Time To CTRL-ALT-DEL The Auto Industry…

Share

The US auto industry is really hurting right now…

General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have all been seriously impacted by the combined credit crunch and economic slowdown we are going through right now.

Ford’s miserable performance last quarter – an operating loss of over $3 Billion – places it at the top of a sad lot. General Motors is running out of cash and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and Daimler AG has just declared its 19.9% share in Chrysler to be a deprecated asset and valued it at zero.

And everyone expects it to only get worse going forward…

The solution many seem to be clamoring for – some type of financial bailout from Washington – simply isn’t going to solve anything. The most pressing problems faced by the auto industry aren’t temporary – they are core structural problems:

  • Current labor contracts prevent market forces from working.
  • Fully loaded labor costs per automobile are too large.
  • There are way too many dealerships.

Having access to fresh capital won’t help the industry address any of these issues. And any solution that keeps the status quo in place there will only end up delaying the inevitable. As draconian as it may seem, I believe that the only viable path forward for the auto industry today is to hit the RESET button.

They will need to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy…

Why so drastic a step?

The automotive industry needs to reinvent itself from the ground up. It needs to be lean and agile. It needs to be optimized and efficient. It needs to begin thinking like a high technology industry that’s driven by innovation and change, not like a manufacturing industry that thrives on predictability and process stagnation.

Unfortunately, the contractual framework the auto industry is currently forced to operate under will not allow this to happen. It’s the product of a time that no longer exists, and it threatens the viability of the auto industry going forward. It cannot be simply renegotiated around the edges. The changes needed for survival are too sweeping to be shoehorned into the framework the existing contracts are built around.

Voiding them is probably the only way the industry can begin to rebuild itself.

But then what? What should a new 21st century auto industry should focus on if it whats to be successful? While there are probably tons of things that need to be addressed, I see them falling into three main categories:

  1. Intellectual Property Competitive advantage will depend in large part on the underlying assets that can be built into a car. These will cover a range of areas from intelligent/adaptive control systems to engine and power sources technologies. This will be as much about developing intelligent software as it is about advances in material sciences, chemistry, and physics. The challenges offered in this space could end up attracting some of the best and brightest to this industry. It should be one of the highest priorities for investment.
  2. Standards Development Not every component that goes into a car needs to be unique. There are certain commodity components that could be shared across manufactures without compromising the uniqueness of their particular car designs. From fasteners and seals, to embedded processors, to common structural sub components, there are savings to be had in this area. Reducing the number of unique components simplifies parts inventory and assembly line tooling requirements.

    But this shouldn’t be just about physical components.

    A transformed auto industry will be built as much on software as on hardware. Creating standards based interfaces that work across the numerous software components of a car’s design will also become important. With the level of processor performance available today, real time control systems can effectively be designed using a service oriented software architecture to abstract details of the physical devices being managed. This will allow for the development of reusable software components that can be leveraged across car lines – or even be open sourced in more commodity based component areas. Overall, this can reduce testing and production costs, simplify the assembly of new configurations, facilitate integration of new capabilities into existing product lines, and accelerate the introduction of new models and technologies.

  3. Assembly Optimization You would be hard pressed to find a prosperous technology company that completely assembles their own consumer products. It makes little sense for most of them to tie up the massive capital necessary to in-source this part of their business. To be successful, the auto industry needs the ability to scale production up or down rapidly in response to market demand (to better aligning their costs with their revenues), to rapidly shift production capacity to new areas when new market opportunities present themselves, and to leverage their capital in those parts of the business that will ultimately create the most value for them. While politically unpopular, this will most likely require a major change in the way the industry approaches product assembly, bringing it more in line with the way other technology industries operate.

At the end of the process, the auto industry will no doubt look substantially different. There may even be some totally new business models and ecosystems that spring up around it. For example:

  • If cars are built more around standards and software, I could see more revenue coming to the industry through updates and subscriptions – some software only, and some software and hardware. People could even purchase new features long after they purchase a new car. (Think iPhone like interfaces driven by software applications.)
  • I could even see some “manufacturers” getting out of the end production part of the business entirely to focus on the high value component end of the business. This could create an opportunity for new ‘down stream’ car companies to form that license and assemble these components under their own brands.

The industry simply needs to break with the past and be open to thinking differently about the opportunities and markets they can address in the future. Innovation on a business level is as important as innovation on a product level.

It’s what will distinguish the real leaders in this market from everyone else.

While the changes that need to happen in the auto industry are going to be painful in the near term, I see them as an unfortunate but necessary precursor to it becoming a growing, revenue and job producing industry once again. It clearly won’t be easy for the major auto makers to transform themselves, but nothing worth achieving ever is.

A government bailout of the status quo will only make things worse…

Microsoft Paid $300M For This?…

Share

I can’t figure this one out at all…

Microsoft has launched a $300 Million fall advertising campaign in an attempt to come up with some kind of counter punch to Apple’s popular “I’m a MAC” ad’s. The campaign features a series of spots pairing up comedian Jerry Seinfeld with Microsoft chairman Bill Gates – an odd couple to say the least.

The first one aired last night during the opening game of the NFL season:

Is this really Microsoft’s big response?…

It felt like one of those campy “Saturday Night Live” commercials – a put on. I have no clue how they think this will connect with the market or enhance their brand – never mind help them sell something.

The best advice I can give Microsoft is actually a line by the character “Neal Page” from the Steve Martin/John Candy movie “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles”:

…And by the way, you know, when you’re telling these little stories? Here’s a good idea – have a POINT. It makes it SO much more interesting for the listener!


Jerry Seinfeld’s long running eponymous comedy series was affectionately known as “The Show About Nothing”, and this could easily be called “The Commercial About Nothing”. If Microsoft is hoping that this new campaign will jump start sales of Vista, they will need to do a LOT better than this.

We’ll see soon enough where this campaign is heading…

Microsoft & Yahoo – The Time Is Right…

Share

It may be happening…

blog-yahoo-corporate.jpg

Reuters is reporting that Microsoft has made a formal bid for Yahoo:

Technology giant Microsoft Corp said on Friday that it had offered to acquire Internet media company Yahoo Inc for $44.6 billion in cash and stock.

Microsoft said it had offered to buy Yahoo for $31 per share, which it said represented a 62 percent premium above the company’s closing stock price on Nasdaq on Thursday

The time is right for a deal like this…

Yahoo has been humbled over the last few quarters, and is trying to fight its way back into a sustainable and meaningful position in the market. It is currently in a bit of internal turmoil with layoffs pending and a significant reorganization in process. This time around, they may seriously consider a deal like this.

Over that same period, Microsoft has been working to get it’s act together, and has made some progress. They are looking for ways to accelerate growth and build up some momentum, and a combination with Yahoo could offer a lot to them. This may finally give Microsoft the desire to pursue a deal like this aggressively.

And of course, the raison d’être for a deal like this – Google – has finally lost a little momentum in the marketplace, falling short of many peoples growth expectations. This could create a bigger opening for more focused competition.

At a macro level, the uncertain economic conditions in this country will help to “right size” Yahoo’s expectations of what they can achieve on their own, and what value they can place on the company. That will help temper what is probably the biggest deal killer around – big egos.

With all that said, getting a deal like this done will be hard. A merger on this scale would be lengthy and complicated. There are real cultural differences between the two organizations that will need to be worked out. The suite of services being offered – especially around search and advertising – will need to be rationalized. Keeping talent on board throughout the organization – not just in the management suite – will also be a challenge. But despite the obvious hurdles to getting a deal like this done, the combination of Yahoo’s web centric assets with Microsoft’s massive structural advantages is incredibly compelling.

Everything is aligned to make this deal go through.

If it doesn’t happen now, it probably never will…

Move Over Apple – Here Comes Dell…

Share

Pop over to Gadegetell and check out the pictures they have there of the new Dell store that opened in Dallas Texas.

delldallas5.jpg

It seems like Dell may be trying to capture some of that Apple retail magic:

appleministore.jpg

They clearly chose a different designer than Steve…

Followup: One 'No Deal', One 'Real Deal'…

Share

Here’s a followup to my previous post

It appears that the Microsoft/Yahoo discussions were just that… discussions.
It doesn’t appear that there will be any merger coming from this front.

It would have certainly been an interesting merger to see happen, but the reality of combining two massive companies in the technology space probably hung pretty heavy on this one. It could have put some of their excellent technology and content based assets into play that have not been leveraged very well up to this point. Unfortunately, it will now probably take one of these companies getting into a whole lot of trouble before something meaningful will happen – assuming it ever will. Neither needs it badly enough right now to push it hard, and both have a lot more immediate things to deal with.

Probably the best we can expect will be some level of cooperation – for a while anyway…

The other merger I talked about – Thomson and Reuters – appears to be the real deal. In fact, it seems real close to being done.

Thomson and Reuters have issued a joint statement containing some of the key details of the discussed merger, including the new CEO (Tom Glocer), the merged equity structure, and details of the new board structure. From the level of detail being given, this deal is clearly in the final stages.

What I thought was most interesting was that the joint statement starts off with perhaps the most important aspect of making this deal successful:

Both boards believe there is a powerful and compelling logic for the combination which would create a global leader in the business-to-business information markets. This transaction would also create enhanced value for shareholders through the delivery of in excess of US$500 million of annual synergies expected to be achieved within three years.

Tom Glocer has spent the last three years pruning the Reuters organization through a series of efficiency initiatives. Part of this annual $500 million savings will no doubt come from a similar exercise on the Thomson side. The rest will need to come from pruning out overlaps in the product and technology areas. This is the part where things become tricky, because its an area that directly impacts clients.

Clients in the financial market don’t simply buy a product from these vendors, they buy a solution set that they then build whole aspects of their business around. They have significant investments in configuring, training, and supporting specific solutions within their organizations. They have procedures and workflows that depend on specific content and features. Some of these solutions have even been customized specifically for them. They won’t want to lose any of the solutions they have invested in.

Making this even more complicated, many of the larger clients have built internal systems around specific data/information feeds from both these vendors. These are critical systems they use for trading, risk, or modeling. They absolutely won’t want to be forced into rewriting and retesting any of them. And since these firms do a lot of business with both Reuters and Thomson, they will apply whatever pressure they can to keep what they have.

And not lost on anyone involved, Bloomberg will be casting a long shadow here looking to present an alternative to any disaffected client.

Assuming this deal can get past whatever antitrust scrutiny it will come under, it will absolutely change the face of this marketplace. Making it successful will all come down to execution and focus. There will be an enormous amount that needs to be done in a very short time frame, and some very difficult decisions that will need to be made throughout the combined organization to get to a successful conclusion.

It won’t be easy…

Microsoft In Perspective…

Share

I’ve not been shy about pointing out issues that I have with Microsoft, and where I perceive them to be vulnerable in the marketplace. But looking too hard at particular aspects of their business can make you loose perspective on the big picture.

There is a great post over at TechIQ that looks at Microsoft’s most recent quarterly numbers and puts them into perspective vs. other well known companies. It points out that Microsoft has daily earning of $55 million (!), and then looks at how many days it took them to surpase the earnings of other major companies. A couple of ones that caught my eye were:

  • 10 hours to exceed Red Hat’s quarterly net income of $20.5 million.
  • two weeks to exceed Apple’s quarterly net income of $770 million.
  • 18 days to exceed Google’s quarterly net income of $1 billion.

It’s an eye opener, so check it out…