This will be a success. There is no need to sell an amount comparable to the Tesla Model S. It's Ferrari's first entry into the premium 5-seat EV sedan market. There are enough people who would pay any money to have an electric Ferrari. The fact that it's a rather everyday car—and not a supercar—makes it a very attractive option for rich people who need to show off. Design is also pretty good for the task. It doesn't compete with existing premium EV sedans but really stands out. It's unique, and that is its value prop. Should it look like a regular Ferrari but electric, it would compete with Ferrari's combustion engine supercars and would inevitably lose. It also shouldn't compete with the Porsche Taycan—a very nicely designed EV. The general public is not the target audience for this car to offer a generic design. So, Ferrari's unconventional design is the exact right choice.
P.S. It’s kind of like when Porsche entered the SUV market with the Cayenne, which didn’t have a conventional SUV look but still crashed the market.
That kind of M&A shenanigan without actual M&A to not attract scrutinization is pretty popular this year. E.g., Meta's "acquisition" of ScaleAI for $14.8 billion and Alphabet's "reverse acquihire" of key talent from Windsurf in July 2025 for $2.4 billion for non-exclusive technology licensing rights and the hiring of top executives. Apparently, in all deals employees lost while founders gained personally but didn't explicitly try to make good for people who actually took a risk by trusting them.
That really diminishes attractiveness of working in a startup where all your efforts could be swooped out by a big player via just buying IP and acquihiring founders for a price cheaper than buying the whole company and without the hustle of regulatory scrutiny. Big tech literally kills competition and innovation guaranteeing its monopoly.
The author should really rethink the relations with clients and "freedom" they get in the process.
Back when I did websites for clients, often after carefully thinking a project through and getting to some final idea on how everything should look, feel, and operate, I presented this optimal concept to clients. Some would start recommending changes and adding their own ideas—which I most often already iterated through earlier during ideation and designing.
It rarely builds a good rapport with clients if you start explaining why their ideas on "improvements" are really not that good. Anyway, I would listen to them, nod, and do nothing as to their ideas. I would just stick to mine concept without wasting time for random client's "improvements"—leaving them to the last moment if a client would insist on them at the very end.
Funny thing is that clients usually, after more consideration and time would come on their own to the result I came to and presented to them—they just needed time to understand that their "improvements" aren't relevant.
Nevertheless, if they insisted on implementing their "improvements" (which almost never happened) I'd do it for additional price—most often for them to just see that it wasn't good idea to start with and get back to what I already did before.
So, sometimes, ignoring client's ideas really saves a lot of time.
If a product provides some value that requires additional resources for using it like cloud and keeping information constantly updated (like email) then subscription is fine.
But many now create a product that just sits on mobile or PC without any real need for additional resources or efforts from the company that released it. Like a meditation app with list of audio files of guided meditations that user constantly use daily just replaying them — this shouldn't be subscription or at least should be a very cheap one. Like $1-2. A meditation app that doesn't produce anything outside installed app that asks for the same money as Netflix for the mere fact that users use it daily is just wrong.
Obviously, a meditation app is just an example. You may easily add Adobe products here. If one just uses an app for personal use on one's own PC without needing to connect to other team members or upload anything in the cloud, there is no need for subscription. One-time payment would work much better. Especially when one doesn't need every new update and could stay on the version one bought without being pushed to pay for features or updates one doesn't need.
Again, if subscription then it should be really small for such cases. Adobe desperate acquisition of Figma is exactly the sign that Adobe executes wrong pricing policy. The company could make even more money than it does should it provide really cheap or free access for personal use and make real money on businesses. There would be fewer open seats for competition to eat Adobe's pie and more users invested and familiar with Adobe products that would want to use them in businesses too — basically free customer acquisition. Figma did this and crushed it making Adobe in desperation pay $20B for the same product it already has — pure defensive move.
Many comments here say that that's what browser says but there is no way to distinguish UI theme from content theme preferences and it's impossible to have dark UI with light content due to browser limitation. Hence, as they say, it's a problem of a browser, not a web-site.
If it's obvious to everybody that these content preference signals from a browser lack crucial information as to distinguishing between UI and content preferences, maybe it's safer to keep standard default (usually light) and just offer and option to switch to dark theme in case a user wants and remember preferences locally till the next visit.
There is no need to force dark theme in the absence of enough information from a browser as to exact user preferences. Browser doesn't ask for anything. It just says what UI theme a user has. It's a web-site that makes a conclusion based on limited information and then decides to force dark theme on content.
Many comments here say that that's what browser says but there is no way to distinguish UI theme from content theme preferences and it's impossible to have dark UI with light content due to browser limitation. Hence, as they say, it's a problem of a browser, not a web-site.
If it's obvious to everybody that these content preference signals from a browser lack crucial information as to distinguishing between UI and content preferences, maybe it's safer to keep standard default (usually light) and just offer and option to switch to dark theme in case a user wants and remember preferences locally till the next visit.
There is no need to force dark theme in the absence of enough information from a browser as to exact user preferences. Browser doesn't ask for anything. It just says what UI theme a user has. It's a web-site that makes a conclusion based on limited information and then decides to force dark theme on content.
Many comments here say that that's what browser says but there is no way to distinguish UI theme from content theme and it's impossible to have dark UI with light content due to browser limitation. Hence, as they say, it's a problem of a browser, not a web-site.
If it's obvious for everybody that these content negotiation signals from a browser lack crucial information as to distinguishing between UI and content preferences, maybe it's safer to keep standard default (usually light) and just offer and option to switch to dark in case user wants.
Hence, my post here to show this situation. There is no need to force dark theme in the absence of enough information from a browser as to user preferences.
Those who write angry responses with an opposite opinion are not a majority. That's could be an example of a vocal minority. If some people are loud in their disagreement doesn't mean they are a majority. Those who agree often don't bother to write. That's an understandable mistake that often leads to wrong conclusions. Just judging by comments here is not very useful.
Standard default usually means light. Changing this to dark means forcing new default. Since there is a browser limitation in telling exactly what a user wants—dark UI and light content or dark UI and dark content—forcing a new default considering that it's exactly what a user wants just based oninformation about UI despite the fact that there are not enough signals is a bit wrong. The safer bet would be to provide a choice but keep defaults to general (light) and not make choice for a user just judging by UI theme.
So, we still have the same problem. Web-sites think—despite there is being no way to tell that a user doesn't want dark web-site theme, just uses dark UI—that they should definitely unarguably force on a user dark theme. If it's obvious that there is no way to tell exactly what a user wants, but only tell what browser UI a user uses, maybe it'd be more reasonable not to force dark defaults just because the browser has dark UI.
I surprised people are trying to explain how it works even if I never asked. Thanks, captain obvious.
So, what I should change to have dark browser UI, but light web-sites? I change theme of UI in browsers setting, not what content is delivered. Two big differences.
Last time I checked prefers-color-scheme in Dev Tools is for debugging only and there is no dedicated "prefers-color-scheme" in browser settings.
I know what's happening and why. The thing is the web-site should not suppose anything. It'd better not change defaults at all and deliver conventional colors. If it offers an optional switch to change theme to dark that would be appreciated. But not the fact that it makes and force choice for a user who didn't ask for it. People use dark UI for different reasons and in different context. A web-site just should not try to make a choice in this situation. It could only offer options.
The web-site should not suppose anything. It'd better not change defaults at all and deliver conventional colors. If it offers an optional switch to change theme to dark that would be appreciated. But not the fact that it makes and force choice for a user who didn't ask for it.
No. When someone forces on everybody else own understanding of the world regardless of what other people want that's an absence. Not forcing own defaults and giving a choice—that would be more preferrable.
P.S. It’s kind of like when Porsche entered the SUV market with the Cayenne, which didn’t have a conventional SUV look but still crashed the market.