These companies do not have nearly the same value proposition relative their intended market as Apple did.
BYD or Tesla are still just cars. An iPhone completely changed what a "phone" was. And did so in a way that required the rest of the industry to take time to replicate.
BYD is more just Toyota. Which is awesome for BYD. I realize that a lot of people would like to be "just" Toyota in their market. But it's not the same as being Apple.
Tesla? Yeah, they're nothing like Apple. Maybe if they delivered on FSD? But even then, it's not like Apple. Apple made something that no one else was working on as more than maybe a research project. Tesla FSD development doesn't have the same advantage. Everyone is working on FSD. Since we're American, we're hoping Tesla, (or one of the big three), gets it first. But that's more of a hope, not necessarily the way things will pan out.
That's the essential difference between Tesla and Apple. Apple doesn't talk a big game. In fact, they famously and frustratingly say nothing at all. They just deliver. Tesla is still talking about FSD.
> Since we're American, we're hoping Tesla, (or one of the big three), gets it first. But that's more of a hope, not necessarily the way things will pan out.
And in the FSD space I don’t think there is much first mover advantage anyway. The iPhone came out of left field. The path to FSD has been highly iterative with many steps taken by a bunch of different players.
Even if Tesla gets FSD first, it won’t be much longer before others get it to and they’ll all be roughly the same interface and feature set.
iPhone was significantly different than what was there before and as you or somebody said, nobody else was working on anything similar. It was a different business model—one that took away substantial power from the cell phone carriers and turned the phone into a software platform on par with a regular computer. It turned carriers into dumb pipes and they hated that!
FSD doesn’t really change the fundamental business model of any car manufacturers out there. It’s just another feature for the same familiar players to sell.
What would throw a wrench in the existing crop of manufacturers would be street legal FSD cars you could order on Amazon for a fraction of the cost or something. Ones made by the same crew that make all the other random flee market brands sold there. Or maybe if the whole market switched to on-demand pay per mile service with a completely vertically integrated company—but even then I don’t think that upsets the apple cart too much.
I don't understand where this trust comes from. Just like any other large company, Apple will not stand up for your civil rights when it seriously threatens the bottom line.
At its zenith, the Roman Empire included these today's countries and territories: most of Europe (England, Wales, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Gibraltar, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine), coastal northern Africa (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt), the Balkans (Albania, Greece, Hungary, Bosnia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Turkey), the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, Asia Minor, and some parts of Mesopotamia and the Middle East (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Israel).
Please make the effort to understand the difference between frontend and backend.
The nice thing about the decentralised exchanges such as Uniswap or -dydx- is that you do not need their websites/ frontends because their smart contracts/ backend is available on the blockchain. Anybody can make a website that interacts with any smart contracts on the blockchain. There are even aggregator websites (e.g. https://app.defisaver.com/).
Do you know any website that aggregates the services of any TradFi banks and brokers?
Backend/frontend? I thought this was a decentralized network. There should just be users with nodes. Backends point to clear points of failure from a disingenuous misleading project
If you made even a passing attempt at understanding this space you would see how wrong you are.
Anyone can interact with a contract directly, you don't need any FE or BE at all.
I can't speak to the specifics of dydx since I am not a user and haven't done my due diligence on them, but with every other dex I have ever interacted with it is entirely possible to use their service entirely from the contract interface.
Its usually the first thing I do to ensure that I can access my funds without any external dependencies.
You are just contradicting the parents comments while trying to claim they aren't being misleading. The exchange when down with aws and they were lying about being decentralised to sell tokens
DAI is not considered an algorithmic stablecoin, but an asset backed stablecoin. Algorithmic stablecoins like FEI do not seem to work as well as asset backed stablecoins.
That is a myth.
These defenses you talk about were built partly with cheap material and therefore significantly less effective. This caused a major post-war corruption scandal.
Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland, because Switzerland was actually more useful as a neutral state for Nazi Germany to exchange gold for commodities, for spying and Switzerland produced militiary equipment for Nazi Germany anyway.
The Nazis did plan an invasion. See Operation Tannenbaum[0].
Switzerland didn't end up getting divided between Germany and Italy thanks to the Red Army hurtling more humans west than the Wehrmacht could supply bullets east. Swiss munitions production wouldn't be risked.
DigixDAO works on tokenized gold.
If there is demand, we will see every possible good as a token. It shouldn't be that difficult to make an virtual product like an ETF into a token on a blockchain.
There are financial incentives to create and destroy DAI.
A user of DAI doesn't need to collateralize, he just buys DAI.
DAI demand will grow, if the use cases grow. It is also a good safe heaven for crypto traders.
