Journal: Apple TV Will Be Apple's Downfall > Holman Jenkins is a NOBODY...

reply to skeechan

Re: Holman Jenkins is a NOBODY...

Watching professional football doesn't make you an expert in professional football, and gives you ZERO insight into future planning by coaches or what play should be run next. Watching Einstein doesn't make you a theoretical physicist. Watching surgeons doesn't make you a doctor. Being a community organizer doesn't make you a chief executive. Doing those things does...except in the case of chief executive where evidently some people are incapable of on-the-job training.

You can watch all day and night and NEVER grasp an understanding of WHY things happen as they do.

Without a formal business education AND experience in business, there is no understanding the fundamentals of marketing, namely that strategy ALWAYS precedes products, PERIOD. And even after products, the strategizing never ends. They're the type of people that buy into a FB IPO. They're the type of people who think the Volt was a great idea not having the foresight to understand why it was a really dumb idea but after the fact point out the obvious...that it was a dumb idea.

Meanwhile where is the zero-sum maneuvering? iOS is still an important platform for Google. Google is default search in iOS and OS X. Apple is still Samsung's LARGEST components customer. Adobe is still a huge vendor for Apple's users (despite keeping flash off iOS). Microsoft sells MS Office for Mac, and Bing is a search choice in OS X. There is no zero-sum maneuvering going on. Apple developed Safari...IE went away from OS X...was that zero-sum maneuvering too? No, this is nonsense.

The article is a mix of horseshit and the obvious...suitable for Cramer's knumbskull audience maybe but the Journal should expect better of editorial writers.

The Volt wasn't a dumb concept. It's too early because we don't yet have the technology to make it cheap enough and go far enough on a charge so it meets most everyone's expectations of a car.

Likewise, Microsoft's Window CE of the 90s and it's touch interface wasn't a dump concept. Microsoft just couldn't see past the Windows Start Menu and a stylus to understand that folks wanted to use their fingers. They also didn't create the hardware and hardware manfucturers were constrainted by costs and available screen/touch technology.

reply to rradina
They're wrapping $50K around every car...

It was BEYOND a stupid concept.

reply to MaynardKrebs
The Volt would be better if it didn't cost almost $90K per unit to produce while selling for about 1/3 that.

reply to Linklist

reply to skeechan

It's better than IE ever thought of being.

reply to AVonGauss
...or even understanding the concept of marketing strategy. The Journal should only hire journalists with strong business credentials so that they have a snowball's chance of actually understanding the subject about which they write, especially when it comes to editorializing. To editorialize at all one must have strong knowledge about the subject otherwise it's just dung flung on a wall.

Hard news is a different animal than editorializing. There you need someone with investigative skill, but this an editorial written by someone with no clue.

reply to skeechan
Regarding cost, isn't that what I said captian obvious?

Oh, yeah, other than losing a shitload of money on it and making a car NO ONE WANTS all while being bankrupt and needing tens of billions from the taxpayers via the Bank of China, it was a great idea.

Evidently someone has to point out the obvious from time to time because the obvious is beyond the grasp of some people. Too bad no one pointed it out to GM executives...or they did and were ignored which would explain at great deal about why Gov't Motors is an epic failure and is still in hock to back-broken taxpayers to the tune of $40 billion with zero prospect of paying it back.

So tell us more, oh captain, about the Nissan Leaf or the all-electric version of the Prius. Are they all stupid too or when they were giving out brains, was GM the only one holding the door?

While Toyota and Nissan aren't bankrupt, those two are also STUPID money losing ideas, but not nearly as stupid as a bankrupt company living off the taxpayers doing it. Nissan, like Gov't Motors loses a fortune on each unit sold and because no one wants them, they, like GM, Nissan are now resorting to even HIGHER per unit losses to spur sales by cutting prices. I guess they were absent on the day they taught how economies of scale work. You can't wrap $50K around a car and make it up in sales volume...you just lose more $50Ks that way. There is no demand to support an economy of scale that would support this dumb idea and they're dumb for not realizing it before they started.

Doubling down on dumb ideas is yet another dumb idea to add to their long list of dumb ideas. And the only thing dumber than making one of these disasters is actually buying one.

reply to skeechan

No thanks, I need a browser that doesn't render like dog poopy...which means webkit and I'm content with Safari although Chrome would be tolerable if I had need of an alternative, which I don't.

reply to skeechan
Any links that show how much money all of them are losing on electric cars? Where's the source of this information about how much money everyone is losing?

»www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/···20120910

GM tries to dispute, amortizing development costs over the entire life of the program, however due to low demand they're having to constantly idle the plant and offer even heavier discounts...there is no "entire life" of the program at the rate they're going. They can't sell what they're currently making without wrapping even more money around the car including taxpayer money. Imagine how many fewer they will sell when Government Motors isn't able to fleece the taxpayers for 1/4 of the sticker price and fewer still as more competitors enter the market with their failed-before-launch products.

And by no "entire life" I mean that competitors will compel government motors to do another redesign of the car LONG before the development costs can be recouped. The current model isn't selling and they're having to cut prices so sharply there isn't margin left to pay off the development costs. Obviously they can't sell the current model as is forever, like all models they need constant refreshing to keep up with competitors and that is also expensive.

And it's an even dumber idea to buy one

Cruze Eco, $22000 (with navigation and auto trans at Cars Direct daut kaum) and $1800/yr to drive
Volt, $33000 even after taxpayer subsidizing (which isn't up front you pony all $40K up front and get a tax credit thanks to other taxpayers come April 15th) + $650/yr to drive if you only drive your 20 miles at a pop (no gas ever ever)

$33000 - $22000 = $11000 premium for the Volt over a nicely optioned Cruze Eco. But the Volt does save you $1150 a year in energy supposedly. If you never put a drop of gas in it you can JUST break even if you drive it for about 9.5 years assuming you never have to replace the battery pack or anything. Oh and that battery pack, even with advancement is expected to cost over $2500 in 2025, even without considering inflation which given Fed debt monetization isn't looking so good going forward. Don't consider the taxpayers are paying for $7000 of that and you can tack on another 6+ years to break even. I don't know about you, but I don't drive cars for 10-20 years.

Government motors loses a fortune on the car. Consumers lose a fortune on the car. The car is a REALLY stupid idea from start to finish.

But if you still think it's a great idea, that's okay.