Manufacturing Quality

[john smith]

With the news that Piper will produce the Hondajet, I am wondering if
Piper will be able to produce the finished product to meet Honda's
quality standards.
Piper has not built anything bigger than a Malibu for 20 years.
The Cheyenne IV/LS-400 was the biggest aircraft Piper has produced.

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

> With the news that Piper will produce the Hondajet, I am wondering if
> Piper will be able to produce the finished product to meet Honda's
> quality standards.
> Piper has not built anything bigger than a Malibu for 20 years.
> The Cheyenne IV/LS-400 was the biggest aircraft Piper has produced.

I don't see why not. Americans at the Honda plants in Ohio produce cars
and motorcycles to Honda quality standards. And, based on my experience
with an 84 Honda Accord, purchased new, those standards aren't all that
high. The engine failed at 80,000 miles. Haven't owned a Honda product
since.


Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

> And, based on my experience with an 84 Honda Accord, purchased new, those standards aren't all that high. The engine failed at 80,000 miles.

There were some early Honda engines that required high octane gas, and
would fail when fed a diet of regular. Was this perhaps one of them?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> john smith wrote:
>
>> With the news that Piper will produce the Hondajet, I am wondering if
>> Piper will be able to produce the finished product to meet Honda's
>> quality standards.
>> Piper has not built anything bigger than a Malibu for 20 years.
>> The Cheyenne IV/LS-400 was the biggest aircraft Piper has produced.
>
> I don't see why not. Americans at the Honda plants in Ohio produce cars
> and motorcycles to Honda quality standards. And, based on my experience
> with an 84 Honda Accord, purchased new, those standards aren't all that
> high. The engine failed at 80,000 miles. Haven't owned a Honda product
> since.
>
>
> Matt

That's a rare case. What was the failure? I know of plenty of people who put
many, many miles on 80's vintage Accords with excellent reliability.

My current Accord has 217k miles and has had zero powertrain issues. No
engine work other than replacing the timing belt every 105k miles. No CV
work. No tranny work, and it even has the original clutch.

Since the late 70's, Hondas and Toyotas have been about as reliabile as
hammers.

KB

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:27:12 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>:

>With the news that Piper will produce the Hondajet,

Where did you get the idea that Piper will be doing production work
for Honda?

From Honda's statement below, it appears Piper will be doing only
sales and service, and perhaps some engineering.




http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=2006072535888
07.25.06
Honda to Begin Sales of Very Light Jet - 'HondaJet'
Honda and Piper Aircraft to Form New Business Alliance

Honda today announced plans to enter the innovative HondaJet in the
growing very light jet market, with the process of accepting sales
orders expected to begin in the U.S. in fall 2006. Toward this goal,
Honda will establish a new U.S. company to hold FAA type certification
and production certification. Honda's goal is to complete type
certification in about 3-4 years, followed by the start of production
in the U.S.

Making the announcement at the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA)
AirVenture 2006, the world's largest annual aviation gathering, Honda
also revealed plans to form a business alliance with Piper Aircraft,
Inc. to collaborate on sales and service, and to explore opportunities
in engineering and other areas within general and business aviation.

Honda and Piper will provide a new level of sales and service to meet
the needs of jet customers with the goal of setting a higher standard
for the quality of the ownership experience. No specific details
regarding additional collaboration were announced.

"Aviation has been an important dream of Honda for more than four
decades," said Satoshi Toshida, senior managing director of Honda
Motor Co., Ltd. "Our goal is consistent with the philosophy of other
Honda products -- to provide convenient and efficient transportation
that will make people's lives better. We are excited now to enter a
new dimension of mobility."

"In Piper we believe we have a partner we can collaborate with in our
effort to bring new value to customers in the very light jet market,"
said Toshida.

"Honda is a company with a rich heritage of bringing high quality,
innovative products to market," said James K. Bass, president and CEO
of Piper Aircraft, Inc. "This business alliance is a perfect fit given
the commitment both Piper and Honda have to providing our respective
customers with world class products and services. Piper is very
excited about this alliance and the way it complements our vision for
the future."

HondaJet features several innovations that help it achieve far better
fuel efficiency, larger cabin and luggage space and higher cruise
speed than conventional aircraft in its class. The announcement to
commercialize HondaJet comes one year after the plane made its world
public debut at EAA AirVenture 2005 in Oshkosh, Wis.

The result of 20 years of aviation research, key HondaJet innovations
include a patented over-the-wing engine-mount configuration, a
natural-laminar flow (NLF) wing and fuselage nose, and an advanced
all-composite fuselage structure.

"We want to create new value within the aviation market through the
unique new design of HondaJet," said Michimasa Fujino, HondaJet
project leader and vice president of Honda R&D Americas, Inc. "Our
goal is to deliver three key attributes - performance, quality and
comfort - beyond what people currently expect from light business
jets."

HondaJet's NLF wing and NLF fuselage nose were developed through
extensive analyses and wind-tunnel testing. These designs help
HondaJet achieve low drag. HondaJet's patented over-the-wing
engine-mount configuration helps eliminate the need for a structure to
mount the engines to the rear fuselage, maximizing space in the
fuselage for passengers and luggage. Further, by determining the
optimal position for the engines, the over-the-wing mount actually
reduces drag at high speed to improve fuel efficiency.

The advanced all-composite fuselage structure consists of a
combination of honeycomb sandwich structure and co-cured stiffened
panels. It was developed to reduce weight and manufacturing costs.
This aircraft is also outfitted with a state-of-the-art all-glass
flight deck with an integrated avionics system that displays all
information digitally on a high resolution flat display, and also has
an autopilot function.

To date the prototype six-to-seven seat HondaJet has completed more
than 240 hours of flight-testing since December 2003. So far, the
prototype HondaJet has achieved an altitude of 43,000 feet and a speed
of 412 knots and is on course to meet or exceed all of its design
specifications.

Piper Aircraft, Inc., headquartered in Vero Beach, Fla., is the only
general aviation manufacturer to offer a complete line of aircraft for
every general aviation mission, from trainers and high-performance
aircraft for personal and business use to turbine-powered business
aircraft. In its 70-year history, Piper has produced more than 144,000
aircraft and developed more than 180 different models. Piper covers
the global marketplace with 80 sales and service centers worldwide.

Honda is one of the world's leading producers of mobility products
including its diverse line-up of automobiles, motorcycles and ATVs,
power products, marine engines and personal watercraft. Honda is the
world's preeminent engine-maker, with annual worldwide production of
more than 20 million engines. On a global basis, Honda has more than
130 manufacturing facilities in 29 nations.

Honda began operations in North America in 1959 with the establishment
of American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda's first overseas subsidiary.
Honda began assembling motorcycles in America in 1979, with U.S.
automobile manufacturing starting in 1982. Honda now employs more than
28,000 Americans in the design, manufacture and marketing of its
products in America. Honda currently builds products in 13
manufacturing plants in North America, with three major R&D centers in
the U.S.

For more information, and for access to HondaJet photography and video
footage, please go to hondanews.com. For additional information on
HondaJet, please go to world.honda.com/hondajet.

HondaJet Backgrounder

Background:

The HondaJet is an advanced, lightweight, compact very light jet (VLJ)
that features pioneering wing and engine mount designs that have
helped achieve far better fuel efficiency, more available cabin and
luggage space, and higher cruise speed than conventional aircraft in
its class.



HondaJet Innovation:

A natural-laminar flow (NLF) wing and NLF fuselage nose were developed
through extensive analyses and wind tunnel testing - these designs
help achieve low drag at high speed together with a high lift
coefficient.
A patented over-the-wing engine-mount configuration was developed.
This design strategy eliminated the need for a structure to mount the
engines to the rear fuselage and, thus, maximizes cabin and luggage
space in the fuselage. The configuration is also expected to reduce
noise in the cabin. Further, by determining the optimal position for
the engines, the over-the-wing mount actually reduces drag at high
speed to improve fuel efficiency.
An advanced all-composite fuselage structure, consisting of a
combination of honeycomb sandwich structure and co-cured stiffened
panels, was developed to reduce weight and manufacturing costs.


Milestone Achievements:

HondaJet was designed and developed from the ground up by Honda in the
U.S. and Japan. Research work that led to the creation of HondaJet
began in 1986. The plane was constructed by Honda R&D Americas in
North Carolina and all flight tests have been conducted in the U.S..

Major ground tests such as structural proof tests, control-system
proof test, system function tests and ground vibration tests were
completed by December 2003.
HondaJet has recorded more than 240 flight hours through July 2006
HondaJet has achieved an altitude of 43,000 feet and a speed of 412
knots


Basic Design Specifications:

Following are the basic specification of the prototype HondaJet
design:

Seating 6-7 (2 crew + 5 passengers -or- 1 pilot + 6 passengers)
Maximum Speed 778 km/hr (420 knots)
Engine HF-118 Turbofan Engine - x 2
Length x Width x Height 12.67 x 12.2 x 4.1 m (41.6 x 39.9 x 13.2 ft)
Operational Ceiling 12,497 m (41,000 ft)
Range 2,037 km (1,100 nm)


Honda Aviation - A Brief History
1986: Honda begins research in Japan on both small aircraft and jet
engines.

1993: Honda begins research on composite body aircraft with
Mississippi State University (MSU), leading to development of aircraft
called "MH-02" that is jointly fabricated and tested by Honda and MSU.
Research continues until 1996.

1995: Honda begins high altitude testing of its first generation
turbofan engine, HFX-01, conducting more than 70hours of tests through
1996.

1999: Development begins of the HF118 turbofan jet engine in the 1,000
to 3,500-pound thrust class. Compact, lightweight, low emission, fuel
efficient.

2000: Honda R&D Americas establishes a research facility at Piedmont
Triad International Airport in North Carolina in October 2000 for the
purpose of researching, fabricating and flight testing of HondaJet.

2002: Honda conducts high altitude tests of the HF118 engine starting
in June 2002. Honda publishes and reports its first technical paper in
June 2002 concerning technological achievements of the new airframe.
Honda continues publishing technical papers, with the most recent
paper in June 2005.

2003: HondaJet takes first test flight, December 3, 2003. Honda makes
first public announcement of the achievement days later.

2004: Honda and GE Aviation announce February 16, 2004, an alliance to
commercialize the HF 118 engine, and establish a joint venture,
GE-Honda Aero Engines, LLC, in October 2004, to pursue the
development, production and sales of Honda's HF118 turbofan engine in
the light business jet market.

In July 2004, Honda establishes Honda Aero, Inc. to manage its
aircraft engine business in the U.S. and the Wako Nishi R&D Center in
Japan to research and develop turbofan jet and piston aviation
engines.



2005: HondaJet makes its public "world debut" at the EAA AirVenture
2005 in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, July 28, 2005.



2006: Honda announces that it will commercialize HondaJet at the EAA
AirVenture 2006 in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, July 25, 2006.






©2006 American Honda Motor Co., Inc. All information contained herein
applies to U.S. vehicles only.
Please see our Privacy Policy and Legal Terms and Conditions. Visit
Honda.com.
site map

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
>> And, based on my experience with an 84 Honda Accord, purchased new,
>> those standards aren't all that high. The engine failed at 80,000 miles.
>
>
> There were some early Honda engines that required high octane gas, and
> would fail when fed a diet of regular. Was this perhaps one of them?

I don't think so. The failure was of the cam and rocker arms. It
appeared to be either a lubrication failure or a metallurgy failure of
either the cam or rockers, possibly due to improper heat treatment.
Honda showed no interest in finding out what happened and absolutely no
interest in standing behind their product. Yes, it was out of warranty,
however, this certainly wasn't a normal failure mode for an engine,
especially one maintained well. I used Mobil 1 and changed the oil at
5,000 miles. This is the only car I've owned in 30 years that has ever
had a catastrophic engine failure (not counting things like water
pumps). I thought Honda might meet me half way and at least offer to
cover parts. Not only didn't they do that, but there response to my
letter was to accuse me of failing to maintain the car properly. After
I sent them copies of my logbook (20 or so pages as I recall), they
replied back saying they couldn't see any obvious deficiency in the
maintenance, but then stuck their foot in their mouth even deeper and
said that 80,000 miles was within the nominal expected service life of a
Honda engine. Since 80,000 isn't even close to my expectations for a
well maintained engine, I've since bought vehicles from folks with
higher standards.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>john smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>With the news that Piper will produce the Hondajet, I am wondering if
>>>Piper will be able to produce the finished product to meet Honda's
>>>quality standards.
>>>Piper has not built anything bigger than a Malibu for 20 years.
>>>The Cheyenne IV/LS-400 was the biggest aircraft Piper has produced.
>>
>>I don't see why not. Americans at the Honda plants in Ohio produce cars
>>and motorcycles to Honda quality standards. And, based on my experience
>>with an 84 Honda Accord, purchased new, those standards aren't all that
>>high. The engine failed at 80,000 miles. Haven't owned a Honda product
>>since.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> That's a rare case. What was the failure? I know of plenty of people who put
> many, many miles on 80's vintage Accords with excellent reliability.

I agree. It problem was a random manufacturing defect. The reason I
won't own a Honda again isn't the failure, it is due to Honda's response
to the failure (see a post I just made). Accusing your customer of
neglect in response to an unreasonable failure of your product, is
simply stupid and I refuse to buy products from a stupid manufacturer.
There are just too many choices today to have to do that.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>john smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>With the news that Piper will produce the Hondajet, I am wondering if
>>>Piper will be able to produce the finished product to meet Honda's
>>>quality standards.
>>>Piper has not built anything bigger than a Malibu for 20 years.
>>>The Cheyenne IV/LS-400 was the biggest aircraft Piper has produced.
>>
>>I don't see why not. Americans at the Honda plants in Ohio produce cars
>>and motorcycles to Honda quality standards. And, based on my experience
>>with an 84 Honda Accord, purchased new, those standards aren't all that
>>high. The engine failed at 80,000 miles. Haven't owned a Honda product
>>since.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> That's a rare case. What was the failure? I know of plenty of people who put
> many, many miles on 80's vintage Accords with excellent reliability.

I agree. It probably was a random manufacturing defect. The reason I
won't own a Honda again isn't the failure, it is due to Honda's response
to the failure (see a post I just made). Accusing your customer of
neglect in response to an unreasonable failure of your product, is
simply stupid and I refuse to buy products from a stupid manufacturer.
There are just too many choices today to have to do that.

Matt

[Skywise]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Kyle Boatright wrote:
<Snipola>

>> That's a rare case. What was the failure? I know of plenty of people
>> who put many, many miles on 80's vintage Accords with excellent
>> reliability.
>
> I agree. It problem was a random manufacturing defect. The reason I
> won't own a Honda again isn't the failure, it is due to Honda's response
> to the failure (see a post I just made). Accusing your customer of
> neglect in response to an unreasonable failure of your product, is
> simply stupid and I refuse to buy products from a stupid manufacturer.
> There are just too many choices today to have to do that.

There've been a few business relationships I've terminated
due not to the severity of the problem, but due to the
failure upon the company's customer service folks to even
comprehend the slightest detail of said problem.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jon Kraus]

The reason you express for never buying a Honda again is the same as
mine for never buying another Ford product. Ford was in my family for
years and years. I grew up in Michigan (south of Detroit) and my family
was totally immersed in the auto industry. My father was a manager at
Ford for 36 years and we NEVER drove anything but Fords.

My wife however liked Toyota Camry's (much to my chagrin) and couldn't
be talked into buying an American car brand. That is until one day when
her Camry was starting to show some signs of wear at 175,000 miles and I
decided to purchase 2 brand new Ford vehicles. She went along with it
although skeptical. She ended up being right.... Her car (a Mercury
Mystique or Mistake as she called it) broke down several times. It was
in warrantee so Ford fixed it at no charge.

She got tired of dealing with the car so we put it up for sale and she
bought another used Camry. The Mystique's air-conditioning broke down
(just by sitting in our driveway) and the car was only a thousand or two
miles out of warrantee.

I went through the red tape and jumped through the hoops that Ford makes
you go though only to have them deny my claim and not do anything for
me. I paid for the repairs and wrote them a letter stating my
disappointment and how I would never buy one of their products again. Of
course I received no response.

I've since purchased a used Honda Accord and happily put over 120k on it
with nary an issue. When this on goes TU I'll buy another one.

So now my wife and I drive Japanese cars (but they are built here) and
are totally happy with them. The frosting on the cake for me was that I
see where Toyota just took over second place from Ford in US car sales.
What is Fords response? To hire some expensive PR firm to prop their
sagging image. They are clueless that in this day of $3.00 a gallon gas
they need to build a better car and getaway from the sugar-tit that is
the big SUV and pickup truck. Heck, I see that Honda is now making a
better full-size pickup truck than Ford's F-150. Ford though they would
never see the day when that happened.

Oh yea.... to keep this airplane related and avoid the dreaded OT in the
subject.... I drive old Japanese cars so I can own and fly my Mooney!! :-)

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP




Matt Whiting wrote:

> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> john smith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> With the news that Piper will produce the Hondajet, I am wondering
>>>> if Piper will be able to produce the finished product to meet
>>>> Honda's quality standards.
>>>> Piper has not built anything bigger than a Malibu for 20 years.
>>>> The Cheyenne IV/LS-400 was the biggest aircraft Piper has produced.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see why not. Americans at the Honda plants in Ohio produce
>>> cars and motorcycles to Honda quality standards. And, based on my
>>> experience with an 84 Honda Accord, purchased new, those standards
>>> aren't all that high. The engine failed at 80,000 miles. Haven't
>>> owned a Honda product since.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a rare case. What was the failure? I know of plenty of people
>> who put many, many miles on 80's vintage Accords with excellent
>> reliability.
>
>
> I agree. It problem was a random manufacturing defect. The reason I
> won't own a Honda again isn't the failure, it is due to Honda's response
> to the failure (see a post I just made). Accusing your customer of
> neglect in response to an unreasonable failure of your product, is
> simply stupid and I refuse to buy products from a stupid manufacturer.
> There are just too many choices today to have to do that.
>
> Matt

[.Blueskies.]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
: On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:27:12 GMT, john smith > wrote in
: >:
:
: >With the news that Piper will produce the Hondajet,
:
: Where did you get the idea that Piper will be doing production work
: for Honda?
:
: From Honda's statement below, it appears Piper will be doing only
: sales and service, and perhaps some engineering.
:


That was exactly my understanding, and that Piper and Honda may do some other ventures also. But Honda will build the
jet in the new plant location tbd...

[Newps]

Jon Kraus wrote:
Heck, I see that Honda is now making a
> better full-size pickup truck than Ford's F-150.

Please. I like Honda cars but that thing they build is not a full size
truck.

[Jon Kraus]

You may be correct... I see that it is noticeably smaller than the F-150.

Jon

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Jon Kraus wrote:
> Heck, I see that Honda is now making a
>
>> better full-size pickup truck than Ford's F-150.
>
>
> Please. I like Honda cars but that thing they build is not a full size
> truck.

[Newps]

The Japanese have not figured out why we Americans want full size
trucks. They keep nibbling around the edges. We want big and powerful.
If Honda builds a truck that looks like my F250 crew cab and gives me
a motor with 600 pounds of torque I'll look at it. Until then they're
just toys for the girlie man.




Jon Kraus wrote:
> You may be correct... I see that it is noticeably smaller than the F-150.
>
> Jon
>
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jon Kraus wrote:
>> Heck, I see that Honda is now making a
>>
>>> better full-size pickup truck than Ford's F-150.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please. I like Honda cars but that thing they build is not a full
>> size truck.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> The Japanese have not figured out why we Americans want full size
> trucks. They keep nibbling around the edges. We want big and powerful.
> If Honda builds a truck that looks like my F250 crew cab and gives me
> a motor with 600 pounds of torque I'll look at it. Until then they're
> just toys for the girlie man.


Exactly. I recently witnessed a Toyota Tundra trying to pull a 2-horse
trailer. Not sure if there were any horses in it (I assume there
were... but remember that we're talking about a small trailer), and the
rear bumper was nearly dragging on the ground, with the front end up in
the air. Would be a piece of cake for even an F-150 properly equipped.

The Japanese trucks are appealing (though I think Ford has figured out
how to build a quality truck), they are nothing by very light duty
trucks--even the big ones.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> That's a rare case. What was the failure? I know of plenty of people who put
> many, many miles on 80's vintage Accords with excellent reliability.
>
> My current Accord has 217k miles and has had zero powertrain issues. No
> engine work other than replacing the timing belt every 105k miles. No CV
> work. No tranny work, and it even has the original clutch.

My wife had a 1994 Accord (purchased new), always properly maintained,
but the thing was a pain in the neck to work on. It was affected by an
oil seal recall; I forget where the seal was, but when (not if) it blew,
all of the oil got pumped out of the engine. It happened to my wife
shortly after she received the recall notice. Thankfully, she was close
to home. Honda did pick up the tab for tearing the car apart to replace
the seal (not for the towing), but at around 115k she starting having
transmission and/or torque converter issues (auto transmission). It was
also rusting in quite a few places, including FROM THE INSIDE OUT. Due
to the compounding small problems and the fact that it was useless in
the snow (even with top-shelf tires), we ditched it and bought a Subaru.

We've had good luck with the Subaru, except for some small annoyances
which the Honda may or may not have had, such as inaccurate speedometer
(errors high), etc. I know others folks who just love their Hondas, but
who have had some fairly major failures while their cars were still
young.

Driving the Honda Accord was decent but rather uninspiring--a boring
car. I didn't see anything spectacular about Honda compared with other
Japanese brands, but it's clear that Honda has greater brand loyalty.

On another note, I have a Honda engine on my $700 lawnmower, and it's
already having problems after only 1.5 years since new. It runs great,
but if small things keep breaking it's going to nickel and dime me to
death.



JKG

[Matt Whiting]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>The Japanese have not figured out why we Americans want full size
>>trucks. They keep nibbling around the edges. We want big and powerful.
>> If Honda builds a truck that looks like my F250 crew cab and gives me
>>a motor with 600 pounds of torque I'll look at it. Until then they're
>>just toys for the girlie man.
>
>
>
> Exactly. I recently witnessed a Toyota Tundra trying to pull a 2-horse
> trailer. Not sure if there were any horses in it (I assume there
> were... but remember that we're talking about a small trailer), and the
> rear bumper was nearly dragging on the ground, with the front end up in
> the air. Would be a piece of cake for even an F-150 properly equipped.

Even the standard F-150 is now pretty wimpy. When I called to inquire
about a snowplow for my K1500 a few years ago, the first question they
asked me when I asked for a price was if I had an F-150. The reason is
that the standard 150 doesn't have adequate front springs to handle a
snow plow. I don't know if I have these numbers exactly right, but
Western requires a truck to have something like 3800 lb front springs,
which Chevy and Dodge have standard, but Ford uses something like 3100
lb as standard and they have to be beefed up for plow duty and this
added a fair chunk of change to the price of the plow installation.


Matt

[Newps]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:


> (though I think Ford has figured out
> how to build a quality truck)

Think? The F150 has been the best selling truck in this country for the
last 30 years running.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
>
>> (though I think Ford has figured out how to build a quality truck)
>
>
> Think? The F150 has been the best selling truck in this country for the
> last 30 years running.

And Microsoft is the best selling OS. What has that to do with quality?

Matt

[Newps]

That's because Ford doesn't force everybody to buy a truck that rides
worse because one twentieth of one percent of the trucks will have a
snowplow hung on the front. If you want the snowplow package you order it.

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Newps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The Japanese have not figured out why we Americans want full size
>>> trucks. They keep nibbling around the edges. We want big and
>>> powerful. If Honda builds a truck that looks like my F250 crew cab
>>> and gives me a motor with 600 pounds of torque I'll look at it.
>>> Until then they're just toys for the girlie man.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly. I recently witnessed a Toyota Tundra trying to pull a
>> 2-horse trailer. Not sure if there were any horses in it (I assume
>> there were... but remember that we're talking about a small trailer),
>> and the rear bumper was nearly dragging on the ground, with the front
>> end up in the air. Would be a piece of cake for even an F-150
>> properly equipped.
>
>
> Even the standard F-150 is now pretty wimpy. When I called to inquire
> about a snowplow for my K1500 a few years ago, the first question they
> asked me when I asked for a price was if I had an F-150. The reason is
> that the standard 150 doesn't have adequate front springs to handle a
> snow plow. I don't know if I have these numbers exactly right, but
> Western requires a truck to have something like 3800 lb front springs,
> which Chevy and Dodge have standard, but Ford uses something like 3100
> lb as standard and they have to be beefed up for plow duty and this
> added a fair chunk of change to the price of the plow installation.
>
>
> Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> > Think? The F150 has been the best selling truck in this country for the
> > last 30 years running.
>
> And Microsoft is the best selling OS. What has that to do with quality?

few people buy an F-150 because that's what they are forced to use
at work.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
> That's because Ford doesn't force everybody to buy a truck that rides
> worse because one twentieth of one percent of the trucks will have a
> snowplow hung on the front. If you want the snowplow package you order it.

I thought you were the one who didn't like the "girlie man" trucks.
That is what a standard F-150 is. Then again, 95% of truck buyers don't
use then as a truck. Which means that Toyota, Nissan and Honda will
likely do very well longer-term with their car-like trucks.

Matt

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>>
>>
>>> (though I think Ford has figured out how to build a quality truck)
>>
>>
>>
>> Think? The F150 has been the best selling truck in this country for
>> the last 30 years running.
>
>
> And Microsoft is the best selling OS. What has that to do with quality?

Everything when there is competition. You don't buy Windows, you buy a
computer that has Windows.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>> That's because Ford doesn't force everybody to buy a truck that rides
>> worse because one twentieth of one percent of the trucks will have a
>> snowplow hung on the front. If you want the snowplow package you
>> order it.
>
>
> I thought you were the one who didn't like the "girlie man" trucks.

I don't. I own an F250, the 150 won't tow my 5th wheel at freeway
speeds plus it is too small.


That
> is what a standard F-150 is. Then again, 95% of truck buyers don't use
> then as a truck. Which means that Toyota, Nissan and Honda will likely
> do very well longer-term with their car-like trucks.

We'll see. They haven't so far these last 30 years.

[Sylvain]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

>> The Japanese have not figured out why we Americans want full size
>> trucks.
>
> Exactly.
>

alternatively, may be the Japanese have figured out exactly why *most*
people buy a SUV/truck; you guys are talking about towing large trailers
and plowing snow and other heavy duty stuff, while most SUV/truck users
drive the thing to commute to work on clean well paved (well, mostly well
paved, can't really consider 101 to be well paved but it's not really
offroad driving either) highways, and the worst cargo these vehicles
ever see is the occasional groceries bag or may be, more rarely but I
have seen it, honest, a mountain bike or two (for those who actually
go outdoors rather than just faking it); i.e., you guys who use
trucks for what it was intended, rather than just a status symbol,
are in a minority...

--Sylvain

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:
> > (though I think Ford has figured out
> > how to build a quality truck)
>
> Think? The F150 has been the best selling truck in this country for the
> last 30 years running.

Actually, the F-150 has been the best selling VEHICLE in the US for
quite a while now. Ford sold just shy of 1 million F-series trucks in
2005.

I sure hope that Ford can get past its current problems without slipping
on quality. It seems that Ford's passengers cars are just beginning to
look appealing.


JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Even the standard F-150 is now pretty wimpy. When I called to inquire
> about a snowplow for my K1500 a few years ago, the first question they
> asked me when I asked for a price was if I had an F-150. The reason is


The "standard" F150 may be pretty wimpy, but it's roughly equivalent in
capability to the "premium" Japanese offerings. If you want to tow, you
buy the appropriate package, which includes more than a trailer hitch.
If you want a snow plow on the front, you buy the appropriate package.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:
> I thought you were the one who didn't like the "girlie man" trucks.
> That is what a standard F-150 is. Then again, 95% of truck buyers don't
> use then as a truck. Which means that Toyota, Nissan and Honda will
> likely do very well longer-term with their car-like trucks.

Well, in 2005 Ford sold almost 10 times as many F-series trucks as the
closet Japanese competitor (Toyota). If 95% of truck buyers don't "use
it as a truck," there's still something that those buyers like better
about a Ford truck.



JKG

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
>
>> (though I think Ford has figured out how to build a quality truck)
>
> Think? The F150 has been the best selling truck in this country for the
> last 30 years running.

I bought a new F150 some years ago. Biggest piece of poorly assembled,
unreliable piece of crap I ever owned.

[Judah]

Newps > wrote in
:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> And Microsoft is the best selling OS. What has that to do with quality?
>
> Everything when there is competition. You don't buy Windows, you buy a
> computer that has Windows.
>

Actually, several companies, including Dell and IBM, tried to market PCs with
Linux on them instead of Windows. OS/2 failed, not for quality. Even Apple
had to give in to the MS OS wars, with their new ads that indicate their new
Macs run Windows...

Microsoft has competition. They're just better marketers.


If it were just about the better mousetrap we'd all be rich.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote
>
> I bought a new F150 some years ago. Biggest piece of poorly assembled,
> unreliable piece of crap I ever owned.

Yep. The thing is, F-150 owners aren't smart enough to realize that pickup
trucks are NOT supposed to be pieces of crap! <g>

I've worked on both. Although GM occasionally likes to stick things in
hard-to-get-at places, Ford likes to do **** poor engineering.

JMHO, mind you! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[.Blueskies.]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
:
: "Dave Stadt" > wrote
: >
: > I bought a new F150 some years ago. Biggest piece of poorly assembled,
: > unreliable piece of crap I ever owned.
:
: Yep. The thing is, F-150 owners aren't smart enough to realize that pickup
: trucks are NOT supposed to be pieces of crap! <g>
:
: I've worked on both. Although GM occasionally likes to stick things in
: hard-to-get-at places, Ford likes to do **** poor engineering.
:
: JMHO, mind you! ;-)
: --
: Jim in NC
:

And how may of them don't turn in to rust in 10 years. When I see an old rust bucket rolling down the road, odds are it
is a Ford. I think they finally figured out how to do better metal prep about 5 years ago, but we'll see....

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> (though I think Ford has figured out how to build a quality truck)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Think? The F150 has been the best selling truck in this country for
>>> the last 30 years running.
>>
>>
>>
>> And Microsoft is the best selling OS. What has that to do with quality?
>
>
> Everything when there is competition. You don't buy Windows, you buy a
> computer that has Windows.

Almost everyone who uses or tests computers reports that Apple computers
are of higher quality than IBM architecture PCs. There is competition,
and quality wasn't the dominant factor as it often isn't.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>> That's because Ford doesn't force everybody to buy a truck that rides
>>> worse because one twentieth of one percent of the trucks will have a
>>> snowplow hung on the front. If you want the snowplow package you
>>> order it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought you were the one who didn't like the "girlie man" trucks.
>
>
> I don't. I own an F250, the 150 won't tow my 5th wheel at freeway
> speeds plus it is too small.
>
>
> That
>
>> is what a standard F-150 is. Then again, 95% of truck buyers don't
>> use then as a truck. Which means that Toyota, Nissan and Honda will
>> likely do very well longer-term with their car-like trucks.
>
>
> We'll see. They haven't so far these last 30 years.

They haven't had any thing close to a full-size truck until fairly recently.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Even the standard F-150 is now pretty wimpy. When I called to inquire
>>about a snowplow for my K1500 a few years ago, the first question they
>>asked me when I asked for a price was if I had an F-150. The reason is
>
>
>
> The "standard" F150 may be pretty wimpy, but it's roughly equivalent in
> capability to the "premium" Japanese offerings. If you want to tow, you
> buy the appropriate package, which includes more than a trailer hitch.
> If you want a snow plow on the front, you buy the appropriate package.

Yes, and the appropriate package is a base Chevy or Dodge. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>I thought you were the one who didn't like the "girlie man" trucks.
>>That is what a standard F-150 is. Then again, 95% of truck buyers don't
>>use then as a truck. Which means that Toyota, Nissan and Honda will
>>likely do very well longer-term with their car-like trucks.
>
>
> Well, in 2005 Ford sold almost 10 times as many F-series trucks as the
> closet Japanese competitor (Toyota). If 95% of truck buyers don't "use
> it as a truck," there's still something that those buyers like better
> about a Ford truck.

Its called the lemming affect. It took a while to fade in the car
market, but now it is almost gone, other than Toyota seems to be
developing it quite well for its cars. Trucks will follow, unfortunately.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:

> Newps > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And Microsoft is the best selling OS. What has that to do with quality?
>>
>>Everything when there is competition. You don't buy Windows, you buy a
>>computer that has Windows.
>>
>
>
> Actually, several companies, including Dell and IBM, tried to market PCs with
> Linux on them instead of Windows. OS/2 failed, not for quality. Even Apple
> had to give in to the MS OS wars, with their new ads that indicate their new
> Macs run Windows...
>
> Microsoft has competition. They're just better marketers.

Which was my point exactly. Newps doesn't understand that quality and
sales volume are often not correlated.

Matt

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:
> > Well, in 2005 Ford sold almost 10 times as many F-series trucks as the
> > closet Japanese competitor (Toyota). If 95% of truck buyers don't "use
> > it as a truck," there's still something that those buyers like better
> > about a Ford truck.
>
> Its called the lemming affect. It took a while to fade in the car
> market, but now it is almost gone, other than Toyota seems to be
> developing it quite well for its cars. Trucks will follow, unfortunately.


The Ford F-150 has been the best selling truck for 30 years straight.
It has been the best selling VEHICLE in the United States for quite a
number of consecutive years. That isn't because of a "lemming effect,"
though I know quite a few Honda and Toyota owners who are definitely
lemmings.

Ford would have to fall pretty hard for a pretty long time in order for
the Japanese to catch up. Ford's fall would have to be combined with a
broader and more capable line of Japanese trucks (i.e. heavy duty). So
far, the Japanese haven't been willing to make a truly heavy duty truck
for the mass market.

In 2005, Ford sold just shy of 1 million F-series trucks. The closest
Japanese competitor--Toyota--sold around 125,000 trucks. That's a huge
gap, and in the middle was Dodge with around 450,000 and GM, with
somewhere around 800,000, I believe. The Ford/GM dominance of the truck
market likely makes the costs to gain market share prohibitive for the
Japanese competitors.

One thing that neither Ford nor GM have is a decent small or mid-sized
truck. Toyota and Nissan both have decent mid-sized offerings in the
redesigned Tacoma and Frontier. Dodge had a great truck in the Dakota
until the redesign (I think it was 2005) that basically ruined it, in my
opinion.




JKG

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> We want big and powerful.
>

Until the fuel prices climb some more...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:
> Actually, several companies, including Dell and IBM, tried to market PCs with
>
> Linux on them instead of Windows. OS/2 failed, not for quality. Even Apple
> had to give in to the MS OS wars, with their new ads that indicate their new
> Macs run Windows...
>
> Microsoft has competition. They're just better marketers.

Not really. When's the last time you saw a Windows ad? The reality is
that Microsoft is basically a monopoly--whether you might consider it to
be de facto or government-sanctioned. When governments and companies
mandate a Windows-only standard, that effectively shuts out all other
competition. When folks buy home PCs, they buy what's being used at
work.

Even back in the days before Windows, when PCs ran MS-DOS, Apple was
being displaced in the home as more companies issued PCs to the grunt
workforce, despite the fact that Apple's machines were still heavily
used in education.

Apple knows that they have a much better mouse trap with Mac OS X.
Their retail stores are their best marketing effort yet, and they've
been producing positive results in market share. Apple is in no way
"giving in" to Microsoft by advertising that Macs can run Windows; just
the opposite, they are using that advantage as a marketing tool to
remove the "risk" out of investing in a Mac. If you buy a Mac and don't
like OS X, you can still run Windows. Apple is betting that not many
Macs will be running Windows as their primary operating system, and I
suspect they are right.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Almost everyone who uses or tests computers reports that Apple computers
> are of higher quality than IBM architecture PCs. There is competition,
> and quality wasn't the dominant factor as it often isn't.


While I'm amazed that I find myself in agreement with Newps about
something, I do have to agree with you on this point.

As someone who purchased a new-construction home in the last few years,
it amazed me at how much money many new home buyers will pay for
absolute crap. There are an amazing number of developers who build
nice-looking but otherwise trash houses on postage-stamp, benched lots,
and charge outrageous prices--and sell out the developments time after
time. I guess I'm in the wrong business.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:
> >Exactly. I recently witnessed a Toyota Tundra trying to pull a 2-horse
> >trailer. Not sure if there were any horses in it (I assume there
> >were... but remember that we're talking about a small trailer), and the
> >rear bumper was nearly dragging on the ground, with the front end up in
> >the air. Would be a piece of cake for even an F-150 properly equipped.
> >
> >The Japanese trucks are appealing (though I think Ford has figured out
> >how to build a quality truck), they are nothing by very light duty
> >trucks--even the big ones.
>
> It never occurred to you that Tundra may not have properly equipped,
> just as the F150 would need to be? <G>

The problem is that you CAN'T properly equip the Tundra. Toyota doesn't
offer any heavy-duty options.



JKG

[Howard Nelson]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Judah > wrote:
> > Actually, several companies, including Dell and IBM, tried to market PCs
with
> >
> > Linux on them instead of Windows. OS/2 failed, not for quality. Even
Apple
> > had to give in to the MS OS wars, with their new ads that indicate their
new
> > Macs run Windows...
> >
> > Microsoft has competition. They're just better marketers.
>
> Not really. When's the last time you saw a Windows ad? The reality is
> that Microsoft is basically a monopoly--whether you might consider it to
> be de facto or government-sanctioned. When governments and companies
> mandate a Windows-only standard, that effectively shuts out all other
> competition. When folks buy home PCs, they buy what's being used at
> work.
>
> Even back in the days before Windows, when PCs ran MS-DOS, Apple was
> being displaced in the home as more companies issued PCs to the grunt
> workforce, despite the fact that Apple's machines were still heavily
> used in education.
>
> Apple knows that they have a much better mouse trap with Mac OS X.
> Their retail stores are their best marketing effort yet, and they've
> been producing positive results in market share. Apple is in no way
> "giving in" to Microsoft by advertising that Macs can run Windows; just
> the opposite, they are using that advantage as a marketing tool to
> remove the "risk" out of investing in a Mac. If you buy a Mac and don't
> like OS X, you can still run Windows. Apple is betting that not many
> Macs will be running Windows as their primary operating system, and I
> suspect they are right.

I realize Macs are superior buildwise and OSwise. However the total cost of
ownership (and limitations in available software) pushed me towards PC/MS
boxes. I estimate total cost of ownership for PC is about 1/2 that of Mac in
my usage. With PC/MS you get proprietary OS. With Apple you get proprietary
hardware and software. The hardware situation might have changed since I
haven't looked over the past several years but previously add-ons for the
MAC were pricey.

Howard

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 11:52:03 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote in
>:

>The reality is that Microsoft is basically a monopoly--

That's what the European Commission found also:


http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39149844,00.htm
EC: A Q&A on the Microsoft decision


http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/02/09/ec_microsoft_deadline_missed/
Microsoft runs out of EC time
Three strikes and you're out
By Mark Ballard
Published Thursday 9th February 2006 13:17 GMT

Microsoft is facing fines from the European Commission after
failing to get an extension on a deadline it had been set by the
competition police.

The Competition Directorate had already extended, from December
15, a deadline for Microsoft to comply with the terms of a
previous ruling, Reuters said.

The software firm, which had already paid $593m in fines to the
EC, now faces further charges of $2.4m a day unless it complies
with a previous anti-trust ruling.

The EC had told Microsoft to help other software firms understand
its operating system so they could write server software as easily
as it could itself. It appeared from the EC ruling that Microsoft
was doing what it could to further tighten the hold it had on the
market for operating systems.

But the commission found that Microsoft was still delivering up
shoddy information to other server software vendors and cried
foul.

Microsoft complained that it did not get a fair opportunity to
make a defence. However, the commission insisted it had
opportunity enough.



http://www.techworld.com/networking/news/index.cfm?newsID=6428&pagtype=samechan
12 July 2006

EC fines Microsoft €280.5 million
By Paul Meller and Peter Sayer, IDG News Service

The European Commission has fined Microsoft €280.5 million for
failing to comply with the terms of a March 2004 antiitrust
judgement against it.

Microsoft has already paid a €497 million fine as a result of the
judgement, in which the Commission found that Microsoft had used
its near-monopoly in the PC operating systems market to gain
advantage in the markets for work group server operating systems
and media players.

At the time, the Commission ordered the company to release a
version of Windows XP without a built-in media player, and to
provide its competitors with technical details of certain
communication protocols used by its server products.

The €280.5 million fine announced today is to punish the company
for failing to provide those technical details in a timely manner.
If Microsoft continues to fail to comply, the Commission will
increase the amount of the daily fine to €3 million per day, it
said.

Microsoft has called a press conference this afternoon to discuss
the decision.

The Commission initially gave Microsoft 120 days to disclose
details of the software interfaces used by its server products to
communicate with the desktop versions of Windows, so that
competing vendors could build compatible systems. Progress was
slow, and in March last year, and then again in June, the
Commission threatened the company with additional fines if it
didn't fully comply with the ruling.

Microsoft succeeded in pushing back the deadline numerous times as
negotiations continued, but the Commission remained unsatisfied
with Microsoft's progress, notably in documenting its software
interfaces.

Microsoft is due to submit the final batch of technical
documentation required by the Commission by 18 July, according to
a timetable the two parties agreed with the independent monitoring
trustee appointed to oversee matters.

The Commission had earlier threatened fines of up to €2 million a
day until all the required information about the communications
protocols had been supplied. The €280.5 million figure is based on
a fine of €1.5 million per day, for the period from 15 December to
20 June.

In a separate action, Microsoft has also appealed against the
anti-trust ruling itself. The European Court of First Instance in
Luxembourg finally heard that appeal in late April, and is now
considering its decision.


And the US isn't finished with Microsoft's monopoly either:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39157300,00.htm
Microsoft fails to have monopoly lawsuit dismissed

Declan McCullagh
CNET News.com
June 10, 2004, 09:15 BST

A New York court has ruled that Microsoft must continue to fight a
lawsuit that alleges deceptive and monopolistic business practices
A New York state appeals court has rejected Microsoft's attempt to
throw out a class-action suit alleging deceptive and monopolistic
business practices.

The state Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the lawsuit could
continue, overruling part of a lower court's decision that had
sided with Microsoft.

"Microsoft's end-user licence agreements with its prime customers,
the computer manufacturers and distributors, insulate it only from
product defect claims, not consumer injury complaints predicated
upon claims of monopolistic and deceptive conduct," the Supreme
Court said.
...


[Follow up set]

[Stubby]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Newps,
>
>> We want big and powerful.
>>
>
> Until the fuel prices climb some more...

Fuel cost is insignificant to those seeking a squirt of testosterone.
That's the only way I can explain guys driving around a load of air in
the back when they could be enjoying a nice Lexus.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Howard Nelson" > wrote:

> I estimate total cost of ownership for PC is about 1/2 that of Mac in
> my usage.

I guess you don't put a high value on your time.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Whiting]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> Judah > wrote:
>
>>Actually, several companies, including Dell and IBM, tried to market PCs with
>>
>>Linux on them instead of Windows. OS/2 failed, not for quality. Even Apple
>>had to give in to the MS OS wars, with their new ads that indicate their new
>>Macs run Windows...
>>
>>Microsoft has competition. They're just better marketers.
>
>
> Not really. When's the last time you saw a Windows ad? The reality is
> that Microsoft is basically a monopoly--whether you might consider it to
> be de facto or government-sanctioned. When governments and companies
> mandate a Windows-only standard, that effectively shuts out all other
> competition. When folks buy home PCs, they buy what's being used at
> work.

Don't confuse marketing with advertising. They aren't the same thing.
Probably the best marketing decision that Microsoft made and Apple
failed to make was to work closely with third party software developers.
This had nothing to do with advertising, but was shrewd marketing.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Almost everyone who uses or tests computers reports that Apple computers
>>are of higher quality than IBM architecture PCs. There is competition,
>>and quality wasn't the dominant factor as it often isn't.
>
>
>
> While I'm amazed that I find myself in agreement with Newps about
> something, I do have to agree with you on this point.
>
> As someone who purchased a new-construction home in the last few years,
> it amazed me at how much money many new home buyers will pay for
> absolute crap. There are an amazing number of developers who build
> nice-looking but otherwise trash houses on postage-stamp, benched lots,
> and charge outrageous prices--and sell out the developments time after
> time. I guess I'm in the wrong business.

I wrote the above, not Newps. So who are you really agreeing with?
Newps who says sales volume is synonymous with quality or me who says it
isn't necessarily so.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Howard Nelson wrote:

> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >,
>> Judah > wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, several companies, including Dell and IBM, tried to market PCs
>
> with
>
>>>Linux on them instead of Windows. OS/2 failed, not for quality. Even
>
> Apple
>
>>>had to give in to the MS OS wars, with their new ads that indicate their
>
> new
>
>>>Macs run Windows...
>>>
>>>Microsoft has competition. They're just better marketers.
>>
>>Not really. When's the last time you saw a Windows ad? The reality is
>>that Microsoft is basically a monopoly--whether you might consider it to
>>be de facto or government-sanctioned. When governments and companies
>>mandate a Windows-only standard, that effectively shuts out all other
>>competition. When folks buy home PCs, they buy what's being used at
>>work.
>>
>>Even back in the days before Windows, when PCs ran MS-DOS, Apple was
>>being displaced in the home as more companies issued PCs to the grunt
>>workforce, despite the fact that Apple's machines were still heavily
>>used in education.
>>
>>Apple knows that they have a much better mouse trap with Mac OS X.
>>Their retail stores are their best marketing effort yet, and they've
>>been producing positive results in market share. Apple is in no way
>>"giving in" to Microsoft by advertising that Macs can run Windows; just
>>the opposite, they are using that advantage as a marketing tool to
>>remove the "risk" out of investing in a Mac. If you buy a Mac and don't
>>like OS X, you can still run Windows. Apple is betting that not many
>>Macs will be running Windows as their primary operating system, and I
>>suspect they are right.
>
>
> I realize Macs are superior buildwise and OSwise. However the total cost of
> ownership (and limitations in available software) pushed me towards PC/MS
> boxes. I estimate total cost of ownership for PC is about 1/2 that of Mac in
> my usage. With PC/MS you get proprietary OS. With Apple you get proprietary
> hardware and software. The hardware situation might have changed since I
> haven't looked over the past several years but previously add-ons for the
> MAC were pricey.

That just supports my point that quality isn't what drives most
purchases. It is cost or other factors.

Matt

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote

> One thing that neither Ford nor GM have is a decent small or mid-sized
> truck. Toyota and Nissan both have decent mid-sized offerings in the
> redesigned Tacoma and Frontier. Dodge had a great truck in the Dakota
> until the redesign (I think it was 2005) that basically ruined it, in my
> opinion.

You wouldn't think that Dodge had such a good truck in the Dakota, if you
had ever looked underneath one. They were/are built like cars. Wimpy!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Howard Nelson" > wrote

> I realize Macs are superior buildwise and OSwise.

???

Do some reading about chip speed, and operating speed, and you will wonder
why you wrote that.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_3_]]

> > We want big and powerful.
> >
>
> Until the fuel prices climb some more...

Perhaps fuel prices will hurt while paying for the big and powerful, but for
some it is not want, but *need*, for the big and powerful.
--
Jim in NC

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:
> > As someone who purchased a new-construction home in the last few years,
> > it amazed me at how much money many new home buyers will pay for
> > absolute crap. There are an amazing number of developers who build
> > nice-looking but otherwise trash houses on postage-stamp, benched lots,
> > and charge outrageous prices--and sell out the developments time after
> > time. I guess I'm in the wrong business.
>
> I wrote the above, not Newps. So who are you really agreeing with?
> Newps who says sales volume is synonymous with quality or me who says it
> isn't necessarily so.

Quality, price, color, capability, value, etc. are all items that may or
may not impact a buying decision. Certainly, Ford's sales record with
trucks isn't won on price (they're expensive), probably not on color,
and their chart-topping sales record wouldn't existing for 30 years if
there were widespread quality issues. The reality is that, in the truck
market, Ford/GM/Dodge are more in tune with what most Americans want in
a truck--they provide a better overall value. The domestic
manufacturers build good trucks, otherwise they would not continue to be
sales leaders year after year. Note that I'm talking about TRUCKS, not
SUVs minus the roof over the back, or what could probably be called
"soccer mom trucks."

So, I'm agreeing with Newps that long-term quality and value are likely
responsible for Ford's impressive sales numbers. I am agreeing with you
that sales volume is not always synonymous with quality, but in this
case I believe that it is. A 30 year contiguous sales record isn't the
result of a "lemming-effect" or a perception-driven market.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Stubby > wrote:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
> > Newps,
> >
> >> We want big and powerful.
> >>
> >
> > Until the fuel prices climb some more...
>
> Fuel cost is insignificant to those seeking a squirt of testosterone.
> That's the only way I can explain guys driving around a load of air in
> the back when they could be enjoying a nice Lexus.

I suppose that no one has any use for the utility that trucks provide?
Can you pull that horse trailer with your Lexus?


JKG

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>>
>> We'll see. They haven't so far these last 30 years.
>
>
> They haven't had any thing close to a full-size truck until fairly
> recently.

I understand that, but they have competed against the big three in the
small pickup market since the 70's and have had their ass handed to them
all that time.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
>
> Which was my point exactly. Newps doesn't understand that quality and
> sales volume are often not correlated.

Over the short term, yes, I agree with you. But 30 years? Sorry,
that's just crying in your beer. You don't fool people with an inferior
product for very long. And I include Windows in that list. I've tried
others. Overall I've got what I want.

[Newps]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

The Ford/GM dominance of the truck
> market likely makes the costs to gain market share prohibitive for the
> Japanese competitors.


But it could be done. Look at the goofy looking Civic Honda brought
over in the 70's. We all laughed. Then we all bought one and today all
cars are 10 times better than the crap we used to buy in the 70's.
Who knows why manufacturers do what they do. Why did Ford and Dodge
give the market to GM for the Suburban class of vehicle for all these
years? Why did GM not compete in the Explorer class?

[Newps]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Newps,
>
>
>>We want big and powerful.
>>
>
>
> Until the fuel prices climb some more...

It's at $3 a gallon now and there's no sign of a let up in truck sales.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
>
> I wrote the above, not Newps. So who are you really agreeing with?
> Newps who says sales volume is synonymous with quality




I never said that or even hinted at it. You may disagree but to me Ford
is the best built truck. A million people a year likewise agree.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Morgans" >
wrote:

> > I realize Macs are superior buildwise and OSwise.
>
> ???
>
> Do some reading about chip speed, and operating speed, and you will wonder
> why you wrote that.

Are we forgetting about the difference between RISC and CISC and pipelines?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> I wrote the above, not Newps. So who are you really agreeing with?
>> Newps who says sales volume is synonymous with quality
>
>
>
>
>
> I never said that or even hinted at it. You may disagree but to me Ford
> is the best built truck. A million people a year likewise agree.

I prefer Chevy, but I think the quality data is pretty similar between
Ford and Chevy with respect to full-size trucks. I believe that
Toyota's are better built that both, but they don't yet have a truly
full-size truck. I expect they will at some point and the same thing as
happened to cars in the 80s will then happen to trucks.

Ford F-150 sales are off pace considerably through the first 6 months of
the year at 400,000.


Matt

[Newps]

B A R R Y wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:49:28 GMT, B A R R Y
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 11:57:30 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote:
>>
>>>The problem is that you CAN'T properly equip the Tundra. Toyota doesn't
>>>offer any heavy-duty options.
>>
>>Yet...
>
>
>
> 10,000 pound tow capacity:


A half ton truck has no business towing 10,000 pounds. Period.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
> I prefer Chevy, but I think the quality data is pretty similar between
> Ford and Chevy with respect to full-size trucks.



I didn't have any preference when I worked at the St. Paul newspaper in
1986. The company bought 6 new Ford Rangers and 6 new Chevy S10's.
Bone stock except for V6/automatics and A/C. They installed a topper on
each one. Every Sunday we loaded the back of each truck to the very top
of the topper with newspaper bundles. Way, way over gross. The rear
bumper sagged to a foot off the ground. After 30,000 miles the Chevy's
rear suspension gave up and just stayed there. The transmissions made
god awful noises and jerked around terribly. The company gave them to
another department that didn't need to put any stuff in the back and
bought more Rangers for us. I've been a Ford Truck guy since. I have a
full size 1/2 ton Chevy conversion van, second one. I buy them from my
Dad after he puts about 35,000 miles on it. Chevy is not able to build
a van with doors that close with that reassuring thunk. There's 6 doors
on these vans and all have to be slammed to shut tight. Both vans I
have owned. And that god awful intake gasket design. Like the 350
Vortec but overall the vans are rattle traps. There's nothing Chevy can
do to sell me a pickup. I'd buy a Dodge before I'd buy a Chevy.

[Matt Whiting]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:08:32 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>I understand that, but they have competed against the big three in the
>>small pickup market since the 70's and have had their ass handed to them
>>all that time.
>
>
> Here's something that I found quick, as I don't really care that much
> to spend a ton of time Googling. It's sales data from the first 3
> months of 2005 for the small pickup market:
>
> From:
> <http://www.forbes.com/columnists/columnists/2005/04/12/cz_jf_0412flint.html>
>
> Pickup 3 months 2005
> Chevy Colorado 32,523
> GMC Canyon 8,444
> Toyota Tacoma 34,094
> Ford Ranger 26,612
> Dodge Dakota 25,130
> Nissan Frontier 18,194
> Honda Ridgeline 4,008**
>
> The Tacoma outsold every other individual model. Note that the 2005+
> Tacoma was just entering the pipes during the 1Q '05, as I had to wait
> 8 weeks to get mine last April. The Honda was only out for a month or
> so at the time, but it still managed 1/2 of Canyon's 3 month volume..
>
> Here's the total sales for '03, from
> <http://www.forbes.com/columnists/columnists/2004/06/22/cz_jf_0622flint.html>:
>
> 2003 Small-Pickup Sales
> Ford (Ranger) 209,117
> GM (Chevy S10, GMC Sonoma) 176,629
> Toyota (Tacoma) 154,154
> Chrysler (Dodge Dakota) 111,273
> Nissan (Frontier) 65,161
>
> Considering lots of Rangers, S10's, and Sonomas ended up in fleets,
> that's having your ass handed to you? <G>

Yep, Looks like Toyota is really struggling of late.

Matt

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

The business is now pretty much closed down, but grand-dad started the
second plumbing shop in Tulsa, Ok. My grand-dad's first service truck
was a Dodge Brothers and he stayed with the Dodge line for over 60
years. Dodge makes a helluva service truck, but not much of a domestic
passenger vehicle. We regularly ran our 3/4 ton trucks across the scales
at over 12,000 pounds and had to quit buying the 1/2 ton version when
the rims started splitting.

Over the years my dad tried a Studebaker, International Harvester, Ford,
Chevy, and GMC. They always went back to the Dodge line. The Ford and GM
trucks were much nicer traveling domestic passenger vehicles, but they
got beat up real fast under the heavy loads on Tulsa streets in stop and
go traffic.

The business is just about gone now, so I'm not sure if my observations
are still valid.

-----Original Message-----
From: Newps ]
Posted At: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:10 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.piloting
Conversation: Manufacturing Quality
Subject: Re: Manufacturing Quality



..... I'd buy a Dodge before I'd buy a Chevy.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:36:23 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> > wrote:
>
> >I suppose that no one has any use for the utility that trucks provide?
> >Can you pull that horse trailer with your Lexus?
>
> He could with this:
>
> <http://www.forbesautos.com/reviews/2006/lexus/gx_470/model-update.html>

For over 46 thousand bucks, it had better ride the horse too, because I
would be so busy working to pay for it, I wouldn't have any time to ride the
horse!

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote

> The business is just about gone now, so I'm not sure if my observations
> are still valid.

Nope. Unless you buy the super heavy duty Dodge Diesel truck, or what ever
the expensive Dodge calls itself, it has not been that way for years. Why
do you suppose that Chrysler-Dodge had to be bought out? It's quality was
crap, and their stuff is junk.

Want a real Eye-Opener? Go over and read the Dodge usenet group for a
while. I started after my Dodge minivan that my wife had to have, failed
its second window motor in just over 30,000 miles, and we never even use the
things. The answerer was, Oh, they are so weak that sometimes if they have
not been used for a while, they don't have enough power to "un-stick" the
window. Gads. I won't even start on the weak suspension that a friend of
mine's Durango has had!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Newps" > wrote

> A half ton truck has no business towing 10,000 pounds. Period.

Agreed. A rental place will not even let you hook onto one of their
trailers, to rent a lawn tractor, unless it is a 3/4 ton truck or van.

Just because it has been advertised, someone will do it, and either pull the
transmission out of it, or run over someone, cause they could not get the
10,000 pounds stopped.
--
Jim in NC

[Jose[_1_]]

> You don't fool people with an inferior product for very long.

Chevy Chevette.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>> You don't fool people with an inferior product for very long.
>
>
> Chevy Chevette.

Exactly. How long did that last?

[Dave Stadt]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> > Well, in 2005 Ford sold almost 10 times as many F-series trucks as the
>> > closet Japanese competitor (Toyota). If 95% of truck buyers don't "use
>> > it as a truck," there's still something that those buyers like better
>> > about a Ford truck.
>>
>> Its called the lemming affect. It took a while to fade in the car
>> market, but now it is almost gone, other than Toyota seems to be
>> developing it quite well for its cars. Trucks will follow,
>> unfortunately.
>
>
> The Ford F-150 has been the best selling truck for 30 years straight.
> It has been the best selling VEHICLE in the United States for quite a
> number of consecutive years. That isn't because of a "lemming effect,"
> though I know quite a few Honda and Toyota owners who are definitely
> lemmings.
>
> Ford would have to fall pretty hard for a pretty long time in order for
> the Japanese to catch up. Ford's fall would have to be combined with a
> broader and more capable line of Japanese trucks (i.e. heavy duty). So
> far, the Japanese haven't been willing to make a truly heavy duty truck
> for the mass market.
>
> In 2005, Ford sold just shy of 1 million F-series trucks. The closest
> Japanese competitor--Toyota--sold around 125,000 trucks. That's a huge
> gap, and in the middle was Dodge with around 450,000 and GM, with
> somewhere around 800,000, I believe. The Ford/GM dominance of the truck
> market likely makes the costs to gain market share prohibitive for the
> Japanese competitors.

Asuming ford will be around for any length of time. Ford's numbers are
dismal and Wall Street has their stock nearly down to junk value. The
Japanese can just sit and wait for Ford and GM to spiral into oblivion.

[Dave Stadt]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:15:32 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>But it could be done. Look at the goofy looking Civic Honda brought
>>over in the 70's. We all laughed.
>
> Remember when people laughed and said "Who the hell would want a
> Japanese luxury car?"
>
> Along came Lexus...

Which is now the highest rated car overall and tops in nearly every
individual area.

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> Newps,
>>
>>
>>>We want big and powerful.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Until the fuel prices climb some more...
>
> It's at $3 a gallon now and there's no sign of a let up in truck sales.

Except for the fact they can't give them away.

[Thomas Borchert]

Stubby,

> That's the only way I can explain guys driving around a load of air in
> the back when they could be enjoying a nice Lexus.
>

You nailed it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> but for
> some it is not want, but *need*, for the big and powerful.
>

For some, yes. Few. At least in comparison to the stupid SUV sales
numbers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> It's at $3 a gallon now and there's no sign of a let up in truck sales.
>

See Barry's post.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In an article before >,
someone wrote:

> > You don't fool people with an inferior product for very long.

unless you have something else going for you (like an monopoly).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Michelle Settle]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:15:32 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>But it could be done. Look at the goofy looking Civic Honda brought
>>over in the 70's. We all laughed.
>
> Remember when people laughed and said "Who the hell would want a
> Japanese luxury car?"
>
> Along came Lexus...

If I remember correctly, the first Japanese luxury cars were the Acura and
the Toyota Cressida.

Michelle

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Jon Kraus wrote:
> Heck, I see that Honda is now making a
>> better full-size pickup truck than Ford's F-150.
>
> Please. I like Honda cars but that thing they build is not a full size
> truck.

Well I bought a Ridgeline a few months and 7000 miles ago. While it isn't as
big as a full size Ford or Chevy it has LOTS of hauling room in the bed that
I get to use fully because I don't have to put a tool box in the back. The
reason I don't have to put in a tool box is because it has a lockable trunk
that I could hide a 250 body in. This trunk also has a drain and is somewhat
insulated so last 4th of July I filled it with ice and beer.

The thing rides like a luxury car and the back seats are real seats instead
of the padded rear wall that most 4 5 passenger trucks have.

So sure it can't pull more than 4000 pounds. I can live with that.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>>>> You don't fool people with an inferior product for very long.
>>> Chevy Chevette.
>> Exactly. How long did that last?
>
> 1975 to 1987. Plenty long. Twelve years, but it seemed like forever
> (my wife had one). I guess it wasn't all that long, but it was the best
> selling car of its time.

Fleets! All of my local utilities (water, power, telco, etc...) had
them. They had a "Scooter" version that didn't even come with armrests
or a back seat. I had one assigned to me as a telephone company CO
technician.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Michelle Settle wrote:
>
> If I remember correctly, the first Japanese luxury cars were the Acura and
> the Toyota Cressida.


I think you're absolutely right about Acura being out before Lexus. As
for the Cressida, I was thinking more of "prestige" badges.

Acura makes a heck of a good car.

[.Blueskies.]

"Newps" > wrote in message . ..
:
:
: Matt Whiting wrote:
:
:
: >>
: >> We'll see. They haven't so far these last 30 years.
: >
: >
: > They haven't had any thing close to a full-size truck until fairly
: > recently.
:
: I understand that, but they have competed against the big three in the
: small pickup market since the 70's and have had their ass handed to them
: all that time.

#2 Toyota has "had their ass handed to them?" Sounds like they are doing a fine job picking their battles so they end up
winning the war...

[john smith]

In article >,
".Blueskies." > wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
> :
> :
> : Matt Whiting wrote:
> :
> :
> : >>
> : >> We'll see. They haven't so far these last 30 years.
> : >
> : >
> : > They haven't had any thing close to a full-size truck until fairly
> : > recently.
> :
> : I understand that, but they have competed against the big three in the
> : small pickup market since the 70's and have had their ass handed to them
> : all that time.
>
> #2 Toyota has "had their ass handed to them?" Sounds like they are doing a
> fine job picking their battles so they end up
> winning the war...

Yep, Toyota profits are 39% over last year.
Did any of the big three show positive results?

[Michelle Settle]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> Michelle Settle wrote:
>>
>> If I remember correctly, the first Japanese luxury cars were the Acura
>> and the Toyota Cressida.
>
>
> I think you're absolutely right about Acura being out before Lexus. As
> for the Cressida, I was thinking more of "prestige" badges.

I don't know what would define "prestige", but the Cressida was over $25K
when most of the others were in the high $teens to low $20K's. I think it
had something to do with the price quotas or something that were imposed in
the early 1980's. I wonder if the Cressida was a predecessor of the Lexus
line?

> Acura makes a heck of a good car.

Yes, they're very nice, but over priced. An Acura TL is just a Honda Accord
with another $5,000 tacked on the price.

Michelle

[Dave Stadt]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> ".Blueskies." > wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> :
>> :
>> : Matt Whiting wrote:
>> :
>> :
>> : >>
>> : >> We'll see. They haven't so far these last 30 years.
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > They haven't had any thing close to a full-size truck until fairly
>> : > recently.
>> :
>> : I understand that, but they have competed against the big three in the
>> : small pickup market since the 70's and have had their ass handed to
>> them
>> : all that time.
>>
>> #2 Toyota has "had their ass handed to them?" Sounds like they are doing
>> a
>> fine job picking their battles so they end up
>> winning the war...
>
> Yep, Toyota profits are 39% over last year.
> Did any of the big three show positive results?

The traditional "big three" is now a misnomer. More appropriate is the
"shrinking three."

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:27:12 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>:

>With the news that Piper will produce the Hondajet, I am wondering if
>Piper will be able to produce the finished product to meet Honda's
>quality standards.
>Piper has not built anything bigger than a Malibu for 20 years.
>The Cheyenne IV/LS-400 was the biggest aircraft Piper has produced.



Here's the latest word from Honda:


Honda Update - The World Wide Honda E-Mail newsletter
Tuesday, August 8, 2006. Direct from Tokyo, Japan.

- - - - - Honda Corporate News - - - - -


1) Honda Aircraft Company, Established
New Honda Subsidiary Will Market and Produce HondaJet in the U.S.

http://world.honda.com/news/2006/c060808AircraftCompany/

TOKYO, Japan, August 8, 2006 - Honda announced that is has
established a wholly-owned subsidiary, named Honda Aircraft
Company, which will be responsible for the further development,
sales promotion and production of the innovative HondaJet.
The new company will be based in a facility at the Piedmont Triad
International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina, where the
prototype HondaJet was assembled and flight tests have been carried
out for more than 3 years.

Michimasa Fujino, the chief engineer who has led development of
HondaJet and spent the past 20 years in Honda’s aviation activities
with Honda R&D Co., Ltd., will be assigned as the president and CEO of
Honda Aircraft Company, and prepare for the full operation start of
the new company from October.

Honda Aircraft Company will begin taking sales orders for HondaJet
this fall, with the goal of delivering the first mass production
HondaJet in 2010. In addition, the company will develop the production
version of HondaJet, pursue and hold both type certification and
production certification, and conduct marketing activities for the
aircraft. The company also will manage Honda’s new alliance with
Piper Aircraft, Inc., which will collaborate on sales and service. The
goal of this alliance is to provide a new level of sales and service
to meet the needs of jet customers with the goal of setting a higher
standard for the quality of the ownership experience.

HondaJet features several innovations that help it achieve far better
fuel efficiency, larger cabin and luggage space and higher cruise
speed than conventional aircraft in its class. The result of 20 years
of aviation research, key HondaJet innovations include a patented
over-the-wing engine-mount configuration, a natural-laminar flow (NLF)
wing and fuselage nose, and an advanced all-composite fuselage
structure.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("john smith" wrote)
> Yep, Toyota profits are 39% over last year.
> Did any of the big three show positive results?


Yes. GM ...after eating a (huge) one-time charge for buyouts, etc.


Montblack

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Michelle Settle" wrote)
> If I remember correctly, the first Japanese luxury cars were the Acura and
> the Toyota Cressida.


Then there was this little "Luxury" car fiasco ...with an Acura(Honda)
Legend drivetrain to boot!

<http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?sterlingf.htm>
Sterling US history

Some would conside the late 70's "Z" cars luxurious. <g>

http://members.aol.com/KarlWS/zhistory.html
"1979 - An all-new, second-generation Z-car is developed, debuting as the
280-ZX. The 280-ZX offers a higher level of luxury to meet the growing
demands of the sports car customer. Named Motor Trend’s “Import Car of the
Year” for 1979, the 280-ZX sets the all-time sales record for the Z line
with 86,007 units sold. The Z-car captures its 10th consecutive SCCA
C-Production national championship. Don Devendorf wins another IMSA GTU
title for Datsun."


Montblack

[Judah]

Marketing <> Advertising.

MS has marketed to the IT people in those governments and corporations,
and that's why they have that market share.

MS only does a little bit of marketing to the general public through ads
(although they do have some, even TV commercials). Most of their marketing
is done through VAR programs with PC Makers, ensuring that Windows XP or
Media Center or whatever is the OS of choice on their PC when they sell it
to you.

The rest of their marketing is in the form of their loyal highly technical
followers, specifically the ones who are subscribers to their developers
network. These folks have been toying around with the next versions of
their products ahead of the pack, making them feel special and important.
But most of them are also running the IT departments at companies around
the world, and when it's time to pay for a PC, they are going to ensure
that those purchases have the cool toys that they have been playing with
on their MSDN CD. It is a very fad driven marketing approach, but it seems
to be working for them.

How much advertising has MS done for Vista? Yet how much have you read
about it in Time, BusinessWeek, or any other magazine or newspaper? If you
haven't seen it, it just means you're not in tune. And if you're not in
tune, you're probably not technically sophisticated enough to change
whatever OS is on your PC when you leave Walmart with it, so they don't
really need to convince you to buy their product anyway...

I think Apple is confused in thinking that they should be mass marketing
their product if they are trying to take on MS. Their heyday was when they
started niche marketing to the education and graphics arts sectors,
because that's the only time they ever got back any significant market
share from MS. It's tough to guage for sure from their new ad campaign,
but I don't think that you are correct in your assesment of their plans.
I think they are changing gears and focusing on being a hardware
manufacturer. I think their retail outlets compete moreso with Gateway and
Dell then they do with MS. Otherwise they would have been better off
making an Intel version of their OS so that PC users who like Mac could
easily run Mac software on their Dells and Gateways...

In fact, that's Mac's biggest problem anyway. They would be more
successful if they spawned off the software and hardware divisions into
two companies and made each one easily pluggable with the other as well as
with the other's competitors. Maybe that's the direction they are headed,
and this Windows on my Mac campaign is the start, but I don't really buy
it.

While I have personal and business reasons for disliking Microsoft and
some of their policies, I believe their Marketing Model is one of the most
pointed, thorough, and excellent models that can be found today. They
basically market their product to the masses through a sophisticated
combination of fad marketing, distribution incentives, developer support,
and product compatibility. They don't mass-market their product directly,
and yet it is the most widely used product in its class. As a result they
have created a barrier to entry so strong that even free OSes barely
impact their market share...

After all, do you think Garmin's decision to use Windows CE as the OS on
the GPS in your plane was based on the "Start Me Up" commercials? (he
said, in a sad last-ditch attempt to get this back on aviation topic!)

Jonathan Goodish > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Judah > wrote:
>> Actually, several companies, including Dell and IBM, tried to market
>> PCs with
>>
>> Linux on them instead of Windows. OS/2 failed, not for quality. Even
>> Apple had to give in to the MS OS wars, with their new ads that
>> indicate their new Macs run Windows...
>>
>> Microsoft has competition. They're just better marketers.
>
> Not really. When's the last time you saw a Windows ad? The reality is
> that Microsoft is basically a monopoly--whether you might consider it to
> be de facto or government-sanctioned. When governments and companies
> mandate a Windows-only standard, that effectively shuts out all other
> competition. When folks buy home PCs, they buy what's being used at
> work.
>
> Even back in the days before Windows, when PCs ran MS-DOS, Apple was
> being displaced in the home as more companies issued PCs to the grunt
> workforce, despite the fact that Apple's machines were still heavily
> used in education.
>
> Apple knows that they have a much better mouse trap with Mac OS X.
> Their retail stores are their best marketing effort yet, and they've
> been producing positive results in market share. Apple is in no way
> "giving in" to Microsoft by advertising that Macs can run Windows; just
> the opposite, they are using that advantage as a marketing tool to
> remove the "risk" out of investing in a Mac. If you buy a Mac and don't
> like OS X, you can still run Windows. Apple is betting that not many
> Macs will be running Windows as their primary operating system, and I
> suspect they are right.
>
>
>
> JKG

[Judah]

Bob Noel > wrote in
:

> In article >, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>> > I realize Macs are superior buildwise and OSwise.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> Do some reading about chip speed, and operating speed, and you will
>> wonder why you wrote that.
>
> Are we forgetting about the difference between RISC and CISC and
> pipelines?
>

Are you saying it takes less time to write an EMail on a Mac than it does on
a PC?

Or are you saying that the Mac can improve broadband throughput rates as
compared to a PC?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> >> > I realize Macs are superior buildwise and OSwise.
> >>
> >> ???
> >>
> >> Do some reading about chip speed, and operating speed, and you will
> >> wonder why you wrote that.
> >
> > Are we forgetting about the difference between RISC and CISC and
> > pipelines?
> >
>
> Are you saying it takes less time to write an EMail on a Mac than it does on
> a PC?

No.

> Or are you saying that the Mac can improve broadband throughput rates as
> compared to a PC?

No.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[john smith]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> In fact, that's Mac's biggest problem anyway. They would be more
> successful if they spawned off the software and hardware divisions into
> two companies and made each one easily pluggable with the other as well as
> with the other's competitors. Maybe that's the direction they are headed,
> and this Windows on my Mac campaign is the start, but I don't really buy
> it.

Go to apple.com and click on the view video for wwdc.
It is a 1h25m Quicktime video.
Watch the last hour for a preview of Mac OS Leopard.
VISTA doesn't even come close!

[Judah]

john smith > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Judah > wrote:
>
>> In fact, that's Mac's biggest problem anyway. They would be more
>> successful if they spawned off the software and hardware divisions into
>> two companies and made each one easily pluggable with the other as well
>> as with the other's competitors. Maybe that's the direction they are
>> headed, and this Windows on my Mac campaign is the start, but I don't
>> really buy it.
>
> Go to apple.com and click on the view video for wwdc.
> It is a 1h25m Quicktime video.
> Watch the last hour for a preview of Mac OS Leopard.
> VISTA doesn't even come close!

Case and point...

Exactly how many people do you think really have time or attention span to
watch an hour and a half of a Steve Jobs ego video?

They'll never learn...

[Thomas Borchert]

Judah,

> How much advertising has MS done for Vista? Yet how much have you read
> about it in Time, BusinessWeek, or any other magazine or newspaper?
>

Bad example. Every f*rt God Jobs makes gets him a cover story in Time or
Newsweek, let alone hysterical multipagers in all the newspapers. The
media are clearly on the side of Apple. Doesn't help, much.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> VISTA doesn't even come close!
>

And who cares? Less than two percent of the market, that's who.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Judah,
>
>
>>How much advertising has MS done for Vista? Yet how much have you read
>>about it in Time, BusinessWeek, or any other magazine or newspaper?
>>
>
>
> Bad example. Every f*rt God Jobs makes gets him a cover story in Time or
> Newsweek, let alone hysterical multipagers in all the newspapers. The
> media are clearly on the side of Apple. Doesn't help, much.

Your jealousy is showing, Thomas.

Matt

[.Blueskies.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message ...
: Judah,
:
: > How much advertising has MS done for Vista? Yet how much have you read
: > about it in Time, BusinessWeek, or any other magazine or newspaper?
: >
:
: Bad example. Every f*rt God Jobs makes gets him a cover story in Time or
: Newsweek, let alone hysterical multipagers in all the newspapers. The
: media are clearly on the side of Apple. Doesn't help, much.
:
: --
: Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
:

I read an article where someone loaded up one of the new macs w/XP as well as OSX, and ran some software tests. XP was
fastest...

[john smith]

> > VISTA doesn't even come close!

> And who cares? Less than two percent of the market, that's who.

Just goes to show how clueless the majority is.
How can you stand to use such an inferior product? :-))

[john smith]

In article >,
".Blueskies." > wrote:

> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> : Judah,
> :
> : > How much advertising has MS done for Vista? Yet how much have you read
> : > about it in Time, BusinessWeek, or any other magazine or newspaper?
> : >
> :
> : Bad example. Every f*rt God Jobs makes gets him a cover story in Time or
> : Newsweek, let alone hysterical multipagers in all the newspapers. The
> : media are clearly on the side of Apple. Doesn't help, much.
> :
> : --
> : Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> :
>
> I read an article where someone loaded up one of the new macs w/XP as well as
> OSX, and ran some software tests. XP was fastest...

Latest reports are that VISTA will be further delayed until June 2007.
When MS said it was a total rewrite, they weren't kidding. They replaced
many of the holes repaired in previous versions of the software. Some of
the security holes repaired in Windows 95 have reappeared in VISTA!
The new browser is "borrowed" from existing open source software and
repackaged as MS content. Five years and still counting until the next
release!

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> Your jealousy is showing,
>

Of what, exactly? I am a journalist, so it can't be that. I am using
both Macs and Windows PCs regularly, so it can't be that, either. I
don't even want to remotely be like Steve Jobs <shudder>, so it cannot
possibly be that. Hmm.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>
>>Your jealousy is showing,
>>
>
>
> Of what, exactly? I am a journalist, so it can't be that. I am using
> both Macs and Windows PCs regularly, so it can't be that, either. I
> don't even want to remotely be like Steve Jobs <shudder>, so it cannot
> possibly be that. Hmm.

I'd like some of his money, but otherwise have no desire to be much like
him.

Matt