Blog Opinion: Forget the balance sheets - Save GM with 4 wheel iPods

[tgagneguam]

Just watched this special program on CNBC titled “Saving General Motors” which puts a positive spin on an otherwise dismal outlook based on recent financial troubles in the US.

Naw, I watched the program, too, and I thought it wasn't at all spin. I was expecting one of two things: a doom-and-gloom picture or something like a one hour-commercial for GM. Thankfully, neither one was the case. I thought it came across as reasonably balanced. It appropriately highlights sources of strength, it nicely summed up the Volt, and it appropriately highlighted NA's awful predicament. Oh, and of course the Camaro looked quite sexy on air, too!

I thought the perspective from nearly everyone interviewed-except the obvious Wagoner and Lutz points-came across as candid and balanced. Lutz came across as his usual tough guy with no action to back up his talk, and Wagoner looked tired and nervous. I particularly loved when Phil asked him basically why, in light of all of GM's current failures, including a 75% depressed stock price, he deserves to remain CEO; "Any other CEO would have lost his job by now." Wagoner blinked about 90 times and gave a vacuous, pissy answer. Of course, his emotional reaction was the point, not the content of his speech.

[fp115]

Funny, but I had a similar analogy but to another extent. However if by making the Volt such a niche such as the iPod, MANY MANY ideas come to my head as to things that should be put out to the Volt team. Seeing as how much work is going into the Volt I can see such ideas being very possible within a year or two of its kick off... actually somewhat excited now.

[FBODYRULES]

BUT... will the volt be hot looking? I some how doubt it, although it wont be hard to be better looking than anything toyota will have competing!

[KAD]

Originally Posted by roteague

GM would be better off getting the same Ford Sync technology. That way people who don't have iPod's (like me) can connect our devices.

Oh please no! I dont want Microsoft to crap up my CAR too!!!!

I can see it now: You start up your car. You turn the key. And on the nav screen it says "Your car has a virus. Error 859347859374593475. And the you get the Blue Screen of Death!

I think GM needs to strike up a deal with Apple to give us some wicked compatibility with our iPods and iPhones and such. Its time the automobile gets more connected!

[KAD]

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

Apple really only has 3 product lines to market: Macintosh, iPod/iTunes, and iPhone. Also, the Mac doesn't compete with the other two lines. This makes it really easy to carpet bomb the public with non-stop advertising. In contrast, GM has 8 domestic brands and god knows how many models. There's only so much advertising money to go around. Cut the number of models and GM can focus more of their marketing efforts and money on them.

The other difference between GM and Apple is that Apple isn't afraid of alienating its current customers to go after new ones. They've abandoned entire product lines in the past. For instance:

1. Apple II to Macintosh (1984)
2. 68k to PowerPC Macintosh (1994)
3. Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X (2001)
4. PowerPC Macintosh to Intel Macintosh (2006)

All of these transitions either caused current software/hardware to be incompatible right away or after a few iterations of the new product. Each time the transition was made, Apple upset and lost current customers. If GM wants to be more like Apple, it can't worry about losing current customers in product transitions. It needs to do what is right for the company long-term. When the cars are class-leading, the lost customers will come back - just as many of Apple's customers came back to the company.

I completely agree! Apple obviously knows its stuff and I've always thought General Motors could learn some good lessons from them. I think Mr. Lutz should call up Steve Jobs for lunch sometime very soon

[roberto57]

Originally Posted by Jesda

Coldplay sucks!

Originally Posted by ronald mcretard

Amen!

I agree. I don't understand why they deserve their own channel on XM. I can think of many other bands that should have that honor instead.

Sorry for getting off topic

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

Apple really only has 3 product lines to market: Macintosh, iPod/iTunes, and iPhone. Also, the Mac doesn't compete with the other two lines. This makes it really easy to carpet bomb the public with non-stop advertising. In contrast, GM has 8 domestic brands and god knows how many models. There's only so much advertising money to go around. Cut the number of models and GM can focus more of their marketing efforts and money on them.

Well, if you listen to Apple's spin, they have 3 core businesses: Computer systems (Macintosh, software, etc.), the iPod ecosystem (AppleTV, iTunes, etc.), and iPhone.
Each are separate entities. Each product can stand alone. And each product are interdependent and complementary to each other.
You can have a Mac and not use an iPod or iPhone. You can have an iPod and not use a mac. You can have an iPhone and not use a Mac. Etc.
Each leg of the business is strong and has a specific focus.

General Motors has Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Chevy, Cadillac, Saturn, Hummer, Opel, Holden, Saab.
If you want to break it down.... Buick/Pontiac/GMC, Chevy, Cadillac, Hummer, Saturn in North America. Opel, Cadillac, Saab, Hummer in Europe. Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, Saab, Holden, in Asia.
No real focus.

But lets focus on North America. Buick/Pontiac/GMC, Chevy, Cadillac, Hummer, Saturn. GM wants to divide things into channels. Well... that doesn't really work either. Dealerships are inconsistent. GM doesn't know what brand is what and what brand goes where. For example, if Pontiac is a performance brand, why does it have a Vibe?

Let GM determine what is what and have the products reflect that premise. If Pontiac wants a Vibe. Fine. Give is 250HP so it's really performance oriented.

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

The other difference between GM and Apple is that Apple isn't afraid of alienating its current customers to go after new ones. They've abandoned entire product lines in the past. For instance:

1. Apple II to Macintosh (1984)
2. 68k to PowerPC Macintosh (1994)
3. Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X (2001)
4. PowerPC Macintosh to Intel Macintosh (2006)

All of these transitions either caused current software/hardware to be incompatible right away or after a few iterations of the new product. Each time the transition was made, Apple upset and lost current customers. If GM wants to be more like Apple, it can't worry about losing current customers in product transitions. It needs to do what is right for the company long-term. When the cars are class-leading, the lost customers will come back - just as many of Apple's customers came back to the company.

Well, it did cause users to be disgruntled. but each leap made the user experience far better. And each leap made the system more modern. That's
why Apple's OS isn't encumbered by legacy crap like Windows. Windows must support various versions. Apple doesn't becuase of it's smaller market. But, Apple does manage to build in quite a bit of backwards compatibility anyways.... until Apple finally drops PowerPC support. THat's with Snow Leopard. And these people eventually came back to Macintosh anyways. And new people replaced those that didn't return.

GM does need to shake things up and become less apologetic about their maneuvers. Things need to be done. And it needs to be done quickly.

Can GM develop an "Apple iPod?" Absolutely. But they need someone with vison to actually do it. Lutz was supposed to have been that person. But after 7-8 years of Lutz, we have seen some improvements in product, and a few shining stars. But no iPods. Nothing earth-shattering.
Volt can be that iPod.... but there will be a lot of imitators, from a lot more "well-respected" brands around the same time Volt comes out.

TIme will tell....

[Drive571]

Nice couple of posts, Ming. A "four-wheeled iPod" is a good analogy for what GM needs; I also agree that a $40K Volt may not fit the bill (having to share the limelight with the new Prius, the CR-Z, and Honda's upcoming $19K Prius-fighter), though it's certainly a crucial product.

GM is capable of such fashion hits--the H2 and H3 were just the ticket in the land of $2/gal gas. I'd love to see GM put the same sort of effort into smaller, more broadly appealing cars--a la MINI and Scion--but they'll need to unlearn decades of D3 "wisdom" to see the value of sinking scarce resources into a stylish compact.

[ChevroletRevived]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Well, if you listen to Apple's spin, they have 3 core businesses: Computer systems (Macintosh, software, etc.), the iPod ecosystem (AppleTV, iTunes, etc.), and iPhone.
Each are separate entities. Each product can stand alone. And each product are interdependent and complementary to each other.
You can have a Mac and not use an iPod or iPhone. You can have an iPod and not use a mac. You can have an iPhone and not use a Mac. Etc.
Each leg of the business is strong and has a specific focus.

General Motors has Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Chevy, Cadillac, Saturn, Hummer, Opel, Holden, Saab.
If you want to break it down.... Buick/Pontiac/GMC, Chevy, Cadillac, Hummer, Saturn in North America. Opel, Cadillac, Saab, Hummer in Europe. Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, Saab, Holden, in Asia.
No real focus.

But lets focus on North America. Buick/Pontiac/GMC, Chevy, Cadillac, Hummer, Saturn. GM wants to divide things into channels. Well... that doesn't really work either. Dealerships are inconsistent. GM doesn't know what brand is what and what brand goes where. For example, if Pontiac is a performance brand, why does it have a Vibe?

Let GM determine what is what and have the products reflect that premise. If Pontiac wants a Vibe. Fine. Give is 250HP so it's really performance oriented.


Well, it did cause users to be disgruntled. but each leap made the user experience far better. And each leap made the system more modern. That's
why Apple's OS isn't encumbered by legacy crap like Windows. Windows must support various versions. Apple doesn't becuase of it's smaller market. But, Apple does manage to build in quite a bit of backwards compatibility anyways.... until Apple finally drops PowerPC support. THat's with Snow Leopard. And these people eventually came back to Macintosh anyways. And new people replaced those that didn't return.

GM does need to shake things up and become less apologetic about their maneuvers. Things need to be done. And it needs to be done quickly.

Can GM develop an "Apple iPod?" Absolutely. But they need someone with vison to actually do it. Lutz was supposed to have been that person. But after 7-8 years of Lutz, we have seen some improvements in product, and a few shining stars. But no iPods. Nothing earth-shattering.
Volt can be that iPod.... but there will be a lot of imitators, from a lot more "well-respected" brands around the same time Volt comes out.

TIme will tell....

Just like with the iPod..... The key is GM establishing it in the market as THE product to have. If they can do that, it will stick (just like Apple did with the iPod).

[slowinthefastlane]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Can GM develop an "Apple iPod?" Absolutely. But they need someone with vison to actually do it. Lutz was supposed to have been that person. But after 7-8 years of Lutz, we have seen some improvements in product, and a few shining stars. But no iPods. Nothing earth-shattering.
Volt can be that iPod.... but there will be a lot of imitators, from a lot more "well-respected" brands around the same time Volt comes out.

I forgot to add that in 1993-1997, Apple had a similar problem as GM. They had too many Macintosh lines (Macintosh, Power Macintosh, Performa and Centris). These lines were confusing the consumer and were bleeding away R&D and marketing dollars. For instance, does anyone remember the difference between a Power Macintosh 6100, Performa 6115, and Performa 6117? The answer is nothing - other than the bundled software. This is how I see GM today (i.e what's the difference between a Chevy Equinox and a Pontiac Torrent?). Steve Jobs came in 1997 and cut all of the redundant product lines, simplifying the Mac product grid to 4 choices: consumer desktop, professional desktop, consumer portable, and professional portable.

GM needs to focus on the number of models it has and not necessarily the number of divisions or its structure. I would bet that Lutz, Wellburn and the rest of the product development teams would work much better if they had to focus on a smaller number of vehicles. If GM can field one and only one entry in each categories, they will be far better off. It would keep the people behind those products completely focused on a single task. This would improve quality, cut costs, and shorten the development cycles (teams would not need to jump from rebadge to rebadge).

Just as an example, GM as a company, could develop 17 cars/trucks:

Small Car
Midsize Car
Large Car

Luxury Midsize
Luxury Large Car
Luxury SUV or Crossover

Small SUV or Crossover
Midsize SUV or Crossover
Fullsize SUV or Crossover

Family Performance (i.e. G8)
Budget Performance (i.e. Camero)
High Performance Halo (i.e. Corvette)
"Eco-halo" Car (i.e. Volt/Prius)

Compact Pickup
Fullsize Pickup
Heavy-Duty Pickup
Fullsize Van

That's it. 17 cars/trucks spread out through the divisions. No rebadges, no overlap. To me, it doesn't matter which divisions get which product or which divisions are cut loose. Taking Apple as an example, sometimes a company needs to shrink in order to grow again.

[djo165]

Let's not get too carried away comparing apples to oranges, or music players to cars. That thinking is part of what screwed up GM in the 90's when they had former Proctor & Gamble people running the business and they thought marketing cars was the same as marketing dish soap or toothpaste.

One thing GM does NOT need to emulate about Apple is the lousy performance of those first two generation iPods. Remember those? One reason those early iPods were reasonably successful is they had no real competition and Apple was able to slowly improve each generation, so that by the time competition did arrive, the competition had to play catch up, which is what they are still trying to do. This is obviously not the case in the automotive world.

Oh, and the Volt's battery better have a longer life span than the iPod's!

[roteague]

Originally Posted by KAD

Oh please no! I dont want Microsoft to crap up my CAR too!!!!

I can see it now: You start up your car. You turn the key. And on the nav screen it says "Your car has a virus. Error 859347859374593475. And the you get the Blue Screen of Death!

I think GM needs to strike up a deal with Apple to give us some wicked compatibility with our iPods and iPhones and such. Its time the automobile gets more connected!

And I don't want that Apple crap in mine. That is why I have a ZUNE, and not an iPod.

[Aprime]

Originally Posted by roteague

GM would be better off getting the same Ford Sync technology. That way people who don't have iPod's (like me) can connect our devices.

You mean USB? Yeah, that's coming this year.

[regfootball]

having nav and sync (with voice command) would be a plus for GM

in the meantime, ford has sirius travel link, to go with its sync. advantage ford.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

That's it. 17 cars/trucks spread out through the divisions. No rebadges, no overlap. To me, it doesn't matter which divisions get which product or which divisions are cut loose. Taking Apple as an example, sometimes a company needs to shrink in order to grow again.

Fine by me.
Shut down... Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Hummer, Saab and Saturn.

This can all be covered by Chevrolet and Cadillac.

Now what....?