Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Hmmmm, that comes to about $23,000 and change per car. I don't think they were that cheap so there was money out of their pockets.
I have always been against leasing a car. When you buy the car, market forces determine it's resale value and one of those forces are how many people want to sell them. If too many people would rather have the car than the money, resale holds pretty well. This is true of many limited production cars. My 70 Toronado cost about ten grand in 1970, and it would be worth three times that today if I hadn't smashed it. Hey it wasn't my fault it went so fast. But the same is true of other cars as well.
However if these people actually bought the EV1s they would be legally entitled to keep them as long as they want. But perhaps they were never offered for sale, only lease, like IBM PCs in the eighties. Maybe because of being new technology people preferred a lease. Can't say what was going on in their heads.
There is another factor relating to the automaker's position here. The cars were different and to support the product would've required adaptation in the service industry, which is their baby during the warranty period and after, should they decide to stay in business for a while. As IBM eventually did away with some of the distinguishments of their product, such as MCA slots and the funky other things, this also affected their decision no doubt.
However IBM didn't lack the foresight of GM. They had good reason to believe that they were setting a standard with their funky architecture. On the other hand, with the short lived run of EV1s, how could they not forsee this eventual demise ? In other words, why build them in the first place ?
Thus they lost money, and in the end the customers paid. This is where my advocation of near anarchy ends. When you run a company that is "too big to fail" you are in a position of public trust. Of course GM didn't go bankrupt the next day, but it still had an effect on the economy.
But then I'm sure the bonuses for the execs were abound after the actual production of the EV1, and more subsequently when they were crushed.
Also, though I don't have to watch the video for this, the situation illustrates the difference between cooperation and conspiracy. First of all there must be cooperation between automakers and those who produce fuel for their product. Of course conspiracy might be in the eye of the beholder, but we seem to have beholden alot.
Examples of predatory practices are not new. Think of VHS vs Beta. Beta was actually better and more advanced technology, yet did not prevail. And that's only one.
Actually none of this is really on topic until the title of the thread is considered. If the OP meant these practices in general, it is completely on topic. If the subject is the music industry then it is not. But ceratain rules of the game still apply everywhere, as noted by another.
T
|
RE: This reminds me of General Motors destroying the el... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread