5 ms·

> I didn't see anyone mentioning: alerting the competition Oh huh! Did you read the article?

• frosted-flakes 7y ago
  The article does not include this point. Or if it does, I missed it.
  • MiroF 7y ago
    It explicitly lists this as a point when providing examples of incorrect reasons "why industry is going green on the quiet." > It refused, not because the innovations were trade secrets, or because it risked losing a cost-saving competitive edge (due to cheap electricity prices, the cost saving amounted to less than 1%)
    • robocat 7y ago
      > the cost saving amounted to less than 1% The figure is doubly misleading: * In a low margin business, 1% cost savings could easily be hugely increased profits. Toyota's profit is about 6% at the moment: changing to 7% would be significant. Many businesses have lower margins. * "Less than 1%" is anywhere between 0% and 1%. I would guess similar savings are being made by other manufacturers.
      • MiroF 7y ago
        Perhaps - nonetheless, it isn't absent from the article
• mikestew 7y ago
  Did you? Of the many reasons listed, that is not one of them.
  • MiroF 7y ago
    It's explicitly ruled out as an option > It explicitly lists this as a point when providing examples of incorrect reasons "why industry is going green on the quiet." > It refused, not because the innovations were trade secrets, or because it risked losing a cost-saving competitive edge (due to cheap electricity prices, the cost saving amounted to less than 1%) that is what I was referencing.