Anyone see a link between GM and Kodak

[ElSupreme]

^^^^I really don't think that any of the US big three...

I don't think the government would let all 3 fail. ...

Well really we are down to the Big Two. Chrysler is now Fiat.

 

[Citizen-T]

For me, after watching "Who Killed the Electric Car" and "Revenge of the Electric Car" along with reading the book 'The Car That Could', it has put a bad taste in my mouth for the company. Right now, all I see is them doing the bare minimum to look like they care about what's happening.

Then you need to read Car Guys vs. Bean Counters.

 

[richkae]

I personally think those films vilified GM excessively. What GM did with the EV-1 was no different than what Chrysler did with their excellent Turbine Car in the '60s. They produced an EV to meet California ZEV requirements and found that it didn't have a profitable market beyond it's limited fan base and decided not to proceed in that direction once the California requirements were loosened. They were an ICE car maker and not compelled to risk shareholder's money trying to change the world. It would have cost a lot of money to continue developing and supporting EVs, training dealerships and so forth when the audience just wasn't there.

I don't think it's a conspiracy... just a fact. Even more recently, Toyota has backed away from BEVs (the RAV-4 compliance car excepted) for similar reasons.

I totally disagree with this characterization. A small group of talented people built a revolutionary EV that could have had wide appeal and other forces in the company killed it before it could have a chance.
The damning evidence to me is that they crushed all the cars. There was no need to burn the project to the ground and salt the earth. It was an execution.

 

[vfx]

I personally think those films vilified GM excessively. What GM did with the EV-1 was no different than what Chrysler did with their excellent Turbine Car in the '60s. They produced an EV to meet California ZEV requirements and found that it didn't have a profitable market beyond it's limited fan base and decided not to proceed in that direction once the California requirements were loosened. They were an ICE car maker and not compelled to risk shareholder's money trying to change the world. It would have cost a lot of money to continue developing and supporting EVs, training dealerships and so forth when the audience just wasn't there...

Did you even watch the same movies? Musk saw the first one and decided to make your car. To say the audience was not there is to say Tesla will fail.

 

[dsm363]

I personally think those films vilified GM excessively. What GM did with the EV-1 was no different than what Chrysler did with their excellent Turbine Car in the '60s. They produced an EV to meet California ZEV requirements and found that it didn't have a profitable market beyond it's limited fan base and decided not to proceed in that direction once the California requirements were loosened. They were an ICE car maker and not compelled to risk shareholder's money trying to change the world. It would have cost a lot of money to continue developing and supporting EVs, training dealerships and so forth when the audience just wasn't there.

I don't think it's a conspiracy... just a fact. Even more recently, Toyota has backed away from BEVs (the RAV-4 compliance car excepted) for similar reasons.

How do you know the audience wasn't there? It certainly wouldn't have been as profitable as SUVs were at the time (which is why they likely didn't want to bother with it) but as Elon said something like 'when is the last time you saw anyone hold a vigil for a car?' GM actively lobbied California to get those zero emission rules change so they could crush the cars and end the project. They never had any interest in it. Maybe if they had kept it on even just as a tiny lease program in California they would have gain a lot of intellectual property to launch something like the Volt much faster than they did. Remember, GM also went bankrupt and had to be bailed out so whatever their strategy was, it didn't work. The EV-1 project wouldn't have saved them alone but it might have changed their attitudes about advanced technologies and fuel efficiency to create products that people wanted when gas prices spiked. Toyota saw the writing on the wall and created the Prius, that worked out well for them.

 

[Doug_G]

Absolutely not. GM bought the NiMH patent from Ovonics, and later sold it to Texaco(who buried it). Complete scum of a company.

Yeah, this is my main beef with GM. Crushing the EV-1's was stupid, but there's no law against stupid. Trying to prevent anyone else from building a successful EV is, well, evil.

 

[mknox]

Absolutely not. GM bought the NiMH patent from Ovonics, and later sold it to Texaco(who buried it). Complete scum of a company.

I'm not buying this "evil genius" stuff. GM bought the patents when they were considering EVs and later sold them when they made a business decision to back away. Are you suggesting that GM shouldn't have sold to the highest bidder? If I were a stockholder (I'm not) I wouldn't like that too much.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you even watch the same movies? Musk saw the first one and decided to make your car. To say the audience was not there is to say Tesla will fail.

I heard Musk say that he thought there would be an EV-2, EV-3 and so forth and when it became clear to him there wouldn't be, he decided he needed to get into the BEV business. Great. I'm glad he did. I bought one of his cars. I'm just not buying the "GM is evil" thing. Stupid? Maybe, but they made a business decision and that is all.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you know the audience wasn't there? It certainly wouldn't have been as profitable as SUVs were at the time

Of course! GM was and is an ICE vehicle maker and decided to stick with what they knew and maximize profits. What's wrong with that? Of course they're going to lobby for their interests just as Tesla does for theirs (direct sales vs. dealers, for instance) I get that some here disagree philosophically with that position, and that's why we have Tesla.

 

[qwk]

I'm not buying this "evil genius" stuff. GM bought the patents when they were considering EVs and later sold them when they made a business decision to back away. Are you suggesting that GM shouldn't have sold to the highest bidder? If I were a stockholder (I'm not) I wouldn't like that too much.
Nobody said they were an "evil genius". Texaco and GM had some of the same people on the BOD, so I'm sure this was strictly a maximize profit for the near term, without thinking of the mid to long term. That would have been fine, except for the taxpayer bailout part. If you pull a stunt like that, a bailout is the equivalent of sending a death row inmate back on the street. They might be rehabilitated, but what if they strike again? Well, maybe not that drastic, but you get the point.
- - - Updated - - -



I heard Musk say that he thought there would be an EV-2, EV-3 and so forth and when it became clear to him there wouldn't be, he decided he needed to get into the BEV business. Great. I'm glad he did. I bought one of his cars. I'm just not buying the "GM is evil" thing. Stupid? Maybe, but they made a business decision and that is all.
The problem is that this pushed EV technology back at least a decade.

- - - Updated - - -



Of course! GM was and is an ICE vehicle maker and decided to stick with what they knew and maximize profits. What's wrong with that? Of course they're going to lobby for their interests just as Tesla does for theirs (direct sales vs. dealers, for instance) I get that some here disagree philosophically with that position, and that's why we have Tesla.
Fine, but then there was the bailout, paid for by taxpayers.

In any case, one can either be part of the solution or be part of the problem. Supporting GM is being part of the problem.

 

[richkae]

I'm not buying this "evil genius" stuff. GM bought the patents when they were considering EVs and later sold them when they made a business decision to back away. Are you suggesting that GM shouldn't have sold to the highest bidder? If I were a stockholder (I'm not) I wouldn't like that too much.

Texaco is the evil one for burying the patent. GMs hands are not as dirty in this act of the play.

I heard Musk say that he thought there would be an EV-2, EV-3 and so forth and when it became clear to him there wouldn't be, he decided he needed to get into the BEV business. Great. I'm glad he did. I bought one of his cars. I'm just not buying the "GM is evil" thing. Stupid? Maybe, but they made a business decision and that is all.

They burned it to the ground to try to prevent anyone from following. I know it was a business decision. If you have a cure for cancer but decide to sit on the patent and not market it because it's not profitable are you evil? Yes, you are evil. Is what they did as evil as sitting on the cure for cancer? Scorching the earth with the EV1 project and forcing yourself to cling to the ICE that keeps your country tied to foreign wars to ensure the oil supply? I'm gonna call it evil.

Of course! GM was and is an ICE vehicle maker and decided to stick with what they knew and maximize profits. What's wrong with that? Of course they're going to lobby for their interests just as Tesla does for theirs (direct sales vs. dealers, for instance) I get that some here disagree philosophically with that position, and that's why we have Tesla.

Closer to the truth is that some entrenched divisions killed a competing new product in their own company. It's almost as tragic for GM as it was for the rest of us.

 

[qwk]

Watch this commercial, and then tell me that it was produced to entice buyers to a product.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3g7cgUm7o9k

It's sickening.

 

[mknox]

In any case, one can either be part of the solution or be part of the problem. Supporting GM is being part of the problem.

I'm not clear on why maximizing profits would be fine except for the "bailout". If they hadn't maximized profits, wouldn't the "bailout" have had to be bigger? I can only surmise that you personally didn't like GM's direction on this and hence disagree with bailing them out.

The auto (and financial sector) "bailouts" are really a whole other discussion, and there are probably as many views on this as there are of us, so I'll leave that specifically alone.

I do support GM, but you'll note I also own a Tesla. I think this may come down to our own individual reasons for buying the car in the first place, and my primary objectives really had nothing to do with the "green factor". (I will probably not put Ontario's "Green" plates on the car for this reason). The beauty of this car is that whether I care about it or not, the car is "green" which I think was Musk's original intent ("the best car that just happens to be electric").

- - - Updated - - -

Watch this commercial, and then tell me that it was produced to entice buyers to a product.

I remember that ad and don't find it particularly objectionable. Is it any worse than this?

 

[qwk]

I'm not clear on why maximizing profits would be fine except for the "bailout". If they hadn't maximized profits, wouldn't the "bailout" have had to be bigger? I can only surmise that you personally didn't like GM's direction on this and hence disagree with bailing them out.

The auto (and financial sector) "bailouts" are really a whole other discussion, and there are probably as many views on this as there are of us, so I'll leave that specifically alone.

I do support GM, but you'll note I also own a Tesla. I think this may come down to our own individual reasons for buying the car in the first place, and my primary objectives really had nothing to do with the "green factor". (I will probably not put Ontario's "Green" plates on the car for this reason). The beauty of this car is that whether I care about it or not, the car is "green" which I thing was Musk's original intent ("the best car that just happens to be electric").

If someone broke into your house, raped and murdered your loved one, was acquitted, started a company, would you buy their product(something you desperately needed)?

In any case, the bailout(s) were BS, plain and simple. The jobs angle was a distraction. If the demand for cars is 2 million cars a year(just threw this number out), and a few manufacturers go out of business, somebody will always step up and take their place, both manufacturers and workers, to produce that 2 million vehicles. You end up with a healthier economy doing that than supporting clearly incompetent business practices. You don't see Americans getting any skinnier just because Hostess went under. They just substituted another kind of junk food for that crap.

- - - Updated - - -

I remember that ad and don't find it particularly objectionable. Is it any worse than this?

Apple didn't lease and crush any computers, bury the latest proven battery technology, and didn't receive any taxpayer bailouts as far as I know.

 

[dsm363]

Of course! GM was and is an ICE vehicle maker and decided to stick with what they knew and maximize profits. What's wrong with that? Of course they're going to lobby for their interests just as Tesla does for theirs (direct sales vs. dealers, for instance) I get that some here disagree philosophically with that position, and that's why we have Tesla.

They did go bankrupt though and require a bailout so their strategy didn't exactly workout for shareholders long term, did it? Short term, yes but that was their problem. They lacked vision and a broad portfolio of cars that included things that were fuel efficient.

 

[vfx]

...Closer to the truth is that some entrenched divisions killed a competing new product in their own company. It's almost as tragic for GM as it was for the rest of us.

For those that want more on this read "The Car the Could". I talks about the design and building of the EV1 and ends just as it is released. If the car was allowed to be a success the book would make a great "origins" movie. Now it's just sad/frustrating in the end.

 

[brianman]

Watch this commercial, and then tell me that it was produced to entice buyers to a product.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3g7cgUm7o9k

It's sickening.

It's like poltergeist meets the mushroom cloud scene from Terminator.

Warning: It's a bit graphic...

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, this is my main beef with GM. Crushing the EV-1's was stupid, but there's no law against stupid. Trying to prevent anyone else from building a successful EV is, well, evil.

Requiring that all the museum EV-1s be mechanically disabled so that they never function again doesn't fit your 3rd sentence?

 

[mknox]

If someone broke into your house, raped and murdered your loved one, was acquitted, started a company, would you buy their product(something you desperately needed)?

That's a crazy analogy. All we're talking about here is automobile drivetrain technology, not killing loved ones or suppressing cures for cancer.

Apple didn't lease and crush any computers, bury the latest proven battery technology, and didn't receive any taxpayer bailouts as far as I know.

Apple (and many tech companies) absolutely do so. They buy up or create hordes of patents to prevent anyone from doing anything remotely similar to what they do today or may think of doing in the future. Much of this has spawned serious debate on the need for patent reform in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

They did go bankrupt though and require a bailout so their strategy didn't exactly workout for shareholders long term, did it? Short term, yes but that was their problem. They lacked vision and a broad portfolio of cars that included things that were fuel efficient.

No debate there. Whether an EV strategy and/or a fuel efficiency focus would have "saved" GM is a worthy debate. I just don't buy all the conspiracy bunk.

 

[brianman]

If someone broke into your house, raped and murdered your loved one, was acquitted, started a company, would you buy their product(something you desperately needed)?

Personal opinion: If you ever feel the impulse to use "rape" or "Hitler" to make a point or analogy, stop yourself. No good or clarity will come from it. And if you're running for a political position, you might want to rethink your career choice.

 

[dsm363]

No debate there. Whether an EV strategy and/or a fuel efficiency focus would have "saved" GM is a worthy debate. I just don't buy all the conspiracy bunk.

I don't think the EV1 program would have saved them alone but it was representative of their short sighted thinking which lead to their downfall. High profits on large SUVs (which customers wanted) was too good to pass up. A parallel small car/fuel efficient car track would have been smart but their couldn't see past the immediate future. Had no vision which cost taxpayers billions.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

In any case, the bailout(s) were BS, plain and simple. The jobs angle was a distraction. If the demand for cars is 2 million cars a year(just threw this number out), and a few manufacturers go out of business, somebody will always step up and take their place, both manufacturers and workers, to produce that 2 million vehicles. You end up with a healthier economy doing that than supporting clearly incompetent business practices.

The government could own the company or part of the company. Assuming people elect competent representatives to the White House/Congress then those elected representatives would see to it that corporate leadership doesn’t completely derail like Chrysler, GM and Ford did leading up to the bailouts. Look at Volkswagen for instance. Seems to be working pretty well for them. The government of Niedersachsen does not seem to be willing to risk that amount of means of production long term.

Are you suggesting that GM shouldn't have sold to the highest bidder? If I were a stockholder (I'm not) I wouldn't like that too much.

<irony> I guess that’s why I just LOVE privately owned corporations that aren’t sufficiently democratically regulated.</irony>

Across the board with very few exceptions they just don’t seem to give a s#!t about anything except for maximizing their short-term profits.

On the other hand it is interesting that Elon does care. What makes him different from the people that own Ford, Chrysler, Exxon Mobile, Shell, BP et. al.


- - - Update: - - -

From 05-25-2013, 09:16 PM in this thread: Elon Musk - Page 55

Elon Musk’s latest tweets on Climate Change:

Source:

Elon Musk (elonmusk) on Twitter

 

[mknox]

I don't think the EV1 program would have saved them alone but it was representative of their short sighted thinking which lead to their downfall. High profits on large SUVs (which customers wanted) was too good to pass up. A parallel small car/fuel efficient car track would have been smart but their couldn't see past the immediate future. Had no vision which cost taxpayers billions.

I don't pretend to know for sure, but weren't the "bailouts" in the form of loans and the purchase of stock? I believe GM has paid back the loans (with interest) and their stock value must be better than it was in '09, so did it really cost "billions"? (Seriously, I'm just asking). There is a valid debate as to whether governments should be doing this in the first place, but I just wonder if it really did cost the taxpayer in the end. It certainly would have if the automakers failed.

GM (and Ford and Chrysler) did go after the "low hanging fruit" of large SUV's which probably was short-sighted. Certainly other foreign automakers did so as well, but they also had their smaller fuel efficient lines which are important in their home (Europe and Japan) markets. I remember this same discussion back in the early '70s during the first "oil crisis" when the Japanese were able to swoop in with their little fuel efficient cars, and everyone was saying why didn't Detroit see this coming.