Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs' Lack of License Plate Explained
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
You beat me to the punch...SL55 has been gone a while...I remember a couple of years ago I emailed Steve to buy it from him...no reply.
powerbook911 said:
You beat me to the punch...SL55 has been gone a while...I remember a couple of years ago I emailed Steve to buy it from him...no reply.
Agree; morally I don't personally see any difference between somebody who deliberately breaks the law and somebody who inappropriately exploits loopholes to avoid having to comply. Developed society places a responsibility on individuals, and one of those is compliance with the word and spirit of its rules, no matter how much money you may have.
Last edited:
It's all about being tracked.
However, removing it may be like removing the scratch cover on a new phone.
[ Why people leave them on is beyond me ]
Minimalist - Remember ?????
AT.
However, removing it may be like removing the scratch cover on a new phone.
[ Why people leave them on is beyond me ]
Minimalist - Remember ?????
AT.
He probably didn't personally lease anything. I'm sure Apple leased it for him as part of his package.
As soon as the dealer delivers a car to the purchaser, the dealer must affix a report of sale form, which accurately identifies the person who purchased the car. The report of sale form must not be removed until the purchaser has received the permanent license plate. This document is probably adequate proof of ownership for the purposes of obtaining insurance.
The seller (not the purchaser) is responsible for filing all the necessary paperwork, and for paying all the necessary fees, to register the vehicle in the name of the purchaser, and must do so within 20 days of selling a new car, or within 30 days of selling a used car. If the seller fails to file that paperwork on time, then the seller (not the purchaser) is subject to penalties.
But if his car was known as the one without plates - complete with make and model - this point is moot. As Isaacson said in his book.
Jobs stated - when that was pointed out something akin to "You're right. You know why I didn't have plates on my care? Because I didn't."
I think everyone has missed the the obvious here. The dealer probably gives him the car and I would bet Apple gives them plenty of computers and devices. The dealer would then swap out the car frequently and sell the low milage "demo" cars. This is fairly standard practice. I know an athletic director of a college in TX. He and several of the coaches get cars from a local dealer that advertizes with the school's athletic program. He barely has a car for mor then 8 months and they swap him with a new one. I would bet the dealer gets game tickets and other perks.
A clue to this is the fact that the dealer attached their license plate frame to the vehicle.
The license plate thing is just an added bonus for some one in the public spotlight like Jobs.
A clue to this is the fact that the dealer attached their license plate frame to the vehicle.
The license plate thing is just an added bonus for some one in the public spotlight like Jobs.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
If he was poor would your life somehow be better? Jobs is hilarious; a closeted conservative really.
Capitalism FTW! Where F isn't For and W isn't Win.
mtbgtr said:
If he was poor would your life somehow be better? Jobs is hilarious; a closeted conservative really.
Capitalism FTW! Where F isn't For and W isn't Win.
It looks to me as though the law doesn't apply only to *new* car sales, but rather to all car sales, both new and used. In cases where new car sales are meant to be treated differently then used car sales, the law appears to specifically spell out the distinctions.
For example the law makes it clear that dealers have 30 days from the sale of a used car to file the registration papers, but they only have 20 days to do so from the sale of a new car. However, the section dealing with the 6-month validity window for the report-of-sale sticker doesn't make any distinction between new car sales and used car sales. So, it's conceivable that selling the car back to the dealer, only to re-lease it all over again, might actually meet the requirements..
I don't live in NoCal, but I live in SoCal, an area quite well off. For all those who say that not having a license plate would make it obvious who you are; I can attest, a large number of cars don't have plates! Especially the higher end cars. My neighbor had a ford F150 that had no plates on it for over four years before getting stopped. A friend, all three of her cars (Prius, Honda Minivan, and a mid-Mercedes) are plateless; and have been for many many years, none have the paperwork on the windshield.
It really is NOT that uncommon for cars to go without plates, even for years at a time.
It really is NOT that uncommon for cars to go without plates, even for years at a time.
problem
Problem is, THAT car and the one pictured at mayfield and the one from other pictures is at LEAST 2-3 years old. I can't imagine that a leasing company has a car to re-lease to him that could be considered NEW for that long.
I bet we can figure out from the pictures if it is the same car every time.
Problem is, THAT car and the one pictured at mayfield and the one from other pictures is at LEAST 2-3 years old. I can't imagine that a leasing company has a car to re-lease to him that could be considered NEW for that long.
I bet we can figure out from the pictures if it is the same car every time.
No it doesn't. It'd seem odd if they DIDN'T have enough identical SL55 AMGs to make Steve Jobs happy.
========================
You're right. It doesn't 'ring true' with me either. I recall reading a long time ago Steve was asked about the license plate thing and the answer was to the effect, "It would just get stolen."
Jobs did not live in a gated community, he just lived like a common guy at a street address. Both there and where he might go there was always an issue of kids or hangers on, or fanbois crowding his personal space by slinking up to his car and stealing the plates just to be able to show/brag, 'hey, I got Steve Jobs license plates.' Likely someone told Steve to just pretend it's a newly leased or purchased car that did not require a plate yet.
And yes, I'm sure the local cops were told to 'leave him alone'. I mean the guy's position enabled a huge, huge, contribution to the local tax-based economy and federal tax collection authorities.
... but "new car smell" is nothing more than the toxic fumes from the textiles/adhesives used in the interior of the car. To constantly have that could not have been healthy for him...
This six-month leased vehicle swap-out sounds fishy. It's too fussy for Steve Jobs.
It's more plausible that it was a purchased vehicle and registered with the DMV. He just never mounted the plates; they were probably in the trunk in the original DMV envelope. If he ever got pulled over and questioned, he could just tell the officer he was on the way to getting them installed. No cop would probably hassle Steve Jobs over tags though, once they identified who he was.
There are a boatload of new-ish vehicles on the road without tags. You really have to be doing something stupid to get pulled over for not having tags.
It's more plausible that it was a purchased vehicle and registered with the DMV. He just never mounted the plates; they were probably in the trunk in the original DMV envelope. If he ever got pulled over and questioned, he could just tell the officer he was on the way to getting them installed. No cop would probably hassle Steve Jobs over tags though, once they identified who he was.
There are a boatload of new-ish vehicles on the road without tags. You really have to be doing something stupid to get pulled over for not having tags.
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
You beat me to the punch...SL55 has been gone a while...I remember a couple of years ago I emailed Steve to buy it from him...no reply.
My god I know this is an Apple forum but still....
You do know that Mercedes - especially the AMG performance section have a history of making one offs or special editions for their 'loyal' customers.
Take the SL73, with a production run of less than 85. But more importantly they have been installed in more modern SL's despite not being 'officially' available. Which was the case when the Royal Family of Brunei requested one.
Now please tell me that Mercedes would not provide a 55 engine - the most popular of the AMG engines if it was requested?
Having said that, we have no idea how old that image was and for all we know this was during the 55's production run.
If he wanted to throw a wrench at the paparazzi to confuse them, he should've just gotten a vanity plate that read: "ANDRDMAN"
re: plates
Yep... I wouldn't doubt it a bit. A lot of car enthusiasts I know *really* dislike the fact that a front plate is required by law in many states. If you drive a turbocharged performance car, the intercooler is usually mounted in the front, just below the front grille. A front plate typically blocks some of the airflow right in the middle of it, reducing its effectiveness. In other cases, the front plate really messes with the styling of the front bumper opening.
I drive a Hyundai Genesis Coupe myself, and when I first bought it new, the dealership even asked me if I wanted them to install the front plate bracket and plate, or just leave it off (even though I'm in a state where one is required by law). They said a lot of people didn't want the holes drilled in the bumper for the front plate, especially because reselling the car later in a state where it's NOT required means people have to take the car to a body shop to have the holes plugged and bumper repainted to cover it back up.
The back plate, granted, doesn't pose those same issues ... but it can still make a car look really ugly, especially when the plate's color clashes with the car's paint color. And on principle, I can see why people might not want them either. When you're cited for a traffic violation, it's not the VEHICLE that's given the ticket. It's the DRIVER. Therefore, the officer should be concerned with your driver's license and vehicle insurance card -- NOT the plate. Plates are really just there for the *convenience* of the police, when they're trying to locate a stolen vehicle or easily identify a particular one as the one someone else already reported to them. The true identifier of a vehicle is already stamped on it in several places (as well as being printed on one's insurance card). It's called a VIN number.
Yep... I wouldn't doubt it a bit. A lot of car enthusiasts I know *really* dislike the fact that a front plate is required by law in many states. If you drive a turbocharged performance car, the intercooler is usually mounted in the front, just below the front grille. A front plate typically blocks some of the airflow right in the middle of it, reducing its effectiveness. In other cases, the front plate really messes with the styling of the front bumper opening.
I drive a Hyundai Genesis Coupe myself, and when I first bought it new, the dealership even asked me if I wanted them to install the front plate bracket and plate, or just leave it off (even though I'm in a state where one is required by law). They said a lot of people didn't want the holes drilled in the bumper for the front plate, especially because reselling the car later in a state where it's NOT required means people have to take the car to a body shop to have the holes plugged and bumper repainted to cover it back up.
The back plate, granted, doesn't pose those same issues ... but it can still make a car look really ugly, especially when the plate's color clashes with the car's paint color. And on principle, I can see why people might not want them either. When you're cited for a traffic violation, it's not the VEHICLE that's given the ticket. It's the DRIVER. Therefore, the officer should be concerned with your driver's license and vehicle insurance card -- NOT the plate. Plates are really just there for the *convenience* of the police, when they're trying to locate a stolen vehicle or easily identify a particular one as the one someone else already reported to them. The true identifier of a vehicle is already stamped on it in several places (as well as being printed on one's insurance card). It's called a VIN number.
Good for Steve for taking advantage of that loophole, but how does CA allow this? 6 months? And how do the Police know how long it's been? Did Steve get pulled over a lot just to have to show the officer the current lease paperwork? And how annoying would that be?
If _Apple_ gave a dealer something to do Steve Jobs a favour, that would be very, very, _very_ dodgy. On the other hand, Steve Jobs had enough money to call a car dealer, and tell him "I want to drive a new Mercedes without license plate, legally. How much?"