4 ms·
It always impresses me how they've been doing it for decades now and it still works. Their strategy is known, people have been writing articles and books about
by matheusmoreira 2y ago
It always impresses me how they've been doing it for decades now and it still works. Their strategy is known, people have been writing articles and books about it for a long time now. Yet the corporations keep handing their IP over to them on a silver platter. Greed knows no limits.
- jefftk 2y agoIt's a trade: IP for more sales in China. At this point these companies surely know how it works and are doing it because they think it's the more profitable choice
- albertopv 2y agoMore sales now, none in the future, though.
- justinclift 2y agoYeah. Seems like the kind of thing that would be solely pushed by executives/decision-makers expecting to get their bonuses and move on before the problems show up.
- mcphage 2y ago> and are doing it because they think it's the more profitable choice Only over a very short window.
- HPsquared 2y agoIt's not necessarily greed (profit motive) itself, but that the decision makers have a short-term value function. They tend to have a "strip it and run" mentality rather than "multi-generational family firm" strategy.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- janalsncm 2y agoI believe most people would in fact call that greed.
- red-iron-pine 2y agoit is absolutely greed as you defined it (profit motive) -- tomorrow never comes, they want their quarterly payoff, and they want it now. eventually they find executives willing to play that game, and they wring all of the value out of the company until it dies. greed kills companies.
- advisedwang 2y agoIt's the usual driver - competition. If a company refuses to accept the IP loss of selling to China surely, it thinks, one of it's competitors will. That competitor will grow rapidly and can then destroy you in the medium term. So better to be the company that goes to China and survives the medium term existential risk, even if it creates a long term existential risk. This actually points to some reasons why this might not apply to aviation: 1. ITAR restrictions on some of the tech necessary. You don't need to worry about your competition going to china if the government is making it hard for both of you to go. 2. Oligopoly. There are few aviation companies, so the "surely one of my competitors" and competition generally is weaker than in other sectors.
- ahartmetz 2y agoIt is also thinkable that the Western manufacturer are implementing a "keep your enemies closer" strategy. Complying superficially while closely watching how the technology, uh, transfer is going and subtly messing with it. Either that, or I don't understand how airplanes are particularly hard to learn how to build. The technology is obviously difficult, but there is also a lot of money and staff (and time, given how long China has been trying) to deal with that.
- avidiax 2y agoYou can assume that the Chinese have complete engineering plans for any target product, including an aircraft. But having those plans isn't enough to build the plane. You needs lots of unwritten know-how to succeed. This isn't just "tricks of the trade", but also knowing about the materials and processes used, how they can fail, where the failure is introduced, and what the known good "beaten path" for a process is. If Boeing were to fire all engineering and manufacturing personnel and completely re-staff, how many years would it set them back? That's why one of the key steps in the China cycle is to get the product built on Chinese soil.
- tivert 2y ago> If Boeing were to fire all engineering and manufacturing personnel and completely re-staff, how many years would it set them back? With a team of elite MBA-trained managers? Zero years of course! Those guys can do anything.