1nk
02-20-2010, 04:57 PM
GM still seems to have foot dragging execs that say the kinds of things Sony did going into its battle with Microsoft.
That battle was really over publishing. Because publishing is really about speech and speech is most important in its political form the publishing market should have been a pure buyers market where no price control existed and publishers had no ability to suppress information or limit access to it. Everything should have been available by mandate at the library for free or consumers should have long ago had access to all content for one low bundle price where that bundle price was protected by many competitive market players offering the roughly the same univeral bundle.
Its happening now. Its now possible to get unlimited voice, unlimited broadband and all the mobile accoutrements with good coverage without a contract and with a good phone. All this can be had for $45 a month on PCS Metro or $50 for Walmart's brand. In a few years that price will include access to all content as well as good privacy and no strings and probably no ads. Some will say the economics of this doesn’t work, but that’s just a matter of the way we calculate. If we calculate on standard of living it works perfectly.
MS got into it with Sony initially over Sony trying to meddle with resolution standards on a proposed successor to standard NTSC TV in the US. Sony as a foreign competitor operating in US markets didn’t want exposure to US IT in the living room so it tried to create a barrier to entry and tried to use the US congress to do it. At that point the conflict began. It started in earnest over consoles.
As a publishing platform everything that could be wrong with the console model was wrong. Sony itself described it as a “toll booth.” In essence the console platform was a kind of long distance scam. To communicate long distance in real time people used to have to pay AT&T some arbitrary amount. Under Sony consoles mass communication in the living room was becoming subject to Sony collecting similar tolls.
All Microsoft had to do to chip away at that was to offer the end user better value and freedom from plastic disks. Every step of the way, Sony execs kept telling the media and publishers this wasn’t possible and it did take MS longer than it should have to turn around the business case. At the turning point a surprise occured, cloud computing and instant everything approaches like OnLive appeared.
Sony could painfully adapt to DLC and thinner margins but the cloud models are way too much of as stretch. Its worst case scenario had to be what Microsoft initially planned, namely a switch to DLC based online services. One of Sony’s retired CEO’s did say that TV had become just a portal to the internet, but Sony seemed determined to try to prevent or delay this.
GM isn't an actual oil producer but it should understand its new partner better. What GM is facing would be like the whole internet becoming a mesh net were people do occasionally pay for content that they don’t generate but there’s no ISP or phone company to pay because its all wireless back channel. Paying for content that they don’t generate would be kind of like farmer paying only for the vegetable produce that they don't already grow in their back yard, and if that produce is organic there might not even be oil in the fertilizer. If the commute to the store uses a Volt that’s powered off home solar, there won’t be any oil from the grid or the gas station.
GM is where MS was ten years ago in its battle with Sony. Yes this is about disintermediation but it should understand its not just about getting off the equivalent of silly plastic disk oil based land fill fillers and their land fill filler players and their rental lines, its about going very quickly to an environment where the consumer gets everything all the time everywhere with no strings attached for one low bundle price. So bringing in a mere hybrid is like doing a Blu-Ray scam of making the silly plastic disk bigger and trying to charge people more than an attrition price. Making a bunch of noise about that in the media is like trying to scare people with DRM- more paranoid nonsense to address a non problem. Using government to go after Toyota for a recall, that might be like Sony trying to use the EU/US to go after Wintel for anti trust- really what gain would the US get out of going after Intel just as its going for mobile?
What GM did with the EVs and now the extended range Volt is like MS waiting too long to get into DLC. In terms of empowering the customer, GM is getting into a situation where it can be thumped like Sony will be by cloud computing.
Will GM go far enough? Will they empower the customer with something like a full cloud offering. GM could avoid being eclipsed by offering the customer a full solar charger for the home that can come stock as a complete home solar power solution or upgraded to one. One that critically will never go off when the grid goes off and will never ever turn the meter forwards but can be upgraded even further to turn the needle backwards? MS processed Sony the way it processed AOL, but Steve Perlman of Onlive is doing more than that in truly empowering the customer. Is GM going to go all the way or its it going to let a competitor do it?
A Nissan could come along knowing that it needs to fill the void by pricey unreliable ICE engines and their endless service requirements and it could offer the rest of the package that makes the price really work out for both the customer and the firm. Nissan could do the full disintermediation gig required to prosper. GM’s approach reminds me of insurance and pharmaceutical firms colluding to avoid disintermediation and keep prices high. Right now Volt is like a DLC solution, its like a 360 or a PS3 that could be jacked or be capitulated into being a mere (and hardly necessary) conduit for an OnLive.
A Nissan could a provide a new electric (or extended range electric) and the solar charger could charge the customers existing volt as well and keep the whole house off the grid permanently.
What GM is doing is like trying to sell the first PC without any software. Its also leaving big oil a back door- if we switch to the grid we will find the grid being supplied by big oil and prices going up. That is wrong. BT is already trying to mess with legislation and sell these hugely overpriced usless hobbled solar systems that only work when its sunny out and shut off if the grid ever shuts off and never spin the needle backwards.
That battle was really over publishing. Because publishing is really about speech and speech is most important in its political form the publishing market should have been a pure buyers market where no price control existed and publishers had no ability to suppress information or limit access to it. Everything should have been available by mandate at the library for free or consumers should have long ago had access to all content for one low bundle price where that bundle price was protected by many competitive market players offering the roughly the same univeral bundle.
Its happening now. Its now possible to get unlimited voice, unlimited broadband and all the mobile accoutrements with good coverage without a contract and with a good phone. All this can be had for $45 a month on PCS Metro or $50 for Walmart's brand. In a few years that price will include access to all content as well as good privacy and no strings and probably no ads. Some will say the economics of this doesn’t work, but that’s just a matter of the way we calculate. If we calculate on standard of living it works perfectly.
MS got into it with Sony initially over Sony trying to meddle with resolution standards on a proposed successor to standard NTSC TV in the US. Sony as a foreign competitor operating in US markets didn’t want exposure to US IT in the living room so it tried to create a barrier to entry and tried to use the US congress to do it. At that point the conflict began. It started in earnest over consoles.
As a publishing platform everything that could be wrong with the console model was wrong. Sony itself described it as a “toll booth.” In essence the console platform was a kind of long distance scam. To communicate long distance in real time people used to have to pay AT&T some arbitrary amount. Under Sony consoles mass communication in the living room was becoming subject to Sony collecting similar tolls.
All Microsoft had to do to chip away at that was to offer the end user better value and freedom from plastic disks. Every step of the way, Sony execs kept telling the media and publishers this wasn’t possible and it did take MS longer than it should have to turn around the business case. At the turning point a surprise occured, cloud computing and instant everything approaches like OnLive appeared.
Sony could painfully adapt to DLC and thinner margins but the cloud models are way too much of as stretch. Its worst case scenario had to be what Microsoft initially planned, namely a switch to DLC based online services. One of Sony’s retired CEO’s did say that TV had become just a portal to the internet, but Sony seemed determined to try to prevent or delay this.
GM isn't an actual oil producer but it should understand its new partner better. What GM is facing would be like the whole internet becoming a mesh net were people do occasionally pay for content that they don’t generate but there’s no ISP or phone company to pay because its all wireless back channel. Paying for content that they don’t generate would be kind of like farmer paying only for the vegetable produce that they don't already grow in their back yard, and if that produce is organic there might not even be oil in the fertilizer. If the commute to the store uses a Volt that’s powered off home solar, there won’t be any oil from the grid or the gas station.
GM is where MS was ten years ago in its battle with Sony. Yes this is about disintermediation but it should understand its not just about getting off the equivalent of silly plastic disk oil based land fill fillers and their land fill filler players and their rental lines, its about going very quickly to an environment where the consumer gets everything all the time everywhere with no strings attached for one low bundle price. So bringing in a mere hybrid is like doing a Blu-Ray scam of making the silly plastic disk bigger and trying to charge people more than an attrition price. Making a bunch of noise about that in the media is like trying to scare people with DRM- more paranoid nonsense to address a non problem. Using government to go after Toyota for a recall, that might be like Sony trying to use the EU/US to go after Wintel for anti trust- really what gain would the US get out of going after Intel just as its going for mobile?
What GM did with the EVs and now the extended range Volt is like MS waiting too long to get into DLC. In terms of empowering the customer, GM is getting into a situation where it can be thumped like Sony will be by cloud computing.
Will GM go far enough? Will they empower the customer with something like a full cloud offering. GM could avoid being eclipsed by offering the customer a full solar charger for the home that can come stock as a complete home solar power solution or upgraded to one. One that critically will never go off when the grid goes off and will never ever turn the meter forwards but can be upgraded even further to turn the needle backwards? MS processed Sony the way it processed AOL, but Steve Perlman of Onlive is doing more than that in truly empowering the customer. Is GM going to go all the way or its it going to let a competitor do it?
A Nissan could come along knowing that it needs to fill the void by pricey unreliable ICE engines and their endless service requirements and it could offer the rest of the package that makes the price really work out for both the customer and the firm. Nissan could do the full disintermediation gig required to prosper. GM’s approach reminds me of insurance and pharmaceutical firms colluding to avoid disintermediation and keep prices high. Right now Volt is like a DLC solution, its like a 360 or a PS3 that could be jacked or be capitulated into being a mere (and hardly necessary) conduit for an OnLive.
A Nissan could a provide a new electric (or extended range electric) and the solar charger could charge the customers existing volt as well and keep the whole house off the grid permanently.
What GM is doing is like trying to sell the first PC without any software. Its also leaving big oil a back door- if we switch to the grid we will find the grid being supplied by big oil and prices going up. That is wrong. BT is already trying to mess with legislation and sell these hugely overpriced usless hobbled solar systems that only work when its sunny out and shut off if the grid ever shuts off and never spin the needle backwards.