According to yesterday's Yahoo finance, Apple juice is the Detroit’s drink of the moment. Mark Fields, FoMoCo’s Prez Del Americas: "I admire their pure understanding of the brand and the type of customer they're going after.” Mark LeNeve, GM’s Veep of SS&M (Sales, Service and Marketing): "We're really trying to be more like companies like Apple, where we can innovate and move faster.” Eric Ridenour, COO of the C in DCX: "I think a fresh, creative mind is something that you can appreciate and focus simply on some complicated things." While the Big Two Point Five’s top execs are happy to sing the praises of the iMac, iPod, Apple TV and iPhone, it's lip service. They’re unwilling to learn the true lessons of Apple’s recent success.
Apple Lesson Number 1: Revolution, then evolution
When Steve Jobs returned to ailing Apple, he cut product lines into three core offerings, cut hardware licensing agreements with third party vendors, replaced Macintosh’s Operating System and orchestrated the ouster of the company’s CEO. AFTER Jobs consolidated power, stopped the bleeding and banked some cash, the company expanded its product line. Apple was then in a position to take a chance on a “game-changing technology” like the iPod. And keep improving it on a regular basis.
“GM expects the Chevrolet Volt to be a breakthrough product.” Uh, I don't think so. Although GM has no shortage of engineering expertise, GM is far too sick to realize anything even half this ambitious. Unless the company transforms itself, it will not survive to see its electric cars wean Americans from Arab oil.
Detroit’s pattern of gradual tweaks to the status quo will not rescue the languishing leviathans. They must cut or sell superfluous brands, focus product lines, restructure supply and labor contracts, and defenestrate the senior managers whose neglect drove these once great companies into the ground.
Apple Lesson Number 2: Lead from the front
The Yahoo article counsels the domestics to imitate Apple and focus on customer appeal. This Apple does not do. It doesn’t conduct customer clinics to ask specific demographic groups whether they like a potential product. It doesn’t float trial balloons; unveiling new ideas to trade show audiences YEARS before they begin production. Apple creates something inherently appealing and builds it.
At best, a fast-acting auto manufacturer needs three years to move from concept to production. By the time a new Camaro– sorry, car comes to market, the customer survey data it’s based upon has expired. AND it’s old news. If automakers want to live on the cutting edge, they must lead their customers. They must abandon auto show onanism and unveil complete and completely radical new products, coming to a showroom near you in months, not years.
Apple Lesson Number 3: Put the visionaries in charge
Steve Jobs surrounds himself with top-drawer creative engineers that propose far out new technologies. When he sees a product that appeals to him (that conforms to his strategic vision for the company), Apple makes it.
A former CFO runs GM. A former airplane designer runs Ford (or not). A productivity genius (or not) helms Chrysler. While there are plenty of “car guys” charging around Detroit’s halls of power, they’re not in charge. No car guy would ever green light a Pontiac Aztek, Jeep Compass or Chrysler's new Sebring.
Apple Lesson Number 4: The brand isn’t everything; it’s the only thing
In general, Apple has stood by its brand identity and product naming conventions since it began business. The iMac started as a Bondi blue colored jelly bean-shaped computer. The name remained through numerous motherboard revisions and a LifeSavers roll of colors. Later, Apple repackaged the iMac as a floating flat screen design. Today it is the all-in-one unit. Throughout the configuration changes, Apple products have retained their identity as quirky yet reliable, user-friendly (yet expensive) computer-related products.
Mark Field’s paean to Apple’s “pure understanding of the brand” is a strange observation for an executive whose company has neglected and abused both brands (Lincoln, Mercury, Jaguar) and models (Town Car, Cougar, S-Type) for decades. At the same time, GM is happy to slap the Caddy badge on a pickup, and Chrysler builds so many different products at so many different price points that the name has become virtually meaningless.
Let's do the math. Of the all the US nameplates Toyota produced in 1996, 55% are still for sale, including the continuation of the Camry’s 24-year run. Fifty percent of Honda's model names also extend back to that date. That’s a stark contrast with Chevrolet (13%), Pontiac (17%), Buick (0%), Cadillac (0%), Ford (23%), Mercury (17%), Lincoln (33%), Chrysler (40%) and Dodge (34%).
“If I only had a killer car, then I'd be as meteorically successful as Apple,” bleat The Big Two Point Five. Nope. If they were healthy companies with product guys at the helm, unwaveringly focused on the long-term development of their products, then they’d be prepared to seize upon new technologies and develop insanely great products– just like Apple.
[Read the original Yahoo Finance article here.]
144 Comments on “GM, Ford, DCX: Big Three iPhone Home?...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
interesting article, and a great improvement on the yahoo original.
tidbits i would like to add:
* odd, isn’t it, that jobs has repeatedly quoted bmw as the car company most like apple — small, sexy, innovative and profitable…
* apple products often clinic badly, i.e. the majority dislike them, and many actively hate them. quite unlike bmw.
* if there were an apple-designed car, wouldn’t it be like the ford 021c concept car designed by marc newson? i would love a car with such a minimalist, clean approach — but i suspect most of you pistonheads would not.
http://www.conceptcar.co.uk/concept-cars/concept-car-59.php
I agree wholeheartedly. While Apple does take extended R&D time (iPhone took 2 1/2 years to develop), They start with a far out idea and work towards it. Many Big 3 products seem to start with the premise of “as good as” or “good enough”, but the problem is by the time the car comes to market, the “good enough” isn’t anymore. Apple also keeps it’s price points intact. When a product gets old, they don’t discount, they reinvent, keeping the price the same.
As far as keeping the brand names, again I agree. Look at what Nissan did with the Altima. The 1st gen was a hit, but they botched the 2nd gen. Instead of scrapping the name, the reinvented what it stood for and in 2 years time, people forgot the previous model. Same with the Infiniti brand. 5 years ago it was a joke, now look at it! Same with Saturn (job almost complete). The day the Astra arrives, no one will remember the Ion.
Speaking of car “releases”, where’s the point of announcing the product 5 years in advance? It ends up like Warcraft III – a decent computer game for which anticipation built up and then waned, as months and month passed. In the end, it failed to outsell it’s grandfather, Warcraft II, let alone Starcraft. Had they released it upon completion, it would have scored a lot more impulse sales.
Same with cars like Camaro. Would I buy one now? Sure. Would I buy one when/if it comes out in 2009? Hell no, by then I’d get bored of it. Every website has a picture of one. Way to kill product anticipation.
On the one hand, Apple had an easier time of it in one way: its industry only recently discovered design and branding. The auto industry is much more mature, and has many established brands.
That said, this piece makes many good points. Especially the brands.
Thanks William – I appreciate the reflection of Apple’s so-called success. Yet their products are made in Chinese factories paying sub-standard wages while American cars are made in union factories paying above-standard wages.
Also – as someone who has been in the computer business for many years I can tell you that Apple’s very proprietariness – to which you allude as a tactical strength – has almost been their downfall many times. One could argue that Microsoft – a far more successful company than Apple on many levels – is more akin to the big three in terms of overall scope and direction.
Further – Apple does not innovate, it largely thieves designs and even trademarks from other companies and aggressively brings them to market. It then sets the bulldog lawyers on the opposition to defend its stolen turf. Harsh but true my friend.
Memories are often short in the corporate world. Before we start heralding Apple as some kind of model for other businesses one must be sure to get their facts straight. And the jury is still out on how well Apple can sustain their growth and success in a fickle consumer electronics marketplace where margins are slim and the next big thing can sink a company overnight.
Now I do agree with your main assertion that the 2.5 need to get the fundamentals corrected before setting out on any bold initiatives. Yet, the speed to market that you suggest is probably not even close to plausible without the very things we tend to detest – like rebranding, platform sharing, model mirroring and the like.
hire apple to design the exterior/interior of the next Cobalt and Chevy couldnt build enough of them regardless of how many union workers they have sitting in the job banks.
Apple products are proof that ppl will buy products that look good regardless of how well the perform.
Carnut,
Thanks, I was about to make this same point. A single success (iPod) does not necessarily indicate a superior product strategy overall.
Also – as someone who has been in the computer business for many years I can tell you that Apple’s very proprietariness – to which you allude as a tactical strength – has almost been their downfall many times. One could argue that Microsoft – a far more successful company than Apple on many levels – is more akin to the big three in terms of overall scope and direction.
Call me crazy but I think there is a large difference between a MP3 player and a 2 1/2 ton piece of machinery…
While I certainly see the numerous disparties between Apple and The Big Two Point Five's business models, every iPod tells a story don't it?
In part, the iPod is a success because Apple stuck with its look and feel branding (thievery if you must) over all these years. It is, without doubt, an Apple product. And that's a good thing, not a bad thing. If they keep refining the product, as they are, they will have a solid franchise upon which they can screw up from time to time.
The Big Two Point Five don't "stand" for anything. So even if they come out with a great product (and let's not start THAT debate), it's out of context– because there isn't any. Meanwhile, the neglect/abuse/abandonment of their RWD core models (300, Town car, big Caddy thingie) is just short of criminal. Maybe Sylvan should sort out their corporate ADD.
Anyway, there is ALWAYS a lesson to be learned from success. Very few businesses indeed wouldn't benefit from the ones described above.
yournamehere
would you want a soapbar looking car that looked worse than the self promoting, blandly and poorly designed 021C. It wasn’t a car it was an appliance.
Apples success is down to a generation of designs that have no competition in their comparative markets. Apples look better than their competition, if HP Dell etc put the same thought/effort into their designs, given a year or 2 the perception gap would be a whole different story. As for macs they’re only really good for media, not the complete package the majority of the world need in their computers. As for my experiences with macs, maybe its just me but its been the most unstable computer i’ve ever used. For my experience i’ll never touch one of them again (sound familiar?).
Yes the iphone is innovative, but design wise i’ve seen plenty of better stuff come from nokia and samsung. Wait for their similar product to come out and the games begin.
The branding duration of American autos vs. imports is very astonishing. Yet, we have the re-introductions of old time classics (Charger, Camaro, etc…)
Also, the iPhone was just announced, and the media is quite on edge about Apple because of its successful iPod. The continual updates to its line of computers & notebooks go without much fanfare. The iPhone remains to be seen as the amazing device the media is painting it to be. I believe it’s truly being overhyped, but time will tell.
On the subject of Speed to Market in the automobile world, I do believe it needs to be improved, but also the pre-market hype you see about up and coming autos (re: Camaro) has some benefits. When the initial investment for introducing a new model (or re-introduction or resurrected model?) involves very large sums of money, and company profit (and lack of), the several months & years of initial market reaction is very important. I’m sure the press’ & consumers’ reaction has considerable weight in their decision to make it happen. I also wonder how much say the investors have in this decision.
As someone who is also in marketing, the pre-hype is important. The market teasing of an expected product launch helps prepare consumers for the initial sales purchase. This is extremely vital in any product’s projection of success. Since the majority of sales are at its initial launch, you can see why the hyping is important. I also know that your target audience has a lot to say about its effectiveness. The youth of the moment have a much shorter attention span and less patience waiting for a hot item to arrive, than say a near-retiring consumer looking for that perfect retirement toy in a couple of years. The right formula for the perfect pre-market advertising hype is always a tough, desirable mixture. But listening to market reaction & adjusting for it does make for better management direction. :)
Apple products inspire lust. They don’t sell people what they want. They MAKE people want what they’re selling. It’s pretty brilliant.
If you think about it, the average consumer wasn’t clamoring for an Mp3 player. The demand wasn’t there…. UNTIL Apple made the iPod.
The average consumer probably didn’t care about Blackberrys, and would never pay $500 for a cellphone. Until the iPhone. Now tons of people who weren’t even in that market are counting their pennies.
Regardless of what you think about Apple, there is obviously alot that car companies could learn from them.
I basically disagree with the analogy to Apple and find it a little unfair to the Big 2.5 (and I rarely side with them).
Apple is still a niche player, despite what their excessive promotional budgets would have you believe. 5% market share in an industry allows you a lot of room to breathe, since you have a pretty rabid core clientele. Apple is far from an mass-market appeaser that comes with the territory for the Big 2.5. And let’s say the iPod/iPhone are overpriced by 25% or so (my estimate) and over-featured for most users. Imagine a car that came out that cost $10k more than the competition, with a sleek design and very little else separating it from competitors. People have little buyers remorse for a $400 ipod vs. a $250 competitor, but when you are talking $25,000 vs. $40,000, that’s a whole different ball game. Of course, this all assumes you agree that the ipod is overpriced and overfeatured for most users. I think so, and I have a lot of Apple stock for that reason. It’s a marketing-driven fleecing of image-conscious consumers, IMO, but my voice is in a tiny minority.
But I agree wholeheartedly with moving auto product launches away from “here’s the concept, now there’s a 10% chance we will build a watered-down version of this in 5 years.”
Would the Big 2.5 really benefit from an brilliant but whimsical, autocratic leader who knows what he’s doing, but sometimes misses badly with his intuition (i.e. Mac G4 Cube)? Apple’s manufacturing strategy, the wholesale outsourcing to China, Singapore, and Ireland would no go over well with the UAW.
In the auto industry, we have a Jobs equivalent in Ferdinand Piëch. As if he’s the cure for anything.
I guess I’m sitting comfortably on the ass end of the bandwagon here, but I think Apple is a poor model for praise. Being reborn as the maker of “cuteputers” is not grounds for long term stability. I think Apple is (in some ways) is a bit like DCX. They rise to profitability on an interesting, if not original idea and then run with it till people dont care anymore (the iPhone is a Hemi Magnum to me). Hell, that just makes them any old corporation come to think of it. They will fall again. Steve Job’s is not a god, no matter what his image of himself may be. Their quirky products sell because they are cute. The same can be said of Justin Timberlake CD’s. Let’s step back and wait 10 years to see what kind of praise can be heaped on Apple then. I was sick of “i” this and that years ago. Besides being pretty, not one of the products i’ve seen or tried could do what i wanted it to as easily, reliably, and cost effectively as some other brand. I’m sure i’m not the only one. I just don’t see how you can plan for long term profitability by creating a psuedo-elitest subculture who’s core are the easily amused by shiny objects crowd. Ah, crap. I just described BMW. Nevermind. Apple will outlive us all…..
Apart from Piech, do megalomaniacal leaders even exist in the auto biz these days? I guess there’s Maximum Bob, but I look at him more like Charleton Heston to the NRA– more of a figurehead than anything.
Jeff Bridges is “Wagoner: A Man and His Dream” (or not)
The only reason Apple is held up as a model is a well packaged hard drive that became irrationally successful. Otherwise, the company is bankrupt. Comparing products is ridiculous, in that even a Cobalt or Focus is about 1,000 times more complex than an iPod.
The iPod of cars is the Prius. It wasn’t the first hybrid in the US, nor does it get the best mileage, nor is there any particular reason for its overwhelming popularity, except for the fact that it is popular.
Robert/William -
While I agree that lessons can be learned from successful companies, and that Apple appears for the moment to be a template for brand crystallization, innovation and agility, the disparities between Apple and any of the 2.5 abound. Although it may be tempting to apply broad strategic principles to other segments, in practise this proves tricky.
For example – I fully agree that Steve Jobs’ consolidation and housekeeping efforts served to revitalize Apple as a company and infuse it with synergy and direction. OK, so what if hypothetically Mr. Jobs went to GM or Ford with the same broad objectives and the same toolkit? How far would he get? Remember also that he is a major shareholder in Apple as well as CEO. His iconic status as founder also serves to empower him beyond any mere CEO. Yet apart from even all of this, could his strategies that seem so far to work for Apple help any of the domestic manufacturers? I say not really as again – the disparities abound.
Now I am not arguing that focusing the brands is not a good idea – it is. Nor that bringing products to market quicker isn’t either – surely it is. But the complexities involved in automobile design, govt regulation, safety requirements, production, international anomalies etc would make CEO Job’s task hugely more troublesome. As a rule I generally believe that many pundits and drive by critics of the automobile industry (and the 2.5 in particular) typically underestimate the many factors that are entrenched and unmovable. At Apple Jobs was given a clean slate with few untouchables – heck the company was dangling inches from the abyss when he returned with much fanfare.
Now rather than merely being a naysayer without offering anything constructive, in my next post I will lay down some reasons why the Apple Store model ( to me the bigger reason behind their resurgence – moreso than product even) may in fact be uniquely applicable and perhaps even doable in the context of the 2.5. Stay tuned…
Suffice it to say, we’re comparing Apples to oranges here…
ash78 and murphysamber–
I was in the market for an MP3 player about 6 months ago. I assumed that iPods were overpriced and that I would be best served by another brand (creative labs or iRiver).
To my surprise, dollar for dollar, nothing could match the 30GB iPod for size and weight. Add in the frequent software updates–imagine a product that gets *better* as it ages, and the fact that iPods in good condition have some resale value on ebay should I quickly decide that mp3 players are not for me–
feature for feature, an iMac is now within just a few (as in three) dollars of a Dell. The iMac can run both OSX as well as windows.
I thing GM did a good thing by removing the cladding from the pontiacs. I wish they’d clean everything else up and strip it all down. stripped down doesn’t have to look cheap–just look at the iPod. essentially no buttons.
I just don’t see how it could cost more to make pretty cars. you’ve still got to stamp sheet metal.
Of course you cannot compare an iPod to a Chevy. But you can compare corporate philosophies. An iPod is just another overpriced gadget, but a Cobalt is just an automobile among a sea of automobiles. If Apple can make a re-packaged MP3 player stand out, perhaps GM could do the same with a well marketed/built/designed car.
The analogy goes even deeper than just the corporate Big 2.5. It wasn’t just the fact that my Dell laptop kept crashing that made me into a (very happy) Mac user, it was Dell’s refusal/inability to fix the problem, or even to acknowledge that a problem existed. Just as it wasn’t just the fact that my Dodge Grand Caravan’s electrical system kept failing that turned me against Chrysler, it was the dealership’s refusal/inability to fix the problem. Until the Big 2.5 fix their after sale support they will continue to hemorrhage customers.
BTW, Apple’s after-sales support is excellent. They have replaced two failing Ipods no questions asked. I can’t comment on their Mac support, however. After four years and five Mac purchases I still haven’t had a single problem.
I’m glad I don’t have to send my car away for three weeks when it needs a new battery :-)
I’m sorry, but if someone can sit back, look at the success of the Camry, the Corolla, and the various other “evolved” products that Toyota builds and credit said success to a honing and polishing of a product until it’s right, where is ok to buck the mold and strike out anew?
Revolutions within GM, Ford, et all give us such “revolutionary” nuggets as the Aztek, the Sebring, and the Compass. Which we ding them for. (rightfully so)
So if a GM or Ford product, (say the Focus for example) is left without a major refresh, and instead is tweaked to make it more reliable, to fix quality control issues, and to make it cheaper to manufacture, we also ding them.
The big 2.5 have their troubles, no doubt. But one if them isn’t whether or not they evolve one product or revolutionize another. It’s the prejudice that the media, most motorheads, and enough of the buying public have against them.
They’ve rightly earned their reputations, but I continue to be amazed at the free pass that Toyota gets for turning out automotive tapioca and calling it shinola. For building an 8mpg Sequoia and touting their “greenness” in every TV ad I see.
I enjoyed Williams article but I disagree on a few points. Lesson 3 put a visionary is more matter of prosepective.
“Steve Jobs surrounds himself with top-drawer creative engineers that propose far out new technologies. When he sees a product that appeals to him (that conforms to his strategic vision for the company), Apple makes it.”
GM for better or for worse has made Lutz their visionary leader. They are doing what you asked for. The problem is that what appeals to him apparently does appeal to many on this forum or in the market.
In other words I find it rather unrealistic to simply say get a guy whose designs you like in charge as that is easier said then done and remember that the Camry is the best selling car in America and yet many on this forum find it also uninspiring.
i have had two Apple computers. a iBook that wasnt turned off for 3 years and was used and abused. it still works expect my brother stepped on it and cracked the screen. i now have an iMac and its the best computer i have ever used. I am a graphic artist and this thing is just awesome. I work for a large sports apparel company and we use Dells to do all the design work. The IT guys are in my department constantly trying to keep this POS from falling over dead trying to do things that wont break a sweat on my Mac. AND by the numbers the Dell should be the better computer. There is just something about the way the resources are used in a Mac that makes it so much more smooth when its working.
as for an apple designed car. If you saw my post yesterday, i drive an xB. and while you might not like it, its the iPod of cars. The designers went to length to make the exterior sleek. Recessed door handles, blacked out B and C pillars. No external antenna. No door moldings. it looks clean. it looks smooth. The interior also has the same minimalist approach.
Im sure if Apple designed a 2dr coupe/sports car it would be stunning. Sleek. Smooth. Void of clutter.
Since the Detroit auto show, there’s been this backlash against the hype of concept cars. From Pete DiLorenzo to ‘Jehovah Johnson,’ critics are attacking automakers (the Big 2.5 especially) for their marketing efforts.
Why don’t you just build the Camaro, and announce it when it comes out, rather than tease us for 2-3 years? Apple doesn’t tease its products.
Except there’s a difference. Automakers spend $Billions to bring out new product. Apple and Dell spend ~$10M on new product, and leverage suppliers’ R&D efforts.
A public company spending 100x to bring out a product is going to test it with the market, and building concept cars — and using them to gauge critical opinion and public buzz — are part of the equation that builds the business case.
Somebody said he was not going to buy a Camaro because he already saw a picture of it a year ago. Really?
Off topic – I see two Scion xB owners in a row. How many of you are there here on TTAC?
My 5 year old calls it the “Box Car”. I sometimes ask him if he wants one, if only to drive my box-hating wife crazy.
Apple is a 4 or 5-trick pony…
The one trick they do know how to pull is to design products that people DESIRE…not products they need.
The other trick they execute brilliantly is that their user interface is intuitive and easy to use. It’s also continually being improved.
If we accept that there are no longer “bad cars” being manufactured, then surely the two points highlighted above are what all auto manufacturers should be focusing on(?).
Would a car with “average” engineering, a pretty exterior and a class-leading interior sell? I would think so. Audi is a case in point.
blautens: Suffice it to say, we’re comparing Apples to oranges here…
Computers can be Apples. Cars can be lemons, not oranges.
We already have an auto Apple: Subaru.
The Waning 2.5 are more more Microsoft-> producing product for everyone who doesn’t want to pay through the nose for an iMac.
However, what they seem to want to do is build iPods, and look how well this works for Apple’s competitors. They needn’t bother trying to compete with already well-established product, or even making their own niches. They will survive by building cars for everybody else.
It doesn’t need to excel in ergonomics or be fun&funky. It just needs to be:
(a) Powerful
(b) Cheap
(c) Compatible with everything
Although I’m sure we won’t put up with our cars crashing as much as our computers.
What’ll save the big 2.5? A machine that’s fills peoples needs.
starlightmica go test drive an Xb if you can find one. I think you will find it an incredibly fun to drive car that also offers unbelievable utility. Although it is not for everybody. The ride may be a bit harsh if you are use to a larger vehicle. I plan on driving mine until the wheels fall off.
Either you have to have a good thing and make incremental improvements (Toyota, Honda), or you have to go Bold. If there’s no aura surrounding your mark, then you better win on the spizzarke front. You do even better when you can have both.
I think Apple’s greatest key to their success is how their external design mates with really interesting and compelling user interfaces. The original iPod made my jaw drop. It invited you to play with it, and it somehow behaved exactly like I expected it would. Later iterations kept looking cool and refined their ease of use. I think that’s why they have dominated the portable music market.
Problem: cars are a mature design. Drop me in a 40-year-old car, and I’ll know what to do. 40 years ago, personal computers didn’t exist. I don’t know how the big 2.5 can adopt a new external package and a new (intuitive) interface that will be accepted by the public and the government regulators. That leaves plodding along trying to improve your brand and your products. Based on past decisions, I’m not sanguine about the 2.5’s chances.
If you like an unemotional vehicle like the xb fine, but shouldn’t cars have some inspirational aspect to them about them instead of looking like a postman pat van?
And i want to see the gent who says he’d be bored of the camero, when it does make it into showrooms, lets see where he is in the cue.
unless you have driven an xB you have no idea what your talking about.
i think i may see my next door neighbors car less then i see the new Camaro.
BostonTeaParty wrote, “… unemotional vehicle like the xb…”
Go read the reviews on Edmunds. For an “unemotional” vehicle, it sure gets a whole lotta love.
I think the xB is a lot like an iPod or other winner Apple product. It’s really good at what it does and pushes the limits in looks and execution. But how many does Scion sell in a month? 5K? The Camry is usually not so radical (the ‘07 is perhaps more so than most) and it sells 40K per month or so (and it can sell 40K copies of one that looks a bit different because of the rep of the previous however many generations of Camrys).
Apple’s model works for a niche player. I’m not sure it’s going to work for a mainstream manufacturer.
BMW – or maybe Lotus – is the Apple of the auto industry. They both have their competition. While my iPod is insanely great, a Creative Labs or Rio of similar capability – but not as well executed – cost much, much less and they sell pretty well. Ditto the Beemer. I think they’re insanely great (based on a single test drive in ‘05 of what I think was a ‘94 318i with 110K miles on it) but you can get most of the capability elsewhere for a lot less. And most people do. I did.
However, there is probably one thing that could be fixed. Bob Lutz is their car guy. OK, maybe he makes some good cars. But he’s just one guy with one set of ideas and tastes. Jobs has several top people working creative ideas. Maybe there should be a few Lutz-like guys at GM, each of them championing different product ideas.
scion sells roughly 150k cars per year. i think its about 50k are xBs.
BostonTeaParty you are making an assumption that if you find a car either boring unattractive or non emotional that other people also find a car to be so.
You may find the the Xb to be unemotional. You may even find that after you drive one. (if you haven’t you don’t know what you are missing).
I find that the Xb is very polarizing. Many people who have never driven one seem to hate it based on its look. Now thats emotional good or bad.
The problem is that many people do like cars like the Xb. Which I believe Lutz charachterized as an angry appliance.
Does any automaker have the following of Apple, though? Innovativeness aside (I think Audi/VAG is the best analogy to Apple, both in market share levels and innovation–especially in playing to the minority of diesel and wagon fans), is there any brand that elicits such a rabid loyalty as Apple?
Oddly enough, the domestics or Toyota probably have the closest thing to Apple’s loyal following. In cars, it seems like niche players all have pretty tenuous followers, since cars (unlike basic electronics) only require one bad experience before a customer defects, often for life.
I guess thats design though for you, subjective and opinionated. I do like the way old people drive the Xb though, haven’t seen a target market young customer in this vehicle yet.
CarNut: Yet their products are made in Chinese factories paying sub-standard wages while American cars are made in union factories paying above-standard wages.
Of course, comparing any two companies in separate industries can never be completely analogous. However, there are always things that can be learned from successful companies. I did not
I believe that it is inaccurate and misleading to dismiss Apple for comparative purposes because it runs Chinese sweat shops. True, it obtains many parts, subassemblies and some complete products (namely iPod’s) from overseas vendors, as do all computer manufacturers. So do all “domestic” auto manufacturers to a lesser (but growing) degree. Apple’s software development is all domestic. The company recently reversed plans to outsource some customer service to India, unlike many competitors. Apple also obtains its primary computer motherboard components from domestic suppliers such as Motorola, IBM and now Intel.
Saw this custom plate on an xB in Virginia, don’t ask how it got through DMV:
WTF A BOX
ShermanLin-
I’m looking forwards to seeing the 2nd gen xB as well as the xD, as we’re looking to get a small car in a couple of years. Not sure if the wife will warm up to a box anytime soon, though.
CarNut: One could argue that Microsoft – a far more successful company than Apple on many levels – is more akin to the big three in terms of overall scope and direction.
One could argue that MicroSoft is on track to end up just like GM. The difference being that GM manufactured quality products for many decades before beginning to sell uninspired, half-baked, unreliable products. MS won’t last 75 years before it craters. But I digress – this is a topic for a different forum.
BostonTeaParty:
im 21. my friend is 23 and no one in our gang of owners (~20 of us) is older then 28.
William C. Montgomery:
“…a fast-acting auto manufacturer needs three years to move from concept to production. By the time a new Camaro– sorry, car comes to market, the customer survey data it’s based upon has expired. AND it’s old news. “
Bingo! It seems that few in Detroit remember why the Edsel failed. The whole brand was created after Ford’s exhaustive market research in 1953-54 determined that more car buyers would be buying cars “like” Buicks and Oldsmobiles in the near future. A poorly conceived product and an unfortunate economic recession put the kibosh on that.
Brendan McAleer–
we do have cars that fit peoples’ *needs* — they’re station wagons, and you can get them in FWD, RWD, AWD with low, normal, and high ground clearance.
but where’s my AC Cobra shooting brake?
JimP–
Studies have been done on car interfaces, and steering wheels proved to be the most intuitive. one of the more interesting things to try would have been the bulldozer-type levers.
starlightmica I saw one that had a rear bumper sticker that said “You have just been passed by a toaster”
The current Xb may be a tad too small for anyone with a family. You can carry the family in realtive comfort or their collective stuff but not both.
With the seats folded down I carried some 8 ft fences. I originally bought it because I was having difficulty getting my lawn mower into and out of my 2 dr accord. (really scrapped up the leather interior bad) . I also wanted to get better mileage. I tested a Element as I have had 2 new accords since 91. The element was really huge and versatile on the interior but was 4000 dollars more than than the Xb and actually had the same or marginally worse mileage than my V6 accord. The driving experience was an absolute surprise bonus. The traction control gives you unbelievable steering and manuerverability.
The looks are very polarizing and many people do hate the look although I find it actually attractive. I also look forward to seeing Nissan’s Cube when it gets here
Could you imagine all the Deathwatch editorials we’d see if Wagoner were caught evading income tax by backdating options the way Jobs has?
What if GM’s market share dwindled from 20% to 3%, like Apple’s has in PCs?
Could you imagine the outcry over a failure like the Buick Newton?
(as promised – see my previous post about the Apple Store)
Let’s take a short trip to the holodeck and imagine if you will -
You’re in the market for a new ride, so you jump in your 9 year-old Camry and head to the local automall.
What’s this – no Buick or Chevy dealers? And where’s Saturn or Cadillac? Has the General actually gone and done it?
Hold on – what’s that over on the corner?
“The GM Store”
Hmmmm… let’s take a closer look.
“Can I help you Sir?” – asks a smartly dressed young woman as you approach, still somewhat bewildered.
“Er, um, maybe… but where’s Jim Bob Buick, and Galaxy Saturn, and Inner City Cadillac – has GM gone out of business?”
“Why no sir”, motions the young lady amusingly. “They are all here. Welcome to the new GM Store!”
“GM Store? So what, GM has folded all of its brands into one?”
“Well no, not exactly. Buy we have decided to better serve our customers by crystallizing each of our brands and offering them all under one roof.” – replied the representative.
Still somewhat dazed and disoriented, you have a million questions but don’t know where to begin.
“My name is Janica, and if you may permit me, I would like to assist you in selecting the very best GM vehicle to meet your needs.”
“Er, I am looking to replace my Camry, and I stopped over here to check out some of the new Buicks. I have heard some positive things about them. Any killer incentives on right now for the Lucerne?”
Janica chuckles.
“Oh I can see there’s lots I need to tell you about GM’s new way of doing things. For starters, all of our vehicles now come with “True Sticker” pricing. We have taken the very best price we can offer our customers and posted in each vehicle. No more haggling or jockeying over what you pay…”
You interrupt, starting to get a tad excited.
“But isn’t that how you sales folks make your money, by dickering over price, and upselling customers into vehicles they really can’t afford. I used to sell cars many years ago you know, I know how the system works.”
Janica shakes her head gingerly.
“Actually, for the record, GM has just changed the way all product specialists are remunerated. Now all vehicles are worth a single rate of commission. Our incentive is to sell more cars now, not only models that paid a higher rate of commission. And today I can show you any model in the GM Store – new, used, Cadillac, GMAC, Chevrolet, Saturn, even Buick. Would you like to go look at some now?”
“Now hold on young lady. Doesn’t GM have a ton of models that are merely rebadged versions of another? How can you sell them side by side when they are essentially the same, with slightly different packaging?”
“Ah, I’m glad you asked sir. What is your name by the way?”
“Er. T.H. Wannabee.”
“Well, Mr. Wannabee. A large part of GM’s new product strategy, in addition to offering all of our brands and models in one place, is to more clearly define the signatures of each of our brands, and to provide clear choices and options to our customers. For example, Pontiacs will stand for All American Design and Performance, Saturn’s for European styling and handling, Chevy will be – well Chevy, if you know what I mean. And Cadillac will offer a premium selection rivaling the world’s best in terms of elegance, performance and comfort.”
“Ok my head is still ringing a bit, but I guess I can go over and see the new Lucerne.”
You follow the polite and well-informed young lady over to the Buick area where, to your surprise you see a brand spanking new Toyota Avalon parked directly in the midst of a sea of sparkling Lucernes and LaCrosses.
“Have you tested driven the new Avalon yet Mr. Wannabee?” – Janica enquires.
“What” – you make no effort to mask your befuddlement. “Is this the Twilight Zone?” you think to yourself. “This sure as heck isn’t Jim Bob Buick. Beam me up Scotty!”.
“Er, no, but what do you mean?”
“Well sir, GM is proud of its new vehicles and we think they are as good as or better than anything out there. To prove it, every GM Store now has on hand the market leader in every segment available for customers to drive and compare to comparable GM models. We figure it will save you the time of time of driving across town to visit other dealers.”
Janica hands you the keys to a shiny silver Avalon.
Somewhat reluctantly you get into the Toyota and Janica scoots into the passenger seat. Your test drive begins, all the time the “GM” salesperson commenting on the commendable features of the Avalon, while also indicating where the Lucerne meets or exceeds such features. You then do the same in a brand new Buick Lucerne CXS.
Lo and behold, to your surprise, you actually prefer the Lucerne’s more sure-footed road manners to the Avalon, and you think it looks better also. “But what about the quality” you think nervously to yourself”
“Have I mentioned GM’s new 10 year, 100,000 mile warranty yet?” Janica interjects, seemingly reading the anxiety on your face. “Or our exclusive new 30 day “Drive and Return” policy?”
“Ummm, well, er no”
An hour passes, where you learn more about the vehicle, service offerings, the new GM Store, until finally you decide on the Lucerne. But lo and behold they do not have the exact color you want in the CXS model. You are all but prepared for Janica or her superior to come out and try to sell you what they have on the lot.
Janica approaches with a smile on her face. In fact she has been smiling the whole time.
“Mr. Wannabee, I have good news for you. We can have a gold Lucerne CXS here for you pick up in as little as 14-21 days if we place the order today.”
“Oh you would get it from another dealer?”
You’ve heard this before, and now things are finally starting to seem familiar.
Once again, your car-buying experience takes off in a strange new direction.
“Well”, responds Janica. “Actually GM’s new production methods permit us to custom-make any vehicle on the line and have it sent anywhere in the country in as short as a couple of weeks. And better yet, you can even go online and see your new Lucerne being made if you like.”
By this time you have just about had enough.
“Computer. End Program.”
Just then Seven of Nine walks past and all thoughts of Buicks and cars in general fade into vapor.
BostonTeaParty -
Just because you haven’t seen anyone young ones in a xB doesn’t mean they’re not buying them. oth yournamehere and I fall into the target market. As do the thirty fellow owners I’ve traded parts with in three different states.
In any case, the lesson from Apple comes from brand knowledge. The company and its designers know what the brand stands for and what it’s customers want. It is a niche player, but that is what each of the GM/Ford/DCX brands should be – niche players.
The Big 2.5 are still struggling to overcome the dealership driven excess of the 80s and 90s when every dealer wanted whichever brand they were selling to offer products for every customer. That is the exact opposite of the Apple approach.
The iPod is only revolutionary in its simplicity. You want a radio? You want customization? Go get someone else’s device. You want a clean design? You want small size? Here’s the iPod.
What does Pontiac stand for? Buick, Mercury, etc., etc., etc. We all get the point. Apple’s lesson for the 2.5 is in how to manage a brand.
Oddly enough, if you look at Scion and what they have done with the management of that brand, Toyota seems to get it.