[Alan]

All of the cars would be
made in China. You'd have to buy a special adaptor to add fuel. Like
appletv: no on-off switch, you'd have to remove the battery to turn it
off - oops: battery is sealed inside the vehicle - can't turn the thing
off. It locks up in "standby" mode..



No actually you would have to select "force quit"

[medopal]

I would love to see Jonathan Ive in the auto-industry. i would buy the car that he designs at the first premier :).

[richcon]

"Your car has --crashed-- quit unexpectedly. The road and other motorists are not effected."

[Alan]

I would love to see Jonathan Ive in the auto-industry. i would buy the car that he designs at the first premier :).



Jonathan who?

[MorrisTheCat]

distortedloop said:

Gil Amelio, CEO of Apple in 1996 and 1997 (between Spindler and the second coming of Jobs) is thought by many to have been the true turn-around agent of Apple, despite the stock hitting a 12 year low during his tenure.

Amelio made massive layoffs at Apple to reduce costs, and several attempts to improve Mac OS. Interestingly, it was Amelio who bought NeXT (OS X's roots) and brought Jobs back to Apple as an advisor.

Uh, laying off masses of people in the company to stop the bleeding is not considered a "turn-around" That's called 'stemming the bleeding'. As for his attempts to improve the Mac OS, it could be said the smartest thing he ever did while CEO was to buy NeXT, but please keep in mind he did this after years of squandering money on feeble attempts to build a home grown OS, like the Copland project, or by entertaining the thought of buying much less mature operating systems like Be.

OTOH, Jobs is the person who implemented the streamlining of Apple's product line as mentioned in the article, as well as bringing in talent like Jon Ives, which gave birth to game changing products like the original iMac and the iPod.

[walfy]

The American automakers were able to make crappy cars for so long due to one reason: the hordes of patriotic Americans set on buying only American made cars. I'm not knocking that. That is a good thing. Buy local, trade with your neighbor, keep the money local, help you country. But here's the revolting thing: the American auto execs took the patriotism of their fellow citizens into consideration when designing new models and considering innovation. Their conclusion: keep making the same schlock and make it as cheap as possible, because they'll keep buying! The fools! They keep buying! Profit from the blind patriotism of our fellow Americans! Fleece them! Excessive, unchecked American pride and patriotism has a way of running the country into a collective ditch. Let's hope Apple doesn't fall into this trap. But considering that Apple's stuff is put together overseas, it's not the same situation.
Just turning on the blinkers on an American car feels like breaking a chicken leg. They can't even get that right.

[richcon]

Amelio didn't create Copeland, so the "years of squandering" wasn't him. It was Amelio who cancelled Copeland and chose to buy a new OS instead. Sure he entertained the thought of buying Be -- as all good CEOs should consider alternatives -- but in the end chose to go with the more mature OS (NeXT). Keep in mind that he made this decision in spite of tremendous public pressure to go with Be.

As for the immediate losses and layoffs, those were drastic steps he took to streamline Apple's finances. Apple had its largest single quarter loss under Amelio, only because Amelio chose to write off all of the outdated inventory (which he inherited) at once and start over fresh, rather than spacing it out as Apple had done before.

Steve Jobs did streamline Apple's product line and is largely responsible for the Apple we have today. But don't discount Amelio's contributions to Apple's general well-being. If Gil Amelio hadn't done what he had, Jobs wouldn't have had as much to work with when he did return -- assuming he would have returned at all.

[doglesby]

richcon said:

Amelio didn't create Copeland, so the "years of squandering" wasn't him. It was Amelio who cancelled Copeland and chose to buy a new OS instead. Sure he entertained the thought of buying Be -- as all good CEOs should consider alternatives -- but in the end chose to go with the more mature OS (NeXT). Keep in mind that he made this decision in spite of tremendous public pressure to go with Be.

As for the immediate losses and layoffs, those were drastic steps he took to streamline Apple's finances. Apple had its largest single quarter loss under Amelio, only because Amelio chose to write off all of the outdated inventory (which he inherited) at once and start over fresh, rather than spacing it out as Apple had done before.

Steve Jobs did streamline Apple's product line and is largely responsible for the Apple we have today. But don't discount Amelio's contributions to Apple's general well-being. If Gil Amelio hadn't done what he had, Jobs wouldn't have had as much to work with when he did return -- assuming he would have returned at all.

That's a far cry form "Amelio turned Apple around" which is what he was referring to. Amelio may have saved Apple long enough to give Jobs a shot, but Jobs killed the clones and the Newton. Jobs outsourced manufacturing. Jobs oversaw the development of the iMac, iPod, and iPhone. Jobs turned the company around. Cutting employees may have bought time, it didn't turn Apple around.

[richcon]

Yeah, I don't agree with the original poster that "Amelio turned Apple around," but I do think Gil too often gets a bad rap. He did show the forethought to buy NeXT, rehire Steve Jobs, and begin developing Mac OS X (at the time codenamed Rhapsody).

[distortedloop]

doglesby said:

Quote

That's a far cry form "Amelio turned Apple around" which is what he was referring to. Amelio may have saved Apple long enough to give Jobs a shot, but Jobs killed the clones and the Newton. Jobs outsourced manufacturing. Jobs oversaw the development of the iMac, iPod, and iPhone. Jobs turned the company around. Cutting employees may have bought time, it didn't turn Apple around.

I did not say "Amelio turned Apple around," I said there are many who think he did.

I could go either way on that thought.

You can't deny the fact that Amelio inherited a company on the verge of going out of existence and made the hard business decisions that kept it alive, and then made the smart business decisions of realizing that the in-house OS development was garbage and that going outside the company to buy the OS that kept the computer end of the company out of extinction. Hiring back Jobs also turned the company around; in fact whose to say that Jobs would have ever ended up back at Apple if Amelio hadn't brought him back on board?

Only a true Steve worshipper would argue that Apple's non-extinction today is due 100% to his Jobness.

But you missed my real point entirely, which was that running a Detroit auto company, festering in 40 years of bad decisions and strangling contracts paying union workers far more than is imaginable for the work they do is a far cry from turning a relatively small computer company into the amazing gadget company that is. I think his Steveness would fall flat on his face if they dumped GM on his shoulders. He might do well running some small independent boutique place ala Ferrari or that ilk, but Detroit, no way.

[doglesby]

[quote name='distortedloop']
>

doglesby said:

> That's a far cry form "Amelio turned Apple around" which is what he was referring to.

I did not say "Amelio turned Apple around," I said there are many who think he did.

I didn't say you did. I said MorrisTheCat responded to that assertion.

Quote

I could go either way on that thought.

You can't deny the fact that Amelio inherited a company on the verge of going out of existence and made the hard business decisions that kept it alive, and then made the smart business decisions of realizing that the in-house OS development was garbage and that going outside the company to buy the OS that kept the computer end of the company out of extinction. Hiring back Jobs also turned the company around; in fact whose to say that Jobs would have ever ended up back at Apple if Amelio hadn't brought him back on board?

Only a true Steve worshipper would argue that Apple's non-extinction today is due 100% to his Jobness.

First of all, cutting back is not admirable. expenses - revenue = the amount that must be saved. That amount / expense per employee tells you how many people you must let go. The hard choice is letting go of the right people. As I said, the first thing Jobs did (after killing the clones) was kill the Newton. The fact that Amelio didn't do that means he didn't lay off those employees working on it--he didn't cut the right people, he just cut.

Secondly, Amelio brought Jobs on as a consultant to help integrate the companies and products. It was the board that made Jobs the interim CEO. So you're still giving Amelio too much credit.

Finally, the name is Steve Jobs, so "his Jobness" makes no sense.

I don't deny Amelio made the right call buying NeXT. That certainly set in motion the events that led to the recovery. But I do give Jobs most of the credit; remember, he had the vision to create NeXT in the first place. Buying NeXT vs building NeXT are not comparable endeavors.

Quote

But you missed my real point entirely, which was that running a Detroit auto company, festering in 40 years of bad decisions and strangling contracts paying union workers far more than is imaginable for the work they do is a far cry from turning a relatively small computer company into the amazing gadget company that is. I think his Steveness would fall flat on his face if they dumped GM on his shoulders. He might do well running some small independent boutique place ala Ferrari or that ilk, but Detroit, no way.

Actually, I didn't miss your point, I responded to someone who responded to someone who responded to that specific claim.

[richcon]

distortedloop said:

strangling contracts paying union workers far more than is imaginable for the work they do

Actually that's a misconception, mostly pushed by business leaders and politicians who already have an anti-union bone to pick. Workers aren't paid nearly as much as some politicians have claimed (and newspapers have reported).

That $75/hour figure that's been quoted includes health care benefits paid to retirees and their spouses/widows (and inexplicably listed in current workers' "benefits"), and a unionized company that's been hiring American workers for over a century is going to have many more retirees than a new factory owned by an import. In take-home pay, unionized workers make somewhat more than non-union workers do, but not that much more.

The cost of labor is only 10% of the cost of making a car, and keep in mind American cars are generally cheaper than imports. So the union-blaming is little more than a smokescreen.

If you want more info, check out the great factcheck.org writeup on it.

>40 years of bad decisions
That, on the other hand, is absolutely true.

[doglesby]

@richcon, good points. It's also useful to point out that under existing agreements and plans GM is on track to exceed the Japanese automakers in efficiency by 2011. All they need is to last that long (and designs worth a damn). I guess they need Gil Amelio.

[distortedloop]

richcon said:

Actually that's a misconception, mostly pushed by business leaders and politicians who already have an anti-union bone to pick. Workers aren't paid nearly as much as some politicians have claimed (and newspapers have reported).

Spoken like a union member.

richcon said:

That $75/hour figure that's been quoted includes health care benefits paid to retirees and their spouses/widows (and inexplicably listed in current workers' "benefits"), and a unionized company that's been hiring American workers for over a century is going to have many more retirees than a new factory owned by an import. In take-home pay, unionized workers make somewhat more than non-union workers do, but not that much more.

I did not quote the $75 per hour figure. My father-in-law worked for GM as an assembly line worker for 30+ years. His next door neighbor a similar amount of time. I am well aware of what their salaries and benefits were, and what they say actually did all night long at work. Granted, things may have changed in the last ten years since his retirement.

Quote

The cost of labor is only 10% of the cost of making a car, and keep in mind American cars are generally cheaper than imports. So the union-blaming is little more than a smokescreen.

I have dealt with three different unions in my industry in the last 25 years. Trust me, they are no boon to any company. It's little coincidence that the only airline in the US to consistently remain profitable over the years is the one that isn't unionized. I'm not bashing all unions or all union members, there was a time when I was a union worker and a union steward for our local branch. There are hardworking labor members, but there are a great many who aren't, and the unions are always there to insist on more money and less work, and another chance to improve for employees who don't. The union pendulum sways too far both ways, and the last few decades unions have achieved too much bargaining power and clout, primarily because they can swing votes for Democrats who cater to the unions (not bashing Dems, I am one).

We're really getting off topic though. Are you really trying to suggest that Steve Jobs could turn around the auto industry....?