So basically, Steve got a new Mercedes more often than I get new shoes. Now that's what I expect out of a multibillionaire. Good to see he at least kept himself in new-car smell on a regular basis, and certainly kept a local dealer quite happy.
I'm not sure that he had to get a brand new car every six months. He could have created a new lease on the same car every six month from a leasing company. That should have been enough to satisfy the law: http://dmv.ca.gov/fee_calc/feecalcfaq.htm#plates
The thing that's fascinating about people with that much money is that they have a lot of freedom to express themselves within their lifestyle.
Cars are a very particular expression of that. So Larry Ellison has a custom all-aluminum roadster, Steve had his German sedans, and ESRI's Jack Dangermond is noted for driving a Taurus wagon.
But just having a Mercedes AMG isn't the same as leasing a new one every six months. But as has mentioned, he may have simply leased the same vehicle on successive six-month terms. That's a very good point and I'd suspect that was in fact the case. It's an even cleverer maneuver and simply sounds more like what Steve would do.
Oh, chill out. The article says the car was leased. He probably had to pay some kind of premium to keep his leases down to six months at a time, but it's not like he was buying a new $120k car twice a year.
I'm not upset about it or concerned with the financial arrangements, I'm just kind of amazed by the concept.
On top of the self-expression of never having license plates, he got one of the finest cars in the world delivered to his driveway, brand new, twice a year. I'm guessing not only did he never have car trouble, he never needed to take it in for maintenance either.
That's hard to beat as far as perks of being a really rich guy go. Not my personal taste, but I can't deny its appeal.
Don't overly idolize the concept. The SL55 is, relatively-speaking, a fairly modest car (brand new, the SL55 was a bit over $100k vs. the SL65, which looked the same but had a bigger motor and was almost _double_ the price). Among car nerds, Jobs' choice of the 55 model showed a lot of restraint.
It's a nice car, but far from one of the finest cars in the world.
And lastly, I'd bet that he didn't actually get a brand new one every six months -- leasing companies generally don't do that without requiring a massive chunk of money up front (i.e. $20k each time), and given the restraint he showed with the car selection, I doubt he'd be so, well, inefficient.
It's MUCH more likely, as another commenter suggested, that the actual loophole they used was for him to "sell" the car back to the leasing company and immediately re-lease it every six months.
There are certainly cars that go above this one, but once you cross the $100k threshold, you're basically in the "I don't care what it costs" territory.
There's a whole class of cars in the 100-250K class (more expensive BMW/Mercedes/Porsche) which are a notch below the 350-450K range (Bentley/Rolls Royce)
That first range is generally for the rich professionals who do care, to some extent, about price. I would say the "I don't care what it costs" territory starts at around 400K
>I hustled for many years, and I was able to buy my first Mercedes last year.
Boy oh boy!
Maybe if I work my little fingers hard enough, someday I can be on that level!
/sorry for the snark, maybe it's the weather, or maybe it's the condescending tone of your post -- I sincerely hope that I never look at hacking as a form of "hustling"
My post wasn't condescending at all. I was just pointing out that instead of the typical reactions to affluence (jealousy, anger, etc.), you should admire it and strive to attain it while furthering your own skills and bettering yourself.
Most of my hustle has been in the form of serious hacking/side projects.
Your post is condescending because it assumes that mine is rooted in jealousy or anger, or that your version of affluence is something that haven't already attained.
Sorry. I should have said "one" not "you", and "one's self" instead of "yourself". Most people seem to get angry/jealous when they see affluence instead of having a more pragmatic reaction.
My version of affluence is being in the top 1% that the 99% hates. I'm not quite there yet. :)
Okay, not to talk down to you, but something that you'll eventually learn is that the really "affluent" people will rarely ever tell you, and they'll never say something about helping you get to their level unless you ask them.
The "maybe you should learn to hustle and someday you can be like me!" thing comes from lack of self-confidence; the term for this has historically been "nouveau riche".
If you're talking about automobiles as a social signaling mechanism, "real men drive Audis."
Not to be an outright prick here, but "learn to hustle like me, [plebian]" definitely doesn't come across as affluent.
And if we're talking about automobiles, the two wealthiest people I know drive cars that cost them less than $20,000. One is a founder of a company that you use every day but might not have heard of, the other is the CEO of a company you definitely use every day, and have definitely heard of.
Sorry you feel I was talking down to you. I wasn't. I'm neither in a position to nor is it something I actually do.
My suggestion was that outrage is not the correct response to affluence; admiration is. Driving a $100,000 car is not unreasonable.
I don't lack self confidence, I simply like to encourage people to hustle. I do this with my friends and family constantly. I'm not rich, but I will be some day because I have the attitude and the hustle.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. If I wanted to be condescending initially, I would have replied with a more 4chan-esque "cry more, poorfag" or something along those lines.
>I simply like to encourage people to hustle. I do this with my friends and family constantly.
Have you ever asked them if they think this comes across as condescending of you?
As far as you lacking self confidence. Maybe not, but to "affluent" people, that's how it looks.
You don't have to apologize, you didn't hurt my feelings or anything, I'm just pointing this out to you so that I can help you work past it. Keep at it, and eventually you'll get the self-confidence you need to not make stupid remarks about cars.
I don't think most people who can afford $120k Mercedes vehicles really care who's driven them before. If it was a Ferrari driven by a rock star, maybe, but people who drive Benzes are generally boring and reasonable.
Honestly "most people" don't have to care. Only a few people need to care enough to affect prices for something with such a limited supply. It's not hard to find pre-owned by celebrity car sales fetching a premium.
For all we know though there's some loophole that lets the dealer resell the exact same car to Jobs every 6 months which somehow keeps it under the no-plate period.
I'm in the luxury car industry and I can say that the "celebrity-owned" cars fetch approximately $0 in premium in the marketplace.
Dealers will certainly (try to) use that fact in their marketing, but the cars are such commodities anyway (particularly the SL55, of which there are TONS out there) that nobody, in the end, really cares who owned the car as long as it looks and runs like it's supposed to.
"there's some loophole that lets the dealer resell"
Exactly. The way the law was written, the exact wording, it would never be expected that someone would not want to do something like put on a license plate and go to the added expense that Jobs did.
The law probably reads "x" time period from the date of title.
Even if that time period was only 30 days there is nothing to prevent someone from selling the car to their wife, buying it back, and re-titling. And a transfer to a family member in many states including California is exempt from sales/use tax:
Thanks both to you and sibling for info. I think he prolly was buying the same car repeatedly because it's said he drove 5k miles a year and his car has ~30k miles on it.
More like $140K. Actually I think they don't make the SL55 any more, so the latest one would have to be an SL63.
It doesn't look all that different to a $45,000 SLK, though, which makes it the insanely fast borderline-supercar of choice for the billionaire who wants to remain relatively inconspicuous.
What is an "insanely fast borderline-supercar" good for when all it does is get you to the next red light faster (unless you take it to the track)? I'm genuinely curious. I found that when I drive (relatively relaxed) I tend to be waiting at the next intersection next to the guy who changed lanes multiple times and raced around others. I'd rather spend my money to upgrade to a bigger boat.
I guess what I don't understand is the point of buying a faster (and I guess in this case insanely fast) car when you're still bound by the rules of the road. Speed limits are everywhere, and even if you accelerate much quicker than me, more often than not we're just going to meet again at the next red light.
Well, meh. It's not my cup of tea, but some people enjoy a powerful, well-handling car, and don't always drive in the city. There are a couple of nice routes around the periphery of the Bay Area where good engine, handling, and brakes can put a smile on car people's faces. The pass between San Mateo and Half Moon Bay comes to mind.
I don't know if one needs an AMG for that, but I can't quite picture Steve Jobs in a Miata.
It sounds (literally) pretty cool ;p Goes fast. Comfort is a secondary thing. In fact you gotta pay extra usually for the slim down race models with even less comfort. Forget the AC/radio... in some of those high end race car models.
Uh, they stick an ozonator (ozone) in the car at the end of the factory run. Used car dealers frequently use them. Due to the fact the Ozone will bind to almost anything volatile, the air is effectively sterilised and gives it that "new car smell".
tl;dr: you're a douche; your internet access should probably be revoked
Ozone is exceptionally unstable, hence carcinogenic. However it's put in after the factory run. You get your car at best 2 weeks after that, unless it's imported and then its months.
There's unlikely to be any ozone left after 12 hours anyway, but cars aren't air tight so volatile or not within the weeks it takes to get to you the level should be down to zero.
Except there's no loophole. Registering the vehicle at purchase (or at beginning of lease) is required. Cal DMV will then send you plates. At which time your paper stickers expire.
Besides, his vehicle wasn't displaying the temporary plates either.
Look, MacObserver and all the rest of you fanboys: Steve Jobs just decided to disobey the law. There's no loophole. There's just a guy who thought the lines of his car were spoiled by license plates and who decided that, fuck it, he's a billionaire and the laws didn't apply to him.
Jobs was an asshole and a scofflaw. He'll be remembered for doing great things with Apple. Quit trying to whitewash the rest of his life. By the time you people get done with him, his Wikipedia page will talk about how he spent four hours every day feeding puppies and orphans. Sheesh. Knock it off already.
This is a lot like David Letterman and his numerous speeding tickets he would get in Connecticut. He's rich and a $200 fine doesn't mean the same to him as it does to us. That's what he'd spend on an expensive NYC lunch. The same goes for Jobs.
I read the article thinking it was ridiculous. Adam Carolla, who has a podcast I listen to regularly, complains all the time about the 'chicken s' tickets he gets for not having a plate on the front of some of his sports cars. I can't imagine the tickets you would get for not having a rear plate. Every time a cop looked in your direction you'd get pulled over. Seems like more hassle than it's worth.
Jobs should've just gotten the California legislature to issue an iPlate - something designed by Jobs/Apple that looked good and the proceeds went to something worthwhile, like an Apple-approved charity.
There's an anecdote that he parked his car so frequently in the handicap spot in front of the Apple office that some jokesters one day changed the wheelchair into a Mercedes insignia. Reportedly Steve was none too pleased.
he's a billionaire and the laws didn't apply to him.
It is more likely the other way around. People who see that kind of major success are people who refuse to listen to others. Not obeying the law of displaying a license plate is just an extension of the demeanour that allowed him to become a billionaire in the first place.
So you believe Jobs' attitude had no effect on his success?
Sneaking Woz in after hours at Atari is another famous example of rule that he broke. We know it was in his nature. Breaking rules isn't necessarily going to make you rich, but not breaking rules definitely isn't going to make you rich.
Disobeying vehicle registration laws does not equal being an asshole. I doubt anyone actually makes it through a day without breaking at least one law. Quit being an asshole yourself and at least provide a legitimate reason why he was an asshole.
> at least provide a legitimate reason why he was an asshole
Well, since you're asking ... I admire Steve Jobs the entrepreneur, but Steve Jobs the dad qualified as one [1]:
"Jobs's first child, Lisa Brennan-Jobs, was born in 1978, the daughter of his longtime relationship with Chris Ann Brennan, a Bay Area painter. For two years, she raised their daughter on welfare while Jobs denied paternity by claiming he was sterile"
Can anyone explain the advantage to driving without plates?
It seems that being the Mercedes AMG would be just as easy to identify as the Mercedes with the APPLE1 plate.
Common enough that I wouldn't give it a second glance. I regularly see plateless cars in SF, and Mercedes SLs are popular in the Bay Area - stylish without being flashy. Most of the Ferraris, Lamborghinis etc. are down in LA.
The advantage is that you can't prove it was his car. Even if every other Mercedes AMG is registered, there's no way to prove that his is the only one without a plate.
Perhaps it's not that he got a new car every six months because he really disliked plates. Perhaps he just got a new car every six months because he really liked having a brand new car.
Heck, I would. I wouldn't always get the same car, like Steve Jobs, but then again I wouldn't always wear the same clothes either.
If anyone happens to see this, the best thing I've learned this year is that you can do all your DMV business (at least in CA) at any AAA office, if you're a member.
I just got my CA license last week. The whole procedure, from showing up to leaving, took less than 1 hour. Maybe the claremont office in oakland is somehow different than others.
And "less than 1 hour" is supposed to be a good thing now?
I used to complain about the RTA (the NSW equivalent) in Sydney. But I have to admit that last time I showed up to get my New South Wales licence renewed, I was in and out with a licence in my hand (printed on the spot) in about fifteen minutes.
Fifteen minutes; impressive. In the US, various states' DMV offices, especially in densely-populated urban areas, are a frequently-cited example of public sector inefficiencies. Waiting in line for 2-4 hours (to deal with registration, issuing licenses, and so forth) is par for the course.
Approaching 4 years of driving with no plates on the same car here in California. Just leave the paper dealer plate(the one with the dealership name/logo on it) on the car. Cops wont ever pull you over for lack of plates, even if youre missing the front plate as well, as I am.
I did this as well. Even got pulled over for speeding once and was issued a warning. CHP chuckled when he saw that I was well beyond the limit for not having plates affixed to the car, and asked me to get them on the car.
New cars are so common in CA that if the car is a late model and looks reasonably good, you'll never have a problem. Parked on the street, they can't see the dates on the registration that's stuck to the windshield. Just make sure your registration is paid and your insurance is up to date.
in chicago the meter maids are strict about no front license plate, so when i moved here i quickly got a ticket for it (which was $50, i think). i had gone 6 years with no front plate and didn't want to put one on.
i had a personalized license plate on the back that i no longer cared about and i discovered that when i told the dmv that i lost the front plate (which was true, since the car had no front plate for 6 years outside of chicago) they gave me a temporary plate while the replacements were being made, which cost me all of about $10.
the temporary plate expired in 6 months, so for 6 months i was able to avoid having a front plate. if i had kept the car for longer, i would have just told them the plates never came in the mail or something, paid the small replacement fee again, and gotten another 6 month temporary plate.
did that too because DMV was loosing my papers for a while. drove almost one year without plates. no one ever complained. I had 'dealer' plates on both ends.
otoh, a friend got a ticket for missing front plates.
They won't pull you over if they see the dealer plate on the back though. I had a cop coming towards me, flip a U when he saw no front plate, see my dealer plate, flip another U and go on his way. This was after about 2 years of driving with that dealer plate, mind you.
If you get stopped for something else, you'll get ticketed. It's a fix-it ticket though and costs around $25 and two minutes to get signed off.
I don't really consider this a DMV loophole. It's just constantly driving a new car. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to "uncover" this loophole, it just takes a wealthy individual to be able to afford the the lease premium to do this if they are motivated enough.
I'm told by a family friend who was Jobs' neighbor that his license plates were stolen regularly by his fans. This was probably how he chose to solve that problem.
His decision to go with the lettering on the car (“SL 55 AMG”) seems much stranger to me. At least if you buy the (much cheaper) C-Class you can actually decide whether you want lettering or not. (I don’t have a car and don’t want one but my dad recently asked me whether he should go with or without the lettering. I told him to go without, that seems much classier and better looking to me.)
That's actually not an option from Mercedes. All MBs come with the lettering -- however the lettering is attached basically with a dab of (pretty strong) glue, and to remove the badges requires nothing more than a concentrated heat source, a pair of pliers, and some solvent to clean the residue.
It's more of a "mod" (albeit a simple one) than an option - and most people actually consider _removing_ the lettering to be quite tacky. Why? Because the people who often remove the badges are the ones with the less-expensive model cars (i.e. the SL550 vs. the SL55) and who want others to think they have the more expensive version :)
The permit the dealer provides for display on the passenger side of the front window is valid until the plates and stickers are received by the customer, or for six months from the sale date, whichever comes first.
Assuming he received them a month after purchase, since another clause states that one would no more than 45 days after purchase, how is that a loophole?
I wonder if this also applies to used cars; if you don't mind driving a bit of a clunker, you could do this affordably. A twenty year old car does not depreciate in value significantly over six months.
edit: hm, looks like it only applies to cars sold by a dealer.
you paid the 30% 'out of dealer' devalorization, of a SL55 AMG, plus leasing profits which shouldn't have been easy for this kind of arrangement, times 9, to have 4 years of car without plates.
do that math for that, smart guy, and i dare you to disagree it was moronic.
Note that he might have had or qualified for a handicapped sticker, given how sick the cancer made him, though no one appears to know for sure. And I could definitely see him not wanting to put the sticker on his car if he had one.
It appears to be the same car, though, right down to the missing license plate.
I think it's beautiful. This let him buck authority and beat the system at the same time. There was a monetary cost involved (and it could be argued that the system beat him out of fresh registration fees every 6 months), but... still. You gotta admire the gusto. ;)
