Could the Big Three learn from Apple?
Associated Press Business Writer Tom Krisher makes a few good points about how the Big Three (or 2.5 if you prefer) could stand to learn from Apple's comeback. Well, ok, one good, though not exactly new, point. We've all heard it, if not said it ourselves. It's all about the product. Just like Steve Jobs saved Apple in 1998 with the innovative, highly-desired iMac, American carmakers need their own hotcake vehicle. And in reading Krisher's article, you get the impression GM, Chrysler and Ford have been paying attention.
"I admire (Apple's) pure understanding of the brand and the type of customer they're going after, and married to that, a product and a design strategy that they do not veer off of," said Mark Fields, Ford Motor Co.'s president of the Americas.
"We're really trying to be more like companies like Apple, where we can innovate and move faster," said Mark LaNeve, vice president of sales, service and marketing for General Motors Corp.
"I think a fresh, creative mind is something that you can appreciate and focus simply on some complicated things," said Eric Ridenour, chief operating officer of DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group.
So where's the automotive version of the iPhone? Is it GM's Volt? Ford's Interceptor? The Chrysler Nassau? Just like with Apple, only time, and the free market, will tell.[Source: The Associated Press via Yahoo Finance]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Shane 9:45AM (1/14/2007)
Following the example of a industry that is plagued by bad unethical business practices is probably a bad idea.
A product like the iPod would be good. They need something that will completely revolutionize the industry. Unfortunalty every move they have made towards something like that, they kill or walk away. For the most part it seems they are too unwilling to make any big moves, making this all big talk.
Reply
Tool 10:29AM (1/14/2007)
You'd have to eliminate the rampant mediocrity that exists in the domestic automkers to ever be mentioned in the same sentence as Apple.
The Big 3 are making some big strides, GM especially, but they are far from being world-class organizations that bring out consistently good product like BMW or Toyota.
Reply
Undercover Soul Brother 10:59AM (1/14/2007)
Shane- "...plagued by bad unethical business practices..." LOL!!! And you think the big 2.5 are not?! Shane, you one funny motherf-er.
Use Apple as a possible business model? Sure, if you were only selling one-three different cars, ie Porsche. The big 2.5 sell so many cars that the research involved in bringing up an innovating product in each category would bankrupt these guys.
But one great car in a series of line-ups to put your hat on is not new: Toyota=Camery, BMW=3 seriers, Audi=A4, Merc=S class, etc.
I just think that the big 2.5 want to peddle what they want to peddle and not what the customer wants to buy: quality, low economy and above all, great design.
Reply
dejal 10:45AM (1/14/2007)
Great. Apple outsources everything. Let's here from the UAW now.
Also, Apple makes little things, with no options and few parts. Apple also doesn't have to meet safety and gov. emission standards (other than FCC(insert foreign equivalent) and basic electrical common sense). Apple doesn't have to build things that can go 24/7 in any kind of weather range.
Other than design, Apple has nothing to teach the auto industry.
Reply
whofan 11:39AM (1/14/2007)
yes
Reply
Dan 1:36PM (1/14/2007)
Yes! Be like Apple and corner the snootiest 3% of the market with products that are indeed very nice and cost twice as much.
Reply
kingvolcano 11:54AM (1/14/2007)
It's obvious the big 3 can't learn from anyone.
Reply
Michael Karesh 11:56AM (1/14/2007)
Automobiles are far more complicated than the products Apple makes, and what makes one great is also more complicated.
Once thing to realize about computers and consumer electronics in general is that its a much younger industry. It wasn't long ago that they discovered the power of design, any design. So Apple could succeed by having a recognizable design, because no one else had one.
This isn't the case in the auto industry. The auto industry discovered the power of design back in the 1920s. These days virtually every car has a lot of design content, and many companies provide products with an instantly recognizable brand appearance--BMW, Porsche, Land Rover, Mini, Cadillac, Volvo, etc.
The cell phone industry is getting here quickly. Many companies now field phones with striking designs and cute names: Razor, Chocolate, etc.
Would Apple have as easy a time making breakthrough products if it had this many competitors more or less on the ball? Of course not.
Reply
TJ 12:09PM (1/14/2007)
Apple spends an enormous amount of money to tell everyone how great they are and yet they still have only 2% market share for their OS. The iPod is a one trick pony for Apple, just like the Mustang is for Mustang.
The only thing that Apple has going for it is a brain dead Media that drools all over everything they do and ignores any faults (i.e. Toyota). At the end of the day, it only the product that matters.
Reply
Ken 2:22PM (1/14/2007)
Great! Now who wants to pay a premium for a Chevy?
We already have cars that are singularly focused on design and performance. Many people compare Apple to Porsche or BMW. But there are buyers of crappy, $200 PCs that aren't good for much more than email or Word. Likewise, there are people that buy Chevy Aveos simply to get to work. They don't have a need, or can't afford a nice stereo, sunroof, leather, advanced safety features, a decent engine, performance-oriented handling, etc. Someone still needs to make the crappy, uninteresting, low-end products.
And that''s where you'll find the big 2.5. You could argue that Toyota should be included. But while most of their products are far from interesting, and many are low-end, few could be called crappy. Hence the slight premium for Toyota products.
The Apples of the automotive industry will remain to be the Porsches, BMWs and the like.
Reply
V 5:29PM (1/14/2007)
TJ, don't baulk at a 2% market share. In the home PC market, their market share is bigger than that, and growing. Half the Apple computers sold today in America are to new Apple customers. They're growing at a large rate.
But as for the big three learning from them... they can try, but as said before, it's about making a good product without compromise. In the auto industry over here, compromise is the name of the game.
Reply
Tiago do Vale 4:51PM (1/14/2007)
I think all of you work for the "great" 2.5... That's why there's NO salvation to the US auto-industry: it's a culture problem.
Reply
AMcA 5:03PM (1/14/2007)
EASY:
When you show the public something new, and they're all excited about it, have it in the stores within the month!
No more of this show it in '05 and have it in the showrooms in late '07. Remember the last T-Bird? That's what killed it. The public was already bored. The titillated had already moved on.
I know it's going to mean a 2 year drought on buzz while you get out the stuff that's 2 years off without previews. So be it. It's going to be a hard habit to break. But it will be worth it. Your products will never be referred to as "stale" again in their first year on the market.
Reply
SR 5:31PM (1/14/2007)
I agree with AMcA and add this - they need to quit this embargo garbage. it always gets broken, and it ruins the excitement of the introduction itself. NO pics should be released until the vehicle is officially introduced. Steve Jobs is the king when it comes to product introduction, and he certainly doesn't release any pics to the press ahead of time.
Reply
AngryMac 7:55PM (1/14/2007)
You guys who are bashing Apple - have you ever used a Mac as your day to day machine? Hard to bash something so knowingly when you haven't even used it. Isn't it?
Can your pc do this? http://murphymac.com/slib/mailer.htm
I don't know much about cars. But I do know this:
Chrysler is the only American company with any creativity these days. GM takes a legend like GTO and puts it on a Grand Am-looking piece of sh^t.
Ford builds that beautiful old Mustang body, and still includes their same old chitzy interior fixtures.
When are these guys going to wake up and bring the stylish cards they sling to Europeans to Americans?
Reply
Patrick 9:34PM (1/14/2007)
Apple and the Auto Industry can't be compared. Rick Wagoner and Steve Jobs can, sorta.
Jobs practically owns Apple. He pretty much has carte blanche over his board of directors and the share holders. He's their savior. Jobs number one asset: HE HAS VISION!
Wagoner and the other CEO's are tied to what the share holders and bean counters want. Also Wagoner et al don't really have any assets.
Jobs = Visionary
Wagoner = I'm not really sure but definately not a Visionary.
Reply
ThriftyTechie 10:45PM (1/14/2007)
A couple of factoids for everyone to chew on:
Apple's MP3 player share still stands at > 75%.
~50% of Mac purchases are currently made by "switchers" (people that didn't previously own a Mac).
Reply
jmhm2003 12:28AM (1/15/2007)
FYI haters, BMW's market share of the world car market is 2%, Porshce's less then 1. Yet they make the most profit per vehicle. Just like Apple with computers and electronics. Marketshare is not all it's cracked up to be but satisfied customers are. Of course it never hurts to have the absolute best product. As noted, Detroit, and Microsoft, can only dream of ever being thought of in the same class as Apple. But it never hurts to dream.....
Reply
The Other Justin 2:09PM (1/16/2007)
Most pointless comparison ever.
Apple and the Big 3 have nothing in common.
Apple would fail at cars with their current business model. Car companies would fail at computers with theirs.
And Steve Jobs would probably try to name a car Mustang and then sue Ford over it.
Reply
Snix 9:34PM (1/19/2007)
One thing that Apple does that the big 2.5 dont is STAND BEHIND THEIR PRODUCT when there is a problem!!!!! I and my family own an iPods, iMac and 2 Mac laptops. Any problems are quickly resolved, and they are few compared to Windows machines.
The other thing that Apple does is CREATE A PRODUCT NAME AND STICK WITH IT. I am so sick of the big 2.5 changing the names of their damn cars when they replace (read:restyle) them. Foreign car companies have names like Civic, Accord, Camry, 911, 3 Series, etc. whose names are legendary and evoke thoughts of quality when mentioned. If Ford would have kept the Escort name and kept refining it and improving it for example, they would have a stellar reputation with the name.
But what do they do? They build a piece of crap and then can't reuse the name again because it evokes thoughts of craptastic pieces of shit! Then these jokes of cars are mentioned at cocktail parties. Think Vega, Pinto, Fairmont, Corvair Granada, Versailles, Cimmaron here.
Car not selling? Change the name, yeah, that's the ticket! That's another bad move by the big 2.5. GM is particulary bad at this. Instead of addressing why it's not selling, just kill it and come out with another version of that platform with a different name. Think Cavalier then Cobalt and whatever it's successor will be soon.
It makes me nauseous.
Lots of customers want consistency with the car they buy, from the name to the basic design. Somehow, they equate this with quality. When you kill the name, you WILL lose customers because of it. The most extreme example of consistency is the 911. See, I didnt need to mention it was a Porsche, did I? It has the same layout and configuration since the day it was designed. It has evolved into one of the most beloved sports car names in the world. The Corvette has followed the same formula and is also in high regard.
Why do the big 2.5 think that consistency with evolution in a design will make a stale product? Why do they have this mentality??????
Reply