What if Google Ran a Car Company?

This makes perfect sense and could be a gold mine for a smart auto maker as it allows people to further enjoy and support their favorite brand.

Perhaps Subaru's closer to this than others as they're generally good about responding to queries from customers. The Euros and Honda seem more like "Here IT is. WE know what's good for you. Now just buy it and go away!".

True story
Chevrolet had a clinic for Maxx owners (including me) late in 2004, where factory reps came to Burbank, invited 120 owners, and not only answered many questions and fixed a few problems in our cars, but showed genuine interest in our responses and comments and took lots of notes.
Nothing came of it. Instead, Chevy marketing ignored the suggestions, put stuff on the Maxx that deteriorated its usefulness (sport = huge wheels that reduced turning radius and deteriorated the vehicle dynamics), then dropped the model entirely: A great way to kill brand loyalty.

...and ditto on this topic being one of the best I've seen on STRAIGHTLINE in a long time!

Obviously, the book is all fun conjecture (unless he is really being serious and then his sanity would be the fun conjecture). I agree that every business can potentially look to other industry leaders for examples of what to do right, but there are two points that concern me with this line of thought:

1) Consumer input; consumer whims change constantly for small accessories, but few ever complain about the basic concept of vehicles that are available on the market (except those that want all electric cars). This isn't by accident of course: the idea of "conversing" as he put it is already done through more outlets than simply a website...internet forums, phone/web/paper surveys, focus groups, concept discussions, dealer input, customer trending, etc. all go into the development of every vehicle which leads to the number of vehicles that are out there. In all honesty, the industry as a whole could stand to lose a lot of fat in this regard as is, not to mention that most studies indicate that customers prefer simplicity over complexity in large purchase situations.

2) Cost/Production; Jarvis seems to glaze over this when this is a huge factor in any REAL industry. In the development of physical goods, there are many ways to streamline, cut costs, and decrease lead time on vehicles delivery (if a customer were to order it with special packages). Before changing the current model entirely for pie-in-the-sky, it would be a more sound business decision to focus on what can be accomplished today.

Other than that I am sure it is an interesting read.

Most of that makes little sense but then the value of goggle makes little sense either. People buy shares in not becasue it has any inherent value but because they think they can ride the fad higher. It can vanish overnight because there's nothing behind it.

The reality is Goggle is a product of stock market hype not a real company like an automaker.

"Google listens to us and trusts us when it releases unfinished products as "betas" so we can tell them what to do next... Google wants us involved in the creative process; Detroit doesn't... "

What does he think show cars are? They also spends a lot of money on consumer surveys and focus groups trying to get an idea what people what.

It's easy for Goggle to give out beta versions, they cost nothing to reproduce and the customer can just delete them if they are crap. If GM started selling preproduction cars and they were junk, people would want their money back.

Life is a lot tougher in the real world.

Nice fun conjecture, but don't extrapolate too much from this, because cars are complex and there is the economy of scale you have to consider that makes cars affordable. Google has a few great techonologies that are cheap to "live" to the whole world. Cars have many fantastic technologies that must exist reliably out on the streets in the real world.

And a lot of this has been done before. Before my time, you could order a MOPAR muscle car with 8 different V8 options, custom paint, grill, roof covering, interior, etc. Same with Chevrolets and Fords in the 50's. Engines, paint, acrylic roof, air suspension - you could specify it all. Then you could take it to a local shop and have it further customized, pinstriped, chopped, dropped, nosed and decked. How many people bother to do any of this now, or pay for it?

Sounds a bit eggheaded to me. The premise that consumers don't already have plenty of choices in automobiles is absurd.

America is the most competitive market in the world for automobiles. There are more manufacturers than I can count right now who all are trying to outdo each other and please the consumer. Has he never heard of consumer clinics and concept cars? Automakers spend billions on trying to discern what consumers are going to want in the years to come so that they can be ready with the right product at the right time.

If enough people want something and someone can find a way to build a profitable business model around providing it, then it will happen as long as individual creativity is allowed to flourish, and not restrained by bureaucratic meddling.

While an outside perspective can frequently be good for an industry mired in doing things the way they've always done it because that's the way they've always done it, designing and bringing a car to market is a lot more complex than many outsiders seem to realize. But if someone can devise a better system or an even better form of transportation, they should always have the freedom to try. That is what has given us so many great products and services from which to choose.

It's one thing to take consumer input for a product that is limited only by your imagination, but it's quite another to do the same with a product that is bound by the laws of physics. Google Earth can be conjured like magic. A luxury sedan with sporting intentions and Prius-like fuel economy is not so easily attainable.

I do like many of the ideas, though. I've often thought that a product based on past demand has been doomed to failure, as has been the case in the car industry for years. What automakers need is a business model that can change with the seasons, much like the cellphone industry or the gaming industry. Platform sharing isn't a bad thing if you've got a really good platform.

Also, this book isn't the first to ponder the thought of interchangeable vehicles.
I remember watching a Top Gear episode where James May was testing a fuel cell platform with replaceable cabs. It could be a sedan, a coupe, a truck, or the Oscar Meier Weinermobile.

Hey, where did my comment go? It was here yesterday. Odd...

Here's yet another article covering this topic:
http://tinyurl.com/5vb7v2

The idea seems to be that the domestics have too many brands, too many models, too much capacity and are too slow to repsond to market demands.

Insert loud, "Well DUH!" here please.

In theory it's easy to say jettison the waste, but in reality it's not that simple. Legal entanglements make killing off brands, dealers and factories more expensive (in the short term) than mantaining them. And short-term thinking is all the domestics seem to do these days.

Harley-Davidson is the model that might save the domestics. Stop trying to compete with the Japanese on price or volume. Instead, focus on a few core models that cash in each brand's identity/history (Mustang, F-150, Silverado, Camaro, 300, Challenger, Ram, etc.) and make them REALLY GOOD (and charge whatever it takes to make them really good).

Sales volume will tank, but profitability and long-term viability will soar (ala Harley). After all, aren't those supposed to be the primary concerns for any business in a free market?

Of course, if we're leaving the free market and going to a government-support auto industry then forget everything I just said. All bets are off on how to fix the domestic automakers (and they'll probably never really be "fixed").

Good concept for a book, but judging by the excerpts his analysis is very simplistic. It reads like a first year business course paper.