Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Preston Gralla's picture
Preston Gralla

Seeing Through Windows

Why Steve Jobs should run General Motors

General Motors is looking for tens of billions of bailout dollars from the Feds to stave off bankruptcy. Here's a simpler solution: Get Steve Jobs to take over the top slot at GM. So says the New York Times' Thomas Friedman, and despite my dislike of Jobs, I think Friedman is right.

In his column, Friedman writes about watching a TV interview earlier this year with Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli, who said the auto industry needed $25 billion in loan guarantees, not as a bailout, but to help car companies innovate. His response:

I could not help but shout back at the TV screen: "We have to subsidize Detroit so that it will innovate? What business were you people in other than innovation? If we give you another $25 billion, will you also do accounting?"

The column then goes on to enumerate the bone-headed, short-sighted idiocy of the U.S. auto industry, which has fought innovation every step of the way, and refused to look at the future. For example, he quotes GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz saying that hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius, "make no economic sense." Lutz also told D Magazine of Dallas that global warming "is a total crock of [expletive]."

In return for any bailout, Friedman proposes, the current management and board of GM should go, to be replaced with people capable of turning around the business. After adding other strings that should be attached to a bailout, he offers up this one, slightly tongue in cheek:

Lastly, somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn't need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he'd like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I'd bet it wouldn't take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar.

While I dislike Jobs for his arrogance, his vindictiveness, and the way he uses attack-dog lawyers to muzzle any criticism or dissent, he's probably one of the few people who could turn around G.M. He's a great innovator and designer, and understands what consumers are looking for. He did a brilliant job of turning around Apple. He might be able to do the same for G.M.

And if not Jobs, pick someone else from the tech industry to run G.M. The auto industry has been moribund and hidebound for decades, and incapable of innovation, while the tech industry has been the country's innovation engine. It's time for a tech exec to turn around Detroit.

But not Steve Ballmer, please. We've had madmen running the auto industry for long enough, and look what they've done. One more madman won't solve the problem.

Preston Gralla is a contributing editor for Computerworld, and the author of more than 35 books.

What People Are Saying

Nobody cares Preston.

Nobody cares Preston.

General Motors is in trouble

General Motors is in trouble and has been losing money for years. Their explanation is that combined factors of higher fuel cost, healthcare cost and other commodities are draining profits, not to mention their Asian rival. GM and Chrysler asked for cash advance loans from the Government back in November, along with a request for open lines of credit from Ford. GM Stock has recently taken a huge tumble on the market, after President Obama asked CEO Rick Wagoner to step down from his post as the head of GM and all subsidiaries, which he promptly complied with. Some experts have advocated that both GM and Chrysler declare bankruptcy and merge, with both discarding all brands that aren't competitive. Regardless, it appears dark days are still ahead for General Motors.

Car companies.

Yes, they are mostly out of touch.

As for global warming, climate change, or
whatever the next name will be, there is
currently no conclusive evidence that the
current changes are not a cyclical occurrence
that has happened many times before, or that
man has changed this for the better or the
worse, or that he even could.

Stick to verifiable facts, one of which is there
is just so much of something available in a
fixed size container, so eventually we have to
find something that is renewable without huge
animals and a catastrophe or two being required!

out of touch?

No conclusive evidence that climate change has a human-caused component? I know who's out of touch.

The only important fact is what the customers want

It doesn't matter if global warming is fact or fantasy, or whether we have any control of it. Even if he's right and GW is a crock, people still want to feel like they are making a difference by their choice of transportation.

The point is, the US auto industry is willfully ignorant of what its customers want.

What?

You have to be joking.

The computer manufacturing business is largely photocopying of hyper complex graphical designs with a little bit of robotic assembly. There is a cacophony of interface standards that are mutually incompatible. Wait a week or so and what you have is obsolete, unsupported, or unsupportable.

Auto makers actually have to bend steel, assemble heavy hardware, and make something that MOVES under practically any condition. Their product must survive and perform in the real world of a wide range of weather and road conditions and has basically one interface standard. There is no way people who are accustomed to designing for the marshmallow soft environment of an office can make a high performance, low cost, on and/or off road automobile or truck. Simulators perhaps but not real world vehicles that actually have to function.

Imagine a Vista auto in your garage. It won't start until it phones home to get permission. Then when you need it to perform the most, you get a BSOD. Or if your OS/X auto needed new tires, an oil change, or its tank filled, you could only do that at an approved Apple service station. Replacing the spark plugs would mean you would have to replace the engine because its an "integrated" package. Also you must remember that Gasoline 3.76 won't work with Engine 2.45a. You must have Engine 3.14b or better.

Thanks but no thanks.

I think I will keep my 2001 Blazer a bit longer. It does what I want, they way I want, for a price I can afford.

maybe not build a car, but he can run a company

Guess what, Steve Jobs isn't engineering computers (or photocopying designs). And auto industry execs aren't on the factory floor bending steel, and most never have been. They run a corporation, and the auto execs have proven beyond any doubt that they are not capable of doing so.

To manage something

you really have to know something about the business you are managing. You especially have to know a great deal about the core technology your company uses to make its product. If you don't, you can easily lead your company down the primrose path to oblivion by making stupid decisions based upon hunches firmly planted in mid air.

To manage means to manage SOMETHING. If you don't know what that something IS in significant detail, you can't manage it. You will be reduced to managing what you do know which by definition has nearly nothing to do with the business you are supposed to be managing.

Manage what you know.

Good point. Look what happened to Apple when they brought in someone from Pepsi to run Apple. The company tanked and they ran back to Steve Jobs and bribed him to come back and save their sorry behinds by buying his company Next Computer.

Already happening

It's already starting to go that way. Think OnStar where they can get where you are instantly. Think Flex/Fuel and differing Diesel standards.

As for designing to need costly servicing they've been doing that for years. People just have been getiing around some of them. How else do you explain the invetion of that weird screwhead to get into the headlight assembly when a standard phillips would have done the same job and not required a special tool.

As for integrated components... look at a car made pre-80's compared to one made today.