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

[adaca]

As someone who works on the internet, and constantly dreaming about what Web 3.0 should look like, downloaded music is so old school.

The main success of the iPod to me, is not the device itself, but the full end-to-end service provided from the iTunes Store, to your desktop iTunes, and then the iPod. Take any one of that away, an iPod is just another expensive portable music player. The explosion of the iPod came when both the market was right for it, and when Apple had the iTunes Store in place. Sure, the Windows version of iTunes did help.

The iPod is really old school to me. The iPhone opens myself to this whole notion of anywhere, anytime thinking. Why download music when you can stream it live. Why watch TV when you can have video on demand anywhere. I want to be in contact with my friends on Facebook when I drive. I want to be able to snap photos of cool cars from my car while I drive. Important part of that too is that Apple shook things with how music publishers distribute their content with the iTunes Store, and with the iPhone, how carriers control the user experience and delivery. Without any of that, the user experience becomes compromised.

I really can't see a lot in common with GM. But I like the car to be this wonderful uber mobile computing platform and communications hub for me. I want car manufacturers like GM to deliver the latest and greatest software products in months, not years - perfectly willing to live with the bugs as long as it doesn't kill I have also previously advocated for Saab, this whole new lifestyle manner of selling cars. Why deal with the traditional dealership and haggling. Make it a lifestyle experience just like the iPod or iPhone through the Apple Store. Go beyond the Scions and Minis of the world. Maybe subsidize the vehicles through ad revenues

[Rocket 88]

Are you kidding?

The blog suggest GM needs to offer cutting edge technology when getting a navigation system & bluetooth technology form them is like pulling teeth because they stubbornly stick to On-Star turn by turn. Yeah, we all want a subscription service forever and visual aid...

Ford has done a good job of this, but it has hardly solved all of Ford's problems. Its a step in offering the right content but not a game changer.

Oh, and the other great idea? Build a car with futuristic technology that can go over 100miles without recharging for $ 25,000. Great solutions. Why not come out with something like the Cadillac CTS that retails for $12,000 and gets better gas mileage then the Aveo? That would be wonderul!

This is realist advice???

[Caleb02]

i think GM needs a new age Pontiac Fiero on the Kappa to replace the Solstace and Sky. I think they should be new age yet with a hint of retro.

[vcs2600]

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

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:

This is the best Car<->Computer analogy I've seen in a while (most are just awful). I think if one were to sum up the marketing lessons of Apple:

1. Simple product line is better than a complicated one
2. Brands have a singular meaning, it's not one-size-fits all
3. No, or very little pricing overlap -- You don't need 6 products when 3 will cover the market.
4. Every product is "best in class" or very close to it.
5. Unique products are better than copy-cat ones.
6. Great products have a "Halo Effect" (This is the point of the iPod/Volt analogy)

Now if you look at what the oldschool P&G marketing guys did to GM, it was just about the opposite of this across the board. It would take a paragraph to explain the difference between say Pontiac and Chevrolet, and it didn't really matter because the price points were almost identical. Consumers saw a confusing mix of average to less-than-average product, and they walked away to brands that had a clearer identity.

Now if you were to compare how (say) Toyota has positioned Toyota, Lexus, and Scion, it would be a lot closer to Apple's methodology, I think.

[Ming]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Cold Play and I've never owned an Apple product.

But I see what is trendy, and I want GM to get in on that instead of trying to be the next Zune --or Creative Zen, etc. ---- go for what's hip and popular. Make GM that desireable --- not the "value" alternative that people settle for. GM has tried that "value" approach, and it only hurts brand image. Can you say CSV?

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by Ming

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Cold Play and I've never owned an Apple product.

But I see what is trendy, and I want GM to get in on that instead of trying to be the next Zune --or Creative Zen, etc. ---- go for what's hip and popular. Make GM that desireable --- not the "value" alternative that people settle for. GM has tried that "value" approach, and it only hurts brand image. Can you say CSV?

Yeah... well... GM is DEAD LAST when it comes to iPod integration. And they still can't get it done right.

Mercedes has already launched iPhone integration. Jaguar and Land Rover have shown concepts with iPhone integration. 5 years until GM does it?

GM can make desirable cars.... but it doesn't always offer what people want. And that, in recent years, has been very frustrating. At least we got AUX ports in 98% of GM cars now. sheesh. but iPod integration? Not on your life. GM can't even get simple Nav screens.

[ChevroletRevived]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Yeah... well... GM is DEAD LAST when it comes to iPod integration. And they still can't get it done right.

Mercedes has already launched iPhone integration. Jaguar and Land Rover have shown concepts with iPhone integration. 5 years until GM does it?

GM can make desirable cars.... but it doesn't always offer what people want. And that, in recent years, has been very frustrating. At least we got AUX ports in 98% of GM cars now. sheesh. but iPod integration? Not on your life. GM can't even get simple Nav screens.

We have Bluetooth integration now too....

[AMcA]

Originally Posted by roteague

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

I wondered who bought that Zune.

Are they going to put it into production now?

[AMcA]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Yeah... well... GM is DEAD LAST when it comes to iPod integration. And they still can't get it done right.

Mercedes has already launched iPhone integration. Jaguar and Land Rover have shown concepts with iPhone integration. 5 years until GM does it?

GM can make desirable cars.... but it doesn't always offer what people want. And that, in recent years, has been very frustrating. At least we got AUX ports in 98% of GM cars now. sheesh. but iPod integration? Not on your life. GM can't even get simple Nav screens.

An excellent example of how out-of-touch GM has been. They couldn't see the iPod coming? Yeesh, no surprise they didn't notice that gas prices had been rising for the past three years, either.