one two three four five six seven And so

1:31:27

it's it's it's written almost like plain English and

1:31:29

it's not too dissimilar from are there dots if

1:31:31

you in every word Yeah, yeah

1:31:33

account number dot should print print dot B

1:31:38

That's a little bit that's a that's a

1:31:40

very popular trend and I know it's awful

1:31:42

It's code that looks great on slides and

1:31:44

examples and it's totally unwritable Well, well, so

1:31:46

it's it's not terrible and that is a

1:31:48

common thing But really what you're looking for

1:31:50

is the convenience of being able to essentially,

1:31:52

you know To just give

1:31:54

one example and I know actually test has ways of doing this,

1:31:56

but it's awkward and weird you have

1:31:58

a bunch of nested data structures and objects and

1:32:00

you want to diff them, right? I don't want

1:32:02

to have to do that manually. I just want

1:32:04

it to be able to use reflection to traverse

1:32:06

them and to give me like a really cool

1:32:08

looking diff of where they differ. You know what

1:32:11

I mean? Right? As opposed to comparing properties manually

1:32:13

one at a time at each level and having

1:32:15

messages so you know which part differed or whatever.

1:32:17

Every modern testing framework has a way to say,

1:32:19

this is a thing like that thing. And they're

1:32:21

both kind of deeply nested structures. And the good

1:32:23

ones say, Oh, and by the way, I don't

1:32:25

care about these differences and ignore these properties. And

1:32:27

I don't care about why it's based and like

1:32:29

just just can it's all just convenient. It's like,

1:32:31

Oh, that's just convenience methods. You can do that

1:32:33

all yourself. Yeah, you can. It's just annoying as

1:32:35

hell. Right? So it's not so much the whole,

1:32:37

it looks like English, this should be that and

1:32:40

has this and does this and whatever. I just

1:32:42

want like, especially in a, you know, a language

1:32:44

like swift. It's so, you know, really

1:32:47

on board with static checking. And so you really

1:32:49

just can't just chuck these two things over the

1:32:51

fence. They look like they're the same. It's like,

1:32:53

Swiss like, Whoa, whoa, these are totally different classes.

1:32:55

I can't compare these two things. What are you

1:32:57

talking about? I don't have those kinds of reflection.

1:32:59

It's like, you really need convenience

1:33:01

support from the framework to satisfy

1:33:04

the swift compiler to allow you

1:33:06

to just say, is this

1:33:08

thing like that? I expect this to be like

1:33:10

that. That's going to be like this. You know,

1:33:12

it's that stuff is

1:33:14

tedious and test. It makes people not want to write tests. Like

1:33:17

Marco. Well, that's not why.

1:33:19

But if you did write tests, you'd say,

1:33:22

boy, it sure is tedious comparing these deeply

1:33:24

nested object trees to each other. And then,

1:33:26

you know, and if you get lazy, when

1:33:28

the test fails, you're like, why did it

1:33:31

fail? What was the problem? You got to basically got to step through

1:33:33

it in the debugger because there's no like, you know, automatic

1:33:35

diffing of object trees to tell you exactly where

1:33:37

it failed. Yeah. Anything else you're looking forward to,

1:33:39

John? I am kind of, I mean, I

1:33:41

mentioned the photos feature because that's what I'm thinking about a lot.

1:33:43

Like again, when I edit photos,

1:33:46

I have many tools. I've purchased many other external

1:33:48

editors. I have all I have Photoshop, I have

1:33:50

photo mater, pixel mater, I have

1:33:53

raw power, I have access to web

1:33:55

tools or whatever. But there's something to

1:33:57

be said for having stuff built in.

1:44:00

like, you know, a rock and a hard place, two things

1:44:02

that Apple just does not want to do. But you know, they, they

1:44:04

can't hold the line on a ramp forever. They will

1:44:06

have to bump it eventually. It's just maybe

1:44:08

not this year. Winnie Lewis

1:44:11

writes, could Apple's reluctance to put cellular on

1:44:13

the Mac be due to their failure to

1:44:15

produce an in-house modem? Considering Apple's reluctant dependence

1:44:17

on Qualcomm and the exorbitant rates Qualcomm charges,

1:44:19

I can understand why Apple's holding off on

1:44:21

adding cellular to high price devices like the

1:44:23

Mac. This argument is undercut somewhat with

1:44:25

the iPad Pro costing the same as a MacBook

1:44:27

Air, but MacBook Pros can still greatly increase in

1:44:29

price over an iPad Pro. And if customers have

1:44:31

waited this long, what's the harm in making them

1:44:33

wait longer? Yeah, that's fair. I feel

1:44:35

like we've talked about this a couple of times in

1:44:38

the past, but yeah, we need to debunk this again,

1:44:40

because we've talked, we've mentioned this years ago, and then

1:44:42

we corrected ourselves and some people are still going with

1:44:44

the outdated information. The idea that Qualcomm charges you a

1:44:46

percentage of the purchase price of the product. And because

1:44:49

Macs can be so much more expensive that

1:44:51

Apple would be charged a ton more. That's

1:44:53

not how it works based on our most

1:44:55

recent looking into this. Like there

1:44:57

is a cap and Apple's already at the cap,

1:44:59

like Qualcomm, whatever they'll charge you

1:45:02

a percentage up to whatever the amount is.

1:45:04

And basically every Mac is already at that

1:45:06

maximum cap. So Apple is not

1:45:09

avoiding cellular and Macs because it would

1:45:11

be too expensive relative to putting

1:45:13

cellular in iPads and other devices.

1:45:16

They could be doing it for whatever their reasons are. That's not

1:45:18

it. Like it's like, oh, they can't do it because you can

1:45:20

buy $5,000 Mac and then a Qualcomm will get $500 of

1:45:22

that. That's not how it

1:45:24

works. At least, you know, it used

1:45:27

to be, and then we were corrected and then

1:45:29

we aired the correction. And

1:45:31

I think it is still the case that there

1:45:33

isn't a monetary cap for this. Every

1:45:36

possible argument people put up for

1:45:38

why cellular maybe is being held back from

1:45:40

the laptops for some kind of weird business

1:45:43

reason, it's in every iPad. Like

1:45:45

it's even, okay, it's in the

1:45:47

$350 base model. Like

1:45:49

you have to pay a little more, you know, for the

1:45:51

cellular, but like it's in, it's, it's been available on every

1:45:54

iPad ever since 2010. So

1:45:57

every iPad model has had cellular as an

1:45:59

option. that has cost between usually $130 and

1:46:02

$200 extra. And

1:46:05

it is great, it just works.

1:46:07

Like, and the only thing I can think of

1:46:09

is like, in some

1:46:11

various forms of their deals

1:46:14

with carriers or their pricing

1:46:16

with Qualcomm, I'm sure

1:46:18

there are differences in like

1:46:20

how the devices are categorized. Like I'm

1:46:22

sure they have different agreements and different rates

1:46:25

if somebody's considered a phone or a

1:46:27

wearable or a tablet or a PC.

1:46:29

Like I'm sure those are like different

1:46:31

categories for some kind of licensing deals

1:46:33

or whatever. But again,

1:46:35

like cellular laptops have existed in the

1:46:37

PC world for a very

1:46:39

long time now. So obviously this is

1:46:41

not something that's that difficult to navigate

1:46:43

with the carriers and the royalty holders

1:46:45

like Qualcomm and things like that. This

1:46:48

isn't a difficult problem. And

1:46:51

this isn't a problem that no one has solved. This

1:46:53

is just, this is a choice that they've made

1:46:56

they just don't care. And I'm sure if an

1:46:59

Apple person was here, I'm sure we would get a

1:47:01

wonderful PR answer of like, how

1:47:03

important it is to serve our customers and they,

1:47:06

what we show, blah, blah, blah. But like, look,

1:47:09

actions speak louder than words. Apple does not care

1:47:11

about cellular on the Mac. They have not prioritized

1:47:13

it. They seem to have no path to get

1:47:15

there from where, like they seem to be in

1:47:17

no rush to do it. And

1:47:19

we are so far past the point

1:47:21

where like, it can't

1:47:23

be just like, oh, they're working on it, but

1:47:26

it's not done yet. We're so far past that

1:47:28

point. They don't care. I mean, iPad pro being

1:47:30

so expensive being so, you can make an iPad

1:47:32

pro more expensive than a Mac pretty easily by

1:47:34

configuring it. It's the same, you

1:47:36

know, they're using the same SOC as Apple Silicon,

1:47:39

like every excuse has fallen away. Winnie's

1:47:41

question here is though, is actually vaguely

1:47:43

plausible is that Apple has been

1:47:45

planning to break cellular to the Mac just as soon

1:47:47

as they're done with their in-house modems. And

1:47:50

unfortunately they pinned that feature to the

1:47:52

timeline of a product that is terminally

1:47:55

behind, right? Apple's been trying

1:47:57

to, they bought that modem business from Intel trying

1:47:59

to make cell modems. And they wanted this for

1:48:01

their phones, obviously. But maybe they said, we're

1:48:04

not even thinking about cellular in the Mac until we

1:48:06

get our modem stuff. And the modem stuff should be

1:48:08

ready by 2022, right, guys? And

1:48:10

it has marked out. Even that theory,

1:48:12

like, why? It's literally been in

1:48:14

every single iPad. That's totally an Apple thing to

1:48:17

do, though. It's totally an Apple thing to do.

1:48:19

But why? How different is the hardware in a

1:48:21

MacBook Air versus the hardware in an iPad? I

1:48:23

know. Well, this is definitely a business thing. If

1:48:25

you worked in a big company, someone will say,

1:48:28

we're going to do this. It's been a longstanding thing that people

1:48:30

want, and we're going to tie it to this other thing. And

1:48:32

then the other thing gets delayed. And then the people will say,

1:48:34

can we just untie these two things now and just do, like

1:48:36

you said, just do what we do in the

1:48:38

iPads? Can we just stick a Qualcomm thing? And

1:48:40

there is just a tremendous institutional sort

1:48:43

of resistance to untying two things that have been

1:48:45

tied to each other, especially when it comes to

1:48:47

a product line that is not the top priority.

1:48:49

Like, if you tie something on the phone and

1:48:51

it turns out, oh, now one thing

1:48:53

is the leg and another, untying that is easier because

1:48:55

the phone is so important. But on the Mac, I'm

1:48:58

sure it's like, no, we've already started down this path. We're working on

1:49:00

the modems. Let's just wait until they're done. I think they're going to

1:49:02

be done this year. And they're not done. And then the next year,

1:49:04

you have the same conversation with the

1:49:06

same result. That is plausible. It is

1:49:09

a common dysfunction of businesses. But

1:49:11

us out here as customers, we don't care what the

1:49:13

reason is. We just want it. And I think

1:49:16

Apple's answer would be like, well, you may want that, but you're

1:49:19

in the minority, so tough luck. It

1:49:21

is what it is. But how

1:49:23

many iPad owners choose it? How many Apple

1:49:25

Watch owners choose it? Well, we feel like

1:49:27

iPad owners prioritize it differently. When

1:49:29

we survey Mac users, a very small percentage seem to

1:49:31

want it. And our tethering solution is so amazing and blah,

1:49:33

blah, blah, blah. That's what they would say. Not that

1:49:35

there's any reason that they're not doing it, but that it's

1:49:37

like, well, we have to prioritize it. Even though you

1:49:39

super duper want it, not everybody is

1:49:41

like you. I think that's what they'd say. And again,

1:49:43

if tethering is the answer, why do

1:49:46

iPads have it? Why does every iPad forever

1:49:48

have it? And why is tethering so bad?

1:49:51

You know that, too. But that's something.

1:49:54

No argument against it holds any water once you say,

1:49:56

well, then why is it available in every single iPad

1:49:58

they ever made? Like that, it

1:50:00

just makes no sense when you consider that. Like

1:50:03

why, like I just, oh

1:50:05

God, like as much as, I'm kind of

1:50:07

glad that the iPad mania is passing now

1:50:10

from the iPad Pro Day, because like, I

1:50:13

just, I'm so annoyed at the thought,

1:50:15

like how amazing would it be if

1:50:18

the MacBook Air was released

1:50:20

with an OLED screen and cellular?

1:50:22

We would be flipping our minds.

1:50:25

An OLED screen, whoa, whoa, whoa.

1:50:27

That is a pro product Marco.

1:50:29

People with iPad Airs cannot handle faster than 60

1:50:31

Hertz refresh, because that is also a pro product.

1:50:33

And they cannot handle OLED screens. Don't even talk

1:50:36

about that for at least five more years. Like

1:50:39

why, why is that, I'm just, I

1:50:41

shouldn't get all mad. Why does the

1:50:44

iPad Pro in even an

1:50:46

11 inch form factor have

1:50:49

an M4, a great

1:50:51

OLED screen, cellular, in

1:50:54

a really small package that costs around a little

1:50:56

over 1,000 bucks if you put the keyboard on

1:50:58

it and stuff. And the MacBook Air with

1:51:01

most of those same cuts at

1:51:04

about the same price is

1:51:06

not only does it not have those features

1:51:08

at those price, but those features are not

1:51:10

attainable at any price on that product. Why?

1:51:16

It's so, it's so frustrating. I mean, part of

1:51:18

that is that the iPad you were describing is

1:51:21

the most expensive iPad. And the laptop you were

1:51:23

describing is the least expensive. And Apple wants to

1:51:25

segment its product line. But yeah, I mean, you

1:51:27

can't even get the- Same people are looking at

1:51:29

both of those products. I know, you can't even get the

1:51:31

OLEDs on the MacBook Pro, so it really hurts that argument

1:51:33

for now. But we'll see how it goes. But yeah. I

1:51:35

mean, look, the OLEDs brand new. Like I understand that that's

1:51:38

going to be a process of like, you know, bring it

1:51:40

to everything slowly. Sure. Cellular is

1:51:42

not. Yeah. Oh my, it's so

1:51:44

not new. Like I was using a cellular

1:51:47

modem to tether my laptop in

1:51:49

2006. This

1:51:51

is not new. No,

1:51:53

I hear you and I agree. But if

1:51:55

we continue this any further, it will turn

1:51:57

this entire show into a Marco and Casey-

1:54:00

accidental, check

1:54:03

by castle on. All

1:54:07

right. So, uh, we're going to

1:54:09

do a little post show neutral

1:54:11

today and we're going to talk

1:54:14

about our member special. This is the

1:54:16

most recent member specials we were recording

1:54:18

right now, which was, um, talking about

1:54:20

cars and car related things. And so

1:54:22

John, I guess you would like to

1:54:24

revise your statement with regard to buying

1:54:26

cars for your kid. I

1:54:28

just have updates. Like I threw at the end of our

1:54:30

discussion, the discussion was like, if you had to buy a

1:54:32

new car now, what would you buy? And we had all

1:54:34

the sorts of conditions and caveats and whatever. And we got

1:54:36

increasingly ridiculous at the very end. I said,

1:54:38

what about buying a car for a kid? Uh,

1:54:41

which, you know, uh, neither one of your children are

1:54:43

driving age with mine are some like, maybe this will

1:54:45

come up anyway. Um, and

1:54:48

we talked about it and it's a difficult problem and

1:54:50

yada yada, but the problem

1:54:52

has continued to exist in my household. We

1:54:54

have four licensed drivers and two cars. Um,

1:54:57

that is a difficult situation and it's made

1:55:00

more difficult on us by me because

1:55:02

I don't want my children to drive my

1:55:04

car. Right? So now

1:55:06

we have four licensed drivers and

1:55:09

two of them can only drive one of the cars.

1:55:11

So it's kind of like the whole, you know, bring in

1:55:13

the, the goat and the chickens and the wolf across the

1:55:16

river or whatever of like, okay, well, if this person wants

1:55:18

the car on this day, then because I will let my

1:55:20

wife use my car. Right? So that

1:55:22

means she'd have to take my car when she goes to work.

1:55:24

So her car is here for the kids to use. And then

1:55:26

it's just, it's a

1:55:28

pain. Right? And we're talking about the shows. If

1:55:30

you had to buy a car for your kid, what would you buy? Uh,

1:55:33

and I'm, because I'm faced with that problem. We

1:55:35

were considering trying to get a kid car, not

1:55:37

a car for a kid. They can buy their

1:55:39

own car eventually. And maybe one of these cars

1:55:41

eventually will be given to slash sold to the

1:55:44

kid when they graduate college and move out of

1:55:46

the house. But we just wanted to have a

1:55:48

car that the kids can drive that like, if

1:55:50

they bang it up or hit a curb or

1:55:53

get into a fender bender, we don't care about

1:55:55

it. And they're not driving our cars and we

1:55:57

don't have to do this car shuffle thing. And

1:55:59

I've been. car

2:02:00

with the connector I know is not going to be the

2:02:02

connector I want it to have and wire my house up

2:02:04

for that kind of like oh it's so easy. I know

2:02:07

the adapters aren't that big but it's like this

2:02:10

the main thing is there's no electric cars that I

2:02:12

like like at this point that I can afford right

2:02:14

there's no it's not for you it's for your kids

2:02:16

and Chevy Bolt is the answer but that's the thing

2:02:18

it's not it's not it's a kid car but it's

2:02:20

not for the kid it's like what

2:02:23

the title is going to be in our

2:02:25

name it's not going to be the child's

2:02:27

car that doesn't matter who's driving this I

2:02:29

know that the one's driving it but like

2:02:31

the thing is if I'm going to spend

2:02:33

like five digits five five digits at ten

2:02:35

thousand to twenty thousand whatever dollars or nothing

2:02:37

I want it to be a car that

2:02:39

I like that maybe that's just a me

2:02:41

thing I don't know it's not for you

2:02:43

you know it's a kid car I can't

2:02:45

buy a car I don't like on the

2:02:47

plus side now I understand why you give

2:02:49

me so much about errands about me driving

2:02:51

an automatic even though I drive Aaron's car

2:02:53

maybe a hundred miles a year but now

2:02:55

I get it Aaron's car is Aaron's car

2:02:57

yes it is our car legally speaking but

2:02:59

I almost never drive that thing it's her

2:03:01

car if she wanted something that I've really

2:03:04

disagreed with I would have a conversation with her

2:03:06

about it but that's what she is your wife

2:03:08

not your child well even still like I that's

2:03:10

it I don't understand why you're hanging your hat

2:03:13

so much on it needs to be something John

2:03:15

approved like who freaking cares as long as it's

2:03:17

not an absolute disaster it's not for you it

2:03:19

has to it has to be me it has

2:03:21

to be me approved there's no

2:03:23

electric cars that I like they're very expensive I'm

2:03:25

worried about the battery life and the battery health

2:03:28

there's not a lot of good cheap ones well

2:03:30

has the bolt batteries have been replaced under warranty

2:03:32

like most of them have you really are doing

2:03:34

yourself a disservice the bolt the bolt is probably

2:03:36

the best contender in that category because like the

2:03:38

leaf doesn't have the condition batteries the bolt did

2:03:41

have that battery problem and they've been replaced it's

2:03:44

you know they are still kind of expensive but that

2:03:46

that is actually a good possibility

2:03:48

uh but you know there's just

2:03:51

there's a lot of unknowns there uh with

2:03:53

you know having to be our first lecture card having

2:03:56

it be for the kids and everything like that so

2:03:58

anyway you're coming up with excuses darling Whatever you need

2:04:00

to do. It's like it's not it's like I said,

2:04:02

it's not the shape of the market that's forcing these

2:04:04

two polar things It's my desires that are forcing them

2:04:06

that it either has to be a crap box or

2:04:08

a reliable car and the crap boxes are Too crappy

2:04:10

and the reliable ones are too expensive and the EVs

2:04:13

are too expensive or I don't like them Or I think

2:04:15

it's not the right time to be an EV especially for

2:04:17

kids, right? so that got me

2:04:19

into that situation and You know,

2:04:22

I feel like there are options that will

2:04:24

solve this problem Which you are it is

2:04:27

well within your right to say I don't care

2:04:29

and they're not for me But I do think

2:04:31

there are options out there for you that would

2:04:33

work but carry on What did you what car

2:04:35

did you buy yourself? Yeah? Well, so

2:04:37

that is the Sure

2:04:41

you it's you Respect

2:04:44

with respect to like getting in the car once

2:04:46

my wife got wind of the idea that I

2:04:48

was looking for a third car That's for the

2:04:50

kids to drive. You know what

2:04:52

happened. She's the Marco in this situation She's

2:04:55

like, oh you're looking at cars. Does she want a new car?

2:04:59

You know my car is kind of

2:05:01

mm-hmm. She is right. Isn't you? No, no, no her's

2:05:03

is newer than yours 2017

2:05:05

it's not very right. Okay, but she gets

2:05:07

the seven-year itch Literally,

2:05:10

the seven-year edge better here than other

2:05:12

places. I'm not looking for a car

2:05:14

for you You already

2:05:16

have a car. I'm trying to get the kids out of

2:05:18

your car So they won't wreck it and give them a

2:05:20

car and she's like why not? Just let them continue to

2:05:22

wreck it and get her a new one, but you're looking

2:05:24

at cars. I like cars Before

2:05:30

you say anything I'm going to wager

2:05:32

but I don't know how this is gonna turn out

2:05:34

I really don't but I'm going to wager that Tina

2:05:37

has decided she would like something new and

2:05:40

thus Will needs it will

2:05:42

want something that only has two petals not necessarily

2:05:44

because she prefers that but because there's no other

2:05:46

choice at this point And now you have a

2:05:48

marital issue as to whether or not Tina will

2:05:50

have a two pedal car. That's what I'm gonna

2:05:52

guess I'll go even further. I'm gonna say Tina

2:05:54

wants an EV. Well, you don't know her driving

2:05:57

days Apparently that's the thing I forgot to mention before

2:05:59

is that You know, all our cars are stick shift.

2:06:01

My kids both learned on stick shift. They're

2:06:03

not stick shift enthusiasts. My daughter, in particular, had real

2:06:05

hatred for stick shift. And she's like, when are you

2:06:07

going to get a good car? She just

2:06:10

doesn't. Oh, that hurts me deep down inside. Well, they're

2:06:12

kids. Whatever. That's their taste, right? All my friends have

2:06:14

good cars with just two pedals and then whatever. She's

2:06:16

come around a little bit on it since getting more

2:06:18

comfortable with it. But my son, he can drive stick

2:06:20

fine, but he's also just not into it. They're not

2:06:22

into it, at the very least. So the whole idea

2:06:24

with a kid car is we would get an automatic.

2:06:26

The kid car would be automatic, right? Because

2:06:28

they both don't like it. And

2:06:31

the whole point is that they would drive it and whatever.

2:06:34

Because if they're not enthusiasts,

2:06:36

stick shifts will have no place in their future life.

2:06:39

You know what I mean? It's just as if it

2:06:41

was what we had. They had to learn on it, whatever. But

2:06:43

anyway. See, but

2:06:45

in my recollection of Tina, of her

2:06:48

preferences, was that she actually legitimately does

2:06:50

prefer three pedal cars. But I

2:06:52

feel like she has more willing

2:06:55

to give on that issue than you and

2:06:57

probably I are. Well, when

2:07:00

she started saying, you're looking at cars, I

2:07:02

would like a car. I

2:07:05

think she also eliminated EVs along with me because

2:07:07

they're just very expensive, especially for a car for

2:07:09

herself. And she's not. I don't think there's any

2:07:11

EVs that she really likes either. So there's nothing

2:07:13

out there that she's pining for desires or whatever.

2:07:16

And when it comes to non EVs, she

2:07:19

wants a stick. I

2:07:21

mean, yeah. I love that. I love that. Good luck.

2:07:23

I mean, this is the reason I'm not forcing her

2:07:25

to buy stick cars. Every car we've owned has been

2:07:28

sticked because that's what she wants. She's driven automatic. She

2:07:30

drives rental cars. We're watching our friend's car now. And

2:07:32

they asked us to drive her once in a while.

2:07:35

And she drives it. She wants a stick. And she knows they're

2:07:37

being rare. And she knows eventually we won't have one. And we'll

2:07:39

have an EV or whatever. But she's

2:07:41

out there saying, and she doesn't

2:07:46

know what's available, what's out there. But I do. Golf

2:07:48

R and Golf GTI. They didn't

2:07:50

GTI already folded. But the Golf R is

2:07:52

briefly still available. We

2:07:55

went from let's buy a kid car and

2:07:57

have it be automatic to let's not do

2:07:59

that. And let's get a third stick car

2:08:01

which would make my children's head explode It's like

2:08:04

what you got another car and it's also stick

2:08:06

and it's like I have news for you about

2:08:08

the cars We've purchased in our own And

2:08:11

we can't drive it Anyway, I

2:08:13

know it's out there with stick obviously a cord doesn't have

2:08:15

stick anymore. So that is eliminated My wife does know that

2:08:17

I've told her about it so she could begin her morning

2:08:19

period many years ago, right? But

2:08:22

many other cars do have stick shifts in them But

2:08:25

since getting her 2017 she has a 2017 at Corbett stick shift

2:08:29

She has some new requirements that

2:08:32

have been added to the I want

2:08:34

a new car Can you guess what her new requirements

2:08:36

are carplay? That's one of them Right.

2:08:39

And by the way, how did she get that requirement?

2:08:41

None of our cars have carplay We've never owned a

2:08:43

car with carplay. How does she get that because she

2:08:45

knows it exists and she's used it Yeah,

2:08:47

exactly seen the forbidden fruit And

2:08:50

so she and not only does she want carplay

2:08:53

she wants wireless wireless car Oh good friggin

2:08:55

luck. You're either getting like a Kia, which

2:08:58

there's nothing wrong with that or a BMW

2:09:01

I have personally never used carplay by the way,

2:09:03

I can tell I can tell you Tina the

2:09:06

latency really sucks It

2:09:10

is convenient though like tips car has it she you

2:09:12

know, she her in her i3 It

2:09:16

is convenient but the

2:09:18

latency never stops being annoying

2:09:21

It's not great, but I don't personally get as

2:09:23

offended by it as you do, but I mean

2:09:26

you're not entirely wrong All right, but only we're

2:09:28

getting sidetracked So I was trying to picture I

2:09:30

would say like wireless like I have to say

2:09:32

I had to preface by saying I've never used

2:09:34

It but in my my like, you know, I

2:09:37

have suspicion that maybe you would actually prefer wired

2:09:39

just because of the reliability and nope You

2:09:42

know latency or whatever but whatever right there's that and what

2:09:44

is it? What is the other there's one other thing that

2:09:46

she wanted Well, hold on for the record because

2:09:48

I know Tina is

2:09:50

or will listen to this is listening or will listen

2:09:53

Wireless carplay if you do the kind

2:09:56

of driving that I do which maybe

2:09:58

she does not so take this with

2:10:00

the appropriate amounts of caveats and salts and whatnot. I

2:10:03

tend to be in the car 10, maybe

2:10:05

15 minutes at a time. It is very unusual.

2:10:07

I'm in the car for more than about 15

2:10:09

minutes. And so it's a lot of shorter trips.

2:10:11

And because of that, it's, and

2:10:14

I realize how entitled I sound right now, but it's

2:10:16

very burdensome to take my phone out of my pocket

2:10:18

or in her case purse, perhaps, and plug it in

2:10:20

and then take it, unplug it, put it back in

2:10:22

the pocket slash purse, whatever. I find if you're doing

2:10:25

a lot of short trips, like I am, I

2:10:27

personally think that even with the higher latency,

2:10:30

that juice is worth the squeeze.

2:10:32

And furthermore, these little boxes, like

2:10:35

the one I have, they're not

2:10:37

phenomenal, but they work just fine.

2:10:39

It is more than sufficient if,

2:10:41

if you're not, you know, a

2:10:43

complete snob about it, that it

2:10:45

will get the job done and

2:10:47

you can retrofit wireless into a

2:10:49

wired only car. So I wouldn't

2:10:51

go to bananas on insisting wireless,

2:10:53

but I don't think on the surface

2:10:55

there's anything necessarily wrong with it. I would just, I

2:10:58

would cave on wireless car play long before I would

2:11:00

cave on many of the other things that I'm sure

2:11:02

are requirements. And I will say too, like what you

2:11:04

said about like your driving pattern of like frequent, frequent

2:11:07

short trips, wireless carplay is very

2:11:09

good for that. Like it is very convenient for that. As

2:11:11

long as you don't actually really like interact

2:11:14

with the screen that much, because the interaction

2:11:16

is like the latency will annoy you, but

2:11:18

it is nicer than the alternative of just

2:11:21

like Bluetooth controls. Like it's nicer than that

2:11:23

at least. So in most

2:11:25

cases. I get that. So

2:11:27

what is the other feature she wants? Other

2:11:29

than a stick shift. I don't think

2:11:32

you guys do a lot of highways and new features

2:11:34

like so obviously stick shift, but this is the thing

2:11:36

that requested. She's never had for any previous car that

2:11:38

she suddenly has car wireless carplay is one. She's the,

2:11:40

because it didn't exist last time she bought a car.

2:11:42

And most of the cool new like, you know, adaptive

2:11:45

cruise features, most of those are not available on sticks.

2:11:48

You say that, but my, my car has radar

2:11:50

cruise and it won't come to a complete stop,

2:11:52

but it will slow down. So that's actually exactly

2:11:55

what I was going to say. I was going

2:11:57

to say some sort of radar, you know, or

2:11:59

I forget. them.

2:16:00

There don't come up on any searches. Cars and bids,

2:16:03

maybe one will pop up every once in a while

2:16:05

and get snatched up for some ridiculous price. Forget

2:16:08

about that car. Nowhere, nowhere in the

2:16:10

entire continent of the United States. You want to get shipped

2:16:12

from New Mexico? Sorry, it doesn't exist anywhere. And you know,

2:16:14

how large radius would you like to search? 3000

2:16:17

miles? Sure. Zero matches. So

2:16:19

that eliminated that. So

2:16:21

I was looking for stuff. I'm like, is there

2:16:23

any car that satisfies these things? Can I find

2:16:25

it? And it just narrowed

2:16:28

down so much to this tiny

2:16:30

aperture of acceptable makes models and

2:16:32

trim levels. And by the way, I

2:16:35

often have a requirement about cars that I've mentioned that

2:16:37

you've heard me talk about. No sunroof.

2:16:39

You've heard that one, right? You are.

2:16:41

You were the worst. Not because I'm

2:16:43

against sunroofs, but because I'm for having,

2:16:45

I'm for having headroom and most of

2:16:48

my height is in my neck, my

2:16:50

upper body. And when I sit in the car, I

2:16:52

don't want my head to hit the headliner. You're losing

2:16:54

all your hair anyway. Don't worry about it. It is

2:16:56

true. I'm losing a lot of it. It's enough of

2:16:59

it there that my head is the headliner. It is

2:17:01

not right. Yeah, I feel really bad for you. Try

2:17:03

adding that into the mix. Leather

2:17:05

heated seats, stick shift, wireless car

2:17:07

play. No sunroof. Yeah. Get out

2:17:09

of here with this like top. You're going to have

2:17:11

to cave on the slide. Again, the court sports special

2:17:14

edition, 2022, I believe fills these requirements

2:17:16

minus maybe the wireless car play, but that

2:17:18

car doesn't exist. And so I,

2:17:20

you know, I'm doing all the research. I'm bringing it back

2:17:22

to her saying, yeah, well, you know, this, that the other

2:17:24

thing, whatever I had to

2:17:26

bring her. I said, look,

2:17:29

a car exists that fulfills

2:17:31

a lot of your requirements, but

2:17:34

it's got a sunroof. And she's like,

2:17:36

great buy that. Okay.

2:17:41

But the sunroof and my head and she's like,

2:17:43

I don't care. It's my car. What do you care?

2:17:45

I'm like, but I don't, even if I never drive

2:17:47

your car, I passage in your car and

2:17:49

my head will be hitting the ceiling. Is that a verb?

2:17:52

Yeah, I'm making it right now. And

2:17:54

so I went to the car dealer.

2:17:56

We went, we went shopping ourselves and

2:17:58

went to some car dealers. One

2:18:00

of them was closed on Sunday, which I didn't

2:18:03

understand. Yeah, that drives me service department closed on

2:18:05

Sunday fine The showroom people shop for cars on

2:18:07

weekends anyway I'm

2:18:10

like look we're good. I'll sit in I'll sit in the

2:18:12

car I'll see because you know you can say oh Sun

2:18:14

roof takes up headroom or whatever blah blah blah And

2:18:17

what by the way another crash we looked at not that we were gonna buy us

2:18:19

we looked the Integra Oh, that is a good

2:18:21

answer. That's such a good answer. Why didn't I think of

2:18:23

that well? It's expensive, but it's such a good answer, and we're

2:18:25

not we're not it's a $50,000 car But

2:18:27

anyway, but like this is not worth it

2:18:30

to you Since

2:18:32

it's basically a civic. I'm like well Let

2:18:34

me check this for headroom head was hitting

2:18:36

hard in the Integra with the just it's

2:18:38

not made for me with the

2:18:40

sun roof Or whatever, but that's not you

2:18:42

know whatever so like okay. There's there's one

2:18:44

model and one trim level of fills your

2:18:46

requirement It's got a sunroof. I

2:18:48

will go sit in it. I went by myself to

2:18:50

a car dealer to Sit

2:18:53

in a car to see if it fit

2:18:55

in my head and this I don't like cardio It's

2:18:57

no likes cardio I was what I was hoping is you know

2:18:59

you go in they got a bunch of cars like indoors And

2:19:01

you just like wander around and like open the door and sit

2:19:03

in them That's what I wanted to happen because

2:19:06

then I can get in and out in five minutes that didn't

2:19:08

happen There was

2:19:10

the car that I wanted was parked out front wanted to

2:19:12

sit in I went in and I

2:19:14

asked the receptionist And I said can I

2:19:16

just go sit like someone that wasn't one of the inside ones was

2:19:18

out So can I just it kind of just go to that car

2:19:20

out there? Can I just go sit in it? I'm just like yeah sure

2:19:22

go ahead I don't know if it'll be unlocked though I go of course it's locked

2:19:24

to come back in I said oh It turns out it was locked and

2:19:27

she says to me I'm

2:19:30

gonna have to get a salesperson, and she says it with

2:19:32

that look like she knows She

2:19:34

knows what happens when you get a

2:19:36

salesperson because now you've got a car

2:19:38

salesperson Because

2:19:42

they come and they attached you like a leech and they want

2:19:44

to sell you a car. It's their job I get it right

2:19:46

they get she gets a sale person salesmen come over Opens

2:19:49

the door for me. I sit in it Headroom

2:19:52

is not great better than the Integra though, but

2:19:54

the head room is not great I try the passenger seat I lean the

2:19:56

seat back a little bit You know what I mean you try to do

2:19:58

all the tricks like of course the passenger seat does not go up

2:20:00

and down at all. The

2:20:04

driver's seat does go up and down,

2:20:06

but it doesn't go down that far.

2:20:08

I'm like, whatever. I spent way too

2:20:10

long with the salesperson. They did not sell me a car. They

2:20:13

tried real hard though. I went back

2:20:15

and I said to my wife, I said, I

2:20:19

think I can live with the sunroof since

2:20:21

it's your car. It's not as

2:20:23

bad as the Integra. I will suffer with

2:20:26

my head hitting the headliner. This is

2:20:28

what you want. She said, yes, it was. And

2:20:30

I did the search. How

2:20:33

many cars with these features

2:20:35

in the color that we wanted exist

2:20:37

within, let's say 500 miles.

2:20:39

Well, with the color that you want, I mean,

2:20:42

at this point, you're looking for a needle in

2:20:44

a haystack and then you're going to say, I

2:20:46

want a blue or whatever red needle. Yeah, right.

2:20:48

Color matters. Again, if I'm spending new car money,

2:20:50

I want a car that I like. Wait, did

2:20:52

you tell us what car it is? Did I

2:20:54

miss this? Not yet. We're getting into it. Okay.

2:20:56

All right. And how many existed? Two. Five,

2:20:59

500 mile or two. Stop right there. Please,

2:21:05

please, John, for the love of everything that is

2:21:07

good and holy. If that car is anywhere near

2:21:09

or even better on the other side of Virginia,

2:21:11

I will give you all of my money. If

2:21:13

we can road trip that bad boy back to

2:21:15

Boston, I will do anything to be on that

2:21:17

trip. Like the, you know, you would assume that

2:21:20

if it's far away that you could do some

2:21:22

kind of dealer trade with a local dealer or

2:21:24

whatever, but anyway, two cars. So I'm

2:21:26

like, all right. So I, we're

2:21:28

just noodling and we're just thinking, she's like, well, whatever.

2:21:30

I'm not buying a car. We were visiting car dealers.

2:21:32

I'm sitting in them. We're not buying a car. I'm

2:21:34

just looking around, but then it was like two. And

2:21:38

so I send emails to people. I

2:21:40

contact them through their various websites or

2:21:42

whatever. And I say, Hey, I've got

2:21:44

VIN numbers now. Right? I say, Hey,

2:21:47

do you actually have this car? That's question

2:21:50

number. Yeah, that's good. Yeah. Fair.

2:21:53

And, and you may be shocked

2:21:55

to learn that car dealers are anxious to get back to you

2:21:57

about cars. They get back to me and say, yeah, this

2:21:59

car. Ask them a second question, which is, can

2:22:01

you just tell me what color it is? Because

2:22:03

I don't want to give them the answer. You know what

2:22:06

I mean? I want them to tell me. I

2:22:08

want them to go and look at it. And

2:22:11

they tell me the correct answer. And

2:22:13

they're all like, this is the big thing with car dealers. This wasn't

2:22:15

the last time I went like, when should we schedule a test drive?

2:22:17

When do you want to schedule a test drive? Do you want to

2:22:19

schedule a test drive? Let's schedule a test drive. When are you going

2:22:21

to come and look at this? I'm like, I'm just asking you questions

2:22:23

over email person. Chill out, right? Being

2:22:25

salesperson. Find some chill. And

2:22:28

then I forget what day this was. This

2:22:30

was like Monday of this week. And I

2:22:32

was like, there's two of these cars. I really don't

2:22:34

like any of the other colors. She really seems to

2:22:36

want a car. We've already given up on giving the

2:22:38

kids what they want. So one

2:22:40

of the dealers, the one that's closer to her work,

2:22:42

I say, I call her at work. And I say,

2:22:44

don't come home. Rather than going home, do you want

2:22:47

to just go to the car dealer who just knew

2:22:49

your work and look at this car? Oh

2:22:51

my god, did you impulse buy a car, John Sharakisa?

2:22:53

I wouldn't call this impulse buying if you based the

2:22:55

amount of research I'd done up to this point. Fair,

2:22:58

fair. But I'm at the

2:23:01

point now where I know this too. So we drive up

2:23:03

there to her. We both drive together to the dealer, which

2:23:05

is further up from

2:23:08

where her work is. We look at this car. She

2:23:11

test drives it. She

2:23:13

likes it. The

2:23:16

headroom is better than the Integra. I

2:23:19

can live with it. We go

2:23:21

back and I'm like, well, I

2:23:23

think we should get this car. Oh my word.

2:23:26

Because look, I spent a month on this. We

2:23:28

know when you recorded the member special, I was already looking

2:23:30

into this then, which is why I brought up the question.

2:23:34

And I was like, I don't have any other

2:23:36

answers. This is the best answer to

2:23:39

this problem. And if we don't get

2:23:41

this car, here I

2:23:43

am in a situation where I'm going to negotiate the

2:23:45

price of a new car with a

2:23:48

salesperson, trying not to let them

2:23:50

know that according to my searches, two

2:23:52

of these exist within 500 miles. You're

2:23:56

buying this car no matter what they make you

2:23:58

pay for it. They are so screwed. Part of my

2:24:00

research was I'd mentioned that the person who

2:24:04

asked about new cars, and I mentioned that car edge service,

2:24:06

I had signed up for that a little

2:24:08

while ago. And one of the things they'll give you is what is

2:24:10

the invoice price, what would

2:24:14

be a fair price for this car, that type of thing. And

2:24:17

so I had, before I went to this dealer,

2:24:19

this would be a fair price for the car,

2:24:22

minus any kind of incentives or whatever. It gives

2:24:24

them a little bit of profit to the dealership.

2:24:26

They'll probably accept this, but you're not getting ripped

2:24:28

off. I had that price in my mind. Went

2:24:31

into that negotiation. I'm very proud of myself. I got up with $100 of

2:24:33

that price, $100. Well

2:24:36

done. Within

2:24:38

$100 of the quote unquote fair price for

2:24:40

the thing, part of it was by

2:24:42

saying, well, I have two other cars that are totally deals I can

2:24:44

go to. And I listed the one in the color that it didn't

2:24:46

like, because of course I never told them it didn't like the color.

2:24:48

Don't tell the dealer what colors you like. I

2:24:51

was, you know, it was a blue one. I was like, you know,

2:24:53

well, there's a blue one and another white one. And

2:24:55

the dealer was pushing back and saying, wait, a white car

2:24:57

just happened to you? Oh

2:25:00

my god, this is getting more and more delicious. And

2:25:02

he was like, well, is that other car, are you sure

2:25:04

that's not the same car as this? Because we got a

2:25:06

call from a dealer about this car and they wanted to

2:25:08

take it from us or whatever. I'm like, no, no, these

2:25:10

are other cars. I can show you the emails. I'm like,

2:25:12

here's whatever. Like, basically let him think there are other places

2:25:14

where I could go for this car. No, I would never

2:25:16

buy the blue one. Oh

2:25:18

my god. And so anyway, I

2:25:20

got within $100 of the price. Very

2:25:23

proud of myself. He's going through the thing.

2:25:25

OK, we agreed on this price. And

2:25:28

then, obviously, tax title and blah, blah, blah. That's the

2:25:30

thing about the car. I just think I don't include

2:25:32

tax title or whatever in the fair price. We agreed

2:25:34

on the price. And then he says, and then,

2:25:36

of course, $129 for the locking wheel

2:25:38

nuts. I'm sorry, what?

2:25:40

No. Absolutely not. And

2:25:43

I said, I don't want locking wheel nuts.

2:25:45

He's like, well, they're already on the car. Well, take them off.

2:25:47

I said, yeah, well, why don't you take them off? But

2:25:50

they're already on the car. I was like, here's mine. No. And

2:25:52

I was like, everything was going so smoothly. And I basically

2:25:54

got into a shouting match with this guy. I was like,

2:25:56

look, when we agreed upon this price, when

2:25:58

we agreed, this is going to be the case. the price before tax title

2:26:01

and fees. It was the price for

2:26:03

the car that's sitting out there. Whatever's

2:26:05

on that car, that was what we were

2:26:07

negotiating, this number. We weren't negotiating

2:26:09

this number plus other things. And he takes me out

2:26:12

to the car and he's like, on the sticker it has like $129 locking

2:26:14

wheel nuts as a separate line item. It's like,

2:26:16

I don't care. We were negotiating for

2:26:19

that car. Everything that

2:26:21

that car is, not parts of

2:26:23

that car, not partial that

2:26:25

car and that was this number. And then we would

2:26:27

add tax titles and fees and so like, I'd never

2:26:29

gotten so angry at a car. Anyway, he went back

2:26:31

to his manager and took the $129 off.

2:26:34

Damn right he did. Good for you, John. And he

2:26:36

made some big excuse of like, you know, we can't

2:26:38

take it off the price, but we'll just subtract it.

2:26:41

I don't care what you subtract it dude, just subtract

2:26:43

it, right? Oh, and then by the way, the incentives

2:26:45

of like, is there any incentives? Can we do any

2:26:47

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? The one

2:26:49

incentive that we were eligible for was

2:26:51

the Honda loyalty program thing. And yes,

2:26:53

now you're revealing everything about it. Guess

2:26:55

what? We are loyal Honda, Honda customers.

2:26:59

And I got another $500 off just

2:27:01

because I already own a Honda. Oh, good

2:27:03

for you. As you, as you should have already guessed

2:27:06

by now, what is the only car that

2:27:08

could possibly be? It is the Honda Civic in

2:27:11

the most expensive trim level. The Honda civic is

2:27:13

offered in because that is the only one that

2:27:15

has wireless car play of other seats and heated

2:27:17

seats. Oh my God. And a stick

2:27:20

shift and a sunroof. I

2:27:22

cannot believe you just bought yourself a white, well

2:27:24

bought Tina a white civic. I, I,

2:27:26

I, I, this, this line in

2:27:29

the show and in our internal show notes

2:27:31

kid car revisited that has sat there for

2:27:33

like two weeks. If I had known that

2:27:35

this was the direction this conversation was going,

2:27:37

we wouldn't have even done the, this happened

2:27:40

this week. We should have done an emergency

2:27:42

episode. Damn it. I picked up the car

2:27:44

today. Oh my God. So is

2:27:46

it a civic SI or a civic? No, we

2:27:48

looked at the SI, but that wasn't the specs.

2:27:50

The requirements that I just gave you are not available

2:27:53

in the SI and also the SI

2:27:55

is more expensive. We could have saved $5,000 if she didn't

2:27:57

want heated seats. I

2:28:01

could have got the sport trim. With the $5,000,

2:28:03

it's your $5,000 heated seats. Especially

2:28:06

because you live in New England. Winter is a big part

2:28:08

of your life. My God, doesn't have heated seats. I think

2:28:10

it's fine, but she wants them. She

2:28:13

does, after this, she deserves the

2:28:15

heated seats, dammit. Anyway. Oh,

2:28:17

and this is a turbocharged car. I don't think you've owned

2:28:19

a turbocharged car. Yeah, it's hard to, I mean, they're all

2:28:21

turbos now. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm just saying. We've got a

2:28:23

white Honda Civic hatchback.

2:28:26

A hatch? You got a hatch? The hatchback

2:28:28

and sedan look so similar in the Civic.

2:28:31

And I wanted a hatchback because we don't

2:28:33

have a hatchback. And as you know, as

2:28:35

Marco knows, hatchbacks have a lot of utility.

2:28:37

I'm sorry. Am I making

2:28:39

this up? Didn't you give me boatloads of crap

2:28:41

for not having a car shaped car? Yeah, I

2:28:43

don't want a Volkswagen Rabbit or a Golf. I

2:28:45

don't want that kind of hatchback. Look at the

2:28:47

car. It looks exactly like the sedan. It's just

2:28:50

like it's barely different in profile.

2:28:52

It looks like a sedan. That's why. This

2:28:54

looks a lot like Chassis's car. It

2:28:57

sure does. And why did I pick white?

2:29:00

It's the best color for this car. Well,

2:29:02

absolutely. The Si also, the

2:29:05

Civic Type R also looks

2:29:07

best in white. I don't even

2:29:09

see white as an option here. Oh, no,

2:29:11

there I do. Never mind. Sorry. I have

2:29:13

the, what is it, noir, whatever it is,

2:29:16

that darkens, that synthetically darkens websites. And so

2:29:18

I had that on and the white paint

2:29:20

swatch was colored black because dark mode, by

2:29:23

mistake. This doesn't look bad. This looks nice.

2:29:25

I mean, so people wondering, you know, our recommendation

2:29:28

is for buying cars and the services we offer

2:29:30

and the advice we have, I just followed all

2:29:32

that. And this is what I ended up with.

2:29:34

So can't say we don't put our

2:29:36

money where our mouth is. So a white hatchback

2:29:38

happened to you. I

2:29:40

wanted the hatchback. I absolutely wanted it because

2:29:42

it's useful to have something with the hatch

2:29:44

for like taller items, especially since this is

2:29:46

obviously, this is smaller than the Accord, right?

2:29:48

And so I'm going to get a small,

2:29:51

like if the sedan version, if this, the

2:29:53

trunk is very confined, the

2:29:55

opening is confined, it is very confined.

2:29:57

The hatch really helps with that. It

2:29:59

gives you way more space than you

2:30:01

get with the sedan version and it looks

2:30:03

almost like the sedan So all my

2:30:05

you know hatred of hatchbacks

2:30:07

that look like a Volkswagen Rabbit doesn't

2:30:10

apply to this car Who

2:30:12

knows if I ever get to drive it anyway? It's my

2:30:14

wife's car So anyway The kids are driving her old car

2:30:16

as they have always been they have always been driving that

2:30:18

car and they will continue to drive It and now we

2:30:21

have three six of cars and just to review my

2:30:24

history of car purchases Go

2:30:26

like this civic civic accord accord

2:30:29

accord accord civic All

2:30:32

six shift you're pretty consistent at least you

2:30:34

are consistent, which is funny because I have

2:30:36

never bought More than

2:30:38

one car from the same companies Yeah, I

2:30:41

have never bought cars from any other company

2:30:43

except for Honda. Did you even look at

2:30:45

like a GTI or anything? We

2:30:47

like Honda's we like them. It

2:30:50

doesn't mean that there's not other better things Other

2:30:53

things it's just I mean we're

2:30:55

a Honda family and we got $500 off for being a Honda family

2:30:59

I mean they are good cars I'll give you that Even

2:31:01

even things like they haven't screwed themselves up

2:31:04

like they haven't gone like all touchscreen or

2:31:06

done anything weird The interior is that I

2:31:08

think my favorite mix of physical and touchscreen

2:31:10

type controls Yeah The

2:31:13

real question is are you going to

2:31:15

for your future car purchases convert to

2:31:17

hatchback once you realize how good it

2:31:19

is I'm gonna hopefully I'm gonna convert

2:31:21

to EV Happen to

2:31:23

me, but not anytime soon, but you just

2:31:25

crapped all over every EV on them I

2:31:27

know but eventually all the EVs will change

2:31:29

to NACS and they'll be EV sedans that

2:31:31

I like like this is gonna be years

2:31:33

in the future Yeah, this

2:31:35

is congratulations to really Tina for

2:31:38

forgetting what she wanted because I

2:31:40

cannot imagine The

2:31:42

amount of bickering and grief that

2:31:44

you gave her Overheated

2:31:46

seats and most especially a sunroof. No, I just

2:31:49

tried to convince her and she didn't want to

2:31:51

be convinced So there was no there was no

2:31:53

heated arguments I just needed to sit in it

2:31:55

and be able to say I can tolerate this

2:31:57

I can I can passage and not die It's

2:31:59

a glaze blowing refuse. Yeah. Because the Integra,

2:32:01

I was really surprised. The Integra was

2:32:03

worse. It did feel like they're basically

2:32:06

the same car. That's why it was

2:32:08

part of the reason I was showing her the Integra. She was like, why can't I

2:32:10

get a fancy car like Integra? I'm like, a, the good one is $50,000. And

2:32:12

b, this is just a Civic. When you see the Civic, you'd be

2:32:15

like, oh. You sit

2:32:17

inside them. They're very, very similar. And

2:32:20

by the way, finding sticks with Integra is talking to

2:32:22

the dealer who is there is also very difficult. The

2:32:24

packaging is just better on the Civic. Civic is just

2:32:26

a better car than the Integra, unless you get the

2:32:28

Type S. And those are very expensive than the Integra.

2:32:30

The Integra Type S, you mean? Yeah, the Integra Type

2:32:32

S. Oh, yeah. They're very hard. Very

2:32:34

hard to come by. And they're very expensive, much

2:32:37

more than we wanted to spend. Well, I'm very

2:32:39

curious. Well, again, congratulations. You've done

2:32:41

this well. You've done it right. Proud

2:32:43

of you for sticking to your guns about

2:32:45

the locking wheel, wheel, lug, nut, whatever things.

2:32:47

You know, it's funny. When we

2:32:49

bought the Volvo, I'm sure I've told the story. But when

2:32:51

we bought the Volvo, I told the dealer, I

2:32:53

do not want any stickers on that car. I do not want

2:32:56

a plate surround. I totally forgot.

2:32:58

I do that same thing. And I totally,

2:33:00

after we came home from the dealer, after

2:33:02

negotiating the price and saying, we're going to

2:33:05

buy it, I'm like, oh, I forgot to

2:33:07

tell them all those things you just said.

2:33:09

No sticker, no plaque, no dealer branding. Yep.

2:33:11

Whatever. Or whatever. It was like, oh, stupid

2:33:14

me. I buy a car once every

2:33:16

seven to 10 years. But I

2:33:18

totally forgot. I was so mad at myself. Yeah,

2:33:20

well, so when we bought the Volvo, which

2:33:22

was seven years ago, in a week or

2:33:24

something like that, I think it was July

2:33:26

of so few weeks, July of 2017. Anyways,

2:33:30

I vividly remember going to the car and

2:33:32

saying, oh, the sticker's there. And

2:33:35

the salesperson looked at me like, yeah, we're

2:33:38

not going to buy this car. And he's, what? I

2:33:41

told you, I will not have the sticker

2:33:43

on this car. And he rolled his eyes so hard

2:33:45

that I think they fell out of his damn head.

2:33:48

But then he had like a mechanic or who knows,

2:33:50

or detail or whatever, come over with like a heat

2:33:52

gun and pull the sticker off the

2:33:54

car. And I was not going to sign any

2:33:56

paperwork until he did. And I stand by it.

2:33:58

And I will stand by it. I don't think I had

2:34:00

signed it at that point. I think I was just looking at it. Yeah,

2:34:02

I didn't sign it. Then, yes, you have the power there. But yeah, the

2:34:04

good news is, even though I totally forgot about this, this deal was great.

2:34:12

Not only did they not put anything on this car, he

2:34:14

pointed out to me, I noticed this already, but he pointed out

2:34:17

to me, my salesperson pointed out to me, I

2:34:19

didn't even put a license plate surround on for

2:34:21

you. Nice. Thank you. That's

2:34:23

good stuff. It's just literally, I've never seen this. Everyone

2:34:25

always does license. It's easy to take that off, you

2:34:27

just unscrew it or whatever. He didn't even put that on

2:34:29

and he pointed it out to me because he could

2:34:31

tell, based on me yelling at him about the lug

2:34:33

nuts, that I didn't want that. I was like, thank

2:34:35

you, I appreciate that. Is

2:34:37

Massachusetts a barbaric Commonwealth like we

2:34:39

are? Front plate states. It's

2:34:43

the worst. It's fine. I hate it. I

2:34:45

hate it so much. Virginia is a front plate

2:34:48

barbaric Commonwealth. I don't think it's barbaric. I

2:34:50

think it's fine. But I've

2:34:52

got the front plates. Well,

2:34:54

congratulations to Tina. I'm glad she stuck to her guns and got

2:34:56

what she wanted. See, she did the negotiation with you. So you

2:34:58

would do the negotiation with the dealer. She doesn't deal with the

2:35:00

dealer. She just watches me do it. I think she was a

2:35:02

little bit upset when I was yelling. And by the way, all

2:35:04

of our cars have locking lug nuts. It's just that I'd never

2:35:06

want to pay for them because I didn't ask for them. So

2:35:08

if you're going to put them on there, I'm getting them for

2:35:10

free. I have

2:35:12

to, I have to concede. I am a

2:35:14

little upset at Tina because I

2:35:16

would have given infinite dollars to have a

2:35:18

video recording of you yelling at this dealer

2:35:21

and would have given nearly infinite dollars for

2:35:23

a voice memos recording of you yelling. I

2:35:25

was listening to this podcast with no, it's

2:35:27

not angry yelling. It's incredulous yelling. Like you,

2:35:29

when you hear me on the podcast talking

2:35:31

about some bad song or a feature, it's

2:35:34

like, no, I was like, it was like,

2:35:36

we just negotiated the price for that. I

2:35:38

was literally pointing for that car. That's

2:35:41

the number we agreed on. Remember the whole thing where we were talking

2:35:43

about the numbers and you're going to ask your manager or whatever, and we

2:35:45

agreed on a number. We said yes, this is the number we can both.

2:35:47

It was for that car. Everything that's

2:35:49

in that car. That's the number we agreed on. It

2:35:51

was just, I was incredulous. I'm like, are you kidding

2:35:53

me? You can't add. You can't say, and also other

2:35:56

parts of that car, we're now going to itemize and

2:35:58

add to the price. So

2:36:00

I was, I mean, would I have not bought the car

2:36:02

with the hundred at that point? I probably would have, oh,

2:36:04

here's the, here's the final kicker. Right. When

2:36:06

I came home and, and like reloaded, one of my

2:36:08

tabs that had that search in it, zero

2:36:11

matches. So guess what? That car

2:36:13

that was listed twice, there was one of

2:36:16

these cars, 500

2:36:18

miles. And I just bought it because you can

2:36:21

say impulse bought it after a month of research.

2:36:23

I saw that it was available. I saw it had been

2:36:26

on the market for 29 days and I found the one

2:36:28

that was near, and I was lucky we picked, we, they

2:36:31

both said they had the car, but only one

2:36:33

of them really had the car. And we randomly

2:36:35

picked that one because it was close to my wife's

2:36:37

work. That's incredible. And so when

2:36:39

I bought that car, it disappeared. Now there's zero of

2:36:41

these cars within 500 miles. That's

2:36:44

incredible. Oh, I'm a little sad that we didn't get

2:36:46

to do a road trip together, but ultimately I'm, I'm

2:36:48

glad that a white car in a white hatchback happened

2:36:50

to you. I was ready to ship a, you ready

2:36:52

to ship a car from, uh, from new Mexico and

2:36:54

Carmax, but you know, cause it was like, Oh, rest

2:36:56

free. It'll be great. Mhm.