4 ms·

Except that HP and IBM have little to no smartphone marketshare today, while that is certainly not the case with the domestic big three. They're not some dead b

Except that HP and IBM have little to no smartphone marketshare today, while that is certainly not the case with the domestic big three. They're not some dead breed of automakers like the comparison might imply.

jsight 10y ago
Sure, but I think his point is about perception. The GM brand is every bit as ugly and even if they rebadged a Tesla and sold it (or maybe an iPod) it would be perceived poorly.
- refulgentis 10y ago
  Is it about the brand, or is about the challenges established market participants face when they're disrupted? I.e. Microsoft reacting to the iPad by trying to compromise and maintain two UIs for Windows, or GM reacting to EVs by maintaining two power trains? GM's decision is defensible IMHO, anecdotally, one of the major concerns around EVs is the "What happens when I run out of energy in the middle of nowhere?", and GM's approach answers that question handily. It's also shipping today at a price point Tesla can't hit. Engineering purity and the absurd performance a pure EV power train can hit aren't very relevant to the mass market.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > GM reacting to EVs by maintaining two power trains? GM wasn't reacting to EVs (except, perhaps, to GM's own experience with them); when the Volt was announced (as an EV), it was as a "better" alternative to hybrids. And for years, the "coming soon" Volt was what Chevy was waving around when other companies were actually delivering hybrids.
- incongruity 10y ago
  Remember HP did actually have the only license for iPods (the whole iPod + HP thing – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod%2BHP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod%2BHP) and it went nowhere. Their brand didn't do anything for it and the deal ended quickly, never to be repeated by Apple.
Grishnakh 10y ago
Ok then, I'll give you a better analogy: Microsoft making a mobile-phone OS. Microsoft made very successful desktop and then server OSes. They also made embedded OSes with varying success. Then other companies made very successful smartphone OSes, and MS tried to do the same with Windows Phone. It's been a complete disaster. Many people even admit that WP is (supposedly) a very reliable and snappy OS compared to its rivals, but it doesn't matter: it comes from MS so no one wants it. Why not? It's butt-ugly, and it has no apps, and the popular opinion of MS is not good, unlike Apple. Sound familiar? It's exactly like GM except for the bit about the apps (doesn't really apply to cars, at least not yet). Usually, people who buy Chevys do so because they're cheaper (than foreign cars), or because they want their muscle cars (Camaro, Corvette). Volt is neither a muscle car nor cheap. People who can afford BMWs are not going to buy a Chevy, no matter what. They might have done a little better had they sold the Volt under the Cadillac moniker instead, or maybe Buick. But both of those brands have a lot of baggage too. Honestly, it would have been better for them if they still had the Saturn brand around; Saturn brought a lot of buyers into GM showrooms when it was new because it was such a departure from the same-old GM of the other brands. But they killed that off a while ago as it had turned into yet another GM brand selling nearly-identical cars with the same internals and sales were at a trickle. Cadillacs are mainly just purchased by old people, and Buicks are mainly purchased by old people who want something cheaper and more sensible than a Caddy. GMC doesn't sell cars, much less hybrids or EVs. The only way the Volt could do worse is if it had been made by Chrysler, and even that's debatable. If it were sold by Ford, I think it'd be a lot more successful than it is now. If it were sold by Toyota or Honda, it'd be a good success. Maybe GM should just sell the drivetrain to other carmakers. This isn't an offhand remark either: there are many instances of automakers teaming up this way, including GM which used to sell Japanese cars under its "Geo" brand in the early 90s. Right now, Subaru and Toyota sell a sports car they co-developed (Subaru BRZ / Scion FR-S), which has a Subaru-made engine (I think the body is by Toyota). Scion looks like they're in the process of folding now, but they were going to sell the Mazda 2 as a Scion vehicle in the US. Lotus cars use Toyota engines. Mazda recently built a prototype version of the Mazda 3 that has a Toyota-licensed hybrid system from the Prius. There's no reason GM can't license its tech to other automakers, or even sell complete drivetrain systems. If the performance is good enough (to be similar to my current car's 184hp engine), I'd love to have a car that combines this drivetrain with a body and suspension/steering like my current Mazda.

jsight 10y ago

Sure, but I think his point is about perception. The GM brand is every bit as ugly and even if they rebadged a Tesla and sold it (or maybe an iPod) it would be perceived poorly.

refulgentis 10y ago
Is it about the brand, or is about the challenges established market participants face when they're disrupted? I.e. Microsoft reacting to the iPad by trying to compromise and maintain two UIs for Windows, or GM reacting to EVs by maintaining two power trains? GM's decision is defensible IMHO, anecdotally, one of the major concerns around EVs is the "What happens when I run out of energy in the middle of nowhere?", and GM's approach answers that question handily. It's also shipping today at a price point Tesla can't hit. Engineering purity and the absurd performance a pure EV power train can hit aren't very relevant to the mass market.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > GM reacting to EVs by maintaining two power trains? GM wasn't reacting to EVs (except, perhaps, to GM's own experience with them); when the Volt was announced (as an EV), it was as a "better" alternative to hybrids. And for years, the "coming soon" Volt was what Chevy was waving around when other companies were actually delivering hybrids.
incongruity 10y ago
Remember HP did actually have the only license for iPods (the whole iPod + HP thing – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod%2BHP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod%2BHP) and it went nowhere. Their brand didn't do anything for it and the deal ended quickly, never to be repeated by Apple.

Grishnakh 10y ago

Ok then, I'll give you a better analogy: Microsoft making a mobile-phone OS. Microsoft made very successful desktop and then server OSes. They also made embedded OSes with varying success. Then other companies made very successful smartphone OSes, and MS tried to do the same with Windows Phone. It's been a complete disaster. Many people even admit that WP is (supposedly) a very reliable and snappy OS compared to its rivals, but it doesn't matter: it comes from MS so no one wants it. Why not? It's butt-ugly, and it has no apps, and the popular opinion of MS is not good, unlike Apple. Sound familiar? It's exactly like GM except for the bit about the apps (doesn't really apply to cars, at least not yet). Usually, people who buy Chevys do so because they're cheaper (than foreign cars), or because they want their muscle cars (Camaro, Corvette). Volt is neither a muscle car nor cheap. People who can afford BMWs are not going to buy a Chevy, no matter what. They might have done a little better had they sold the Volt under the Cadillac moniker instead, or maybe Buick. But both of those brands have a lot of baggage too. Honestly, it would have been better for them if they still had the Saturn brand around; Saturn brought a lot of buyers into GM showrooms when it was new because it was such a departure from the same-old GM of the other brands. But they killed that off a while ago as it had turned into yet another GM brand selling nearly-identical cars with the same internals and sales were at a trickle. Cadillacs are mainly just purchased by old people, and Buicks are mainly purchased by old people who want something cheaper and more sensible than a Caddy. GMC doesn't sell cars, much less hybrids or EVs. The only way the Volt could do worse is if it had been made by Chrysler, and even that's debatable. If it were sold by Ford, I think it'd be a lot more successful than it is now. If it were sold by Toyota or Honda, it'd be a good success. Maybe GM should just sell the drivetrain to other carmakers. This isn't an offhand remark either: there are many instances of automakers teaming up this way, including GM which used to sell Japanese cars under its "Geo" brand in the early 90s. Right now, Subaru and Toyota sell a sports car they co-developed (Subaru BRZ / Scion FR-S), which has a Subaru-made engine (I think the body is by Toyota). Scion looks like they're in the process of folding now, but they were going to sell the Mazda 2 as a Scion vehicle in the US. Lotus cars use Toyota engines. Mazda recently built a prototype version of the Mazda 3 that has a Toyota-licensed hybrid system from the Prius. There's no reason GM can't license its tech to other automakers, or even sell complete drivetrain systems. If the performance is good enough (to be similar to my current car's 184hp engine), I'd love to have a car that combines this drivetrain with a body and suspension/steering like my current Mazda.