|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Ford has had joint ventures with Mazda and other companies. It at one time owned Jaguar, Land Rover, and Volvo. GM has owned Vauxhall and Holden, as well as other companies and has had joint ventures with Toyota and other companies. Not to mention there are parts suppliers that manufacture components of their cars. Firms like Pininfarina or Bosch or Nakamichi contribute components, styling, and luxury items.
Do you really believe that everything in a Ford F-150 comes from Ford facilities in Detroit, USA? The Ford Taurus SHO had a Yamaha V6 in it. The Ford Probe, the Mazda K-Series. Ford was lagging on computerized fuel efficient engine designs to the Japanese like Honda with its VTEC and Mazda with its VRIS and sought a joint venture in part to shore up this part of its designs. The resulting partnership with Mazda and a significant partnership with Porsche led to the Duratec series of engines you see on the Ford Contour, Mondeo, Mustang, and wait for it...The F-series pickups.
As for the Corvette...
http://gmauthority.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2014-Corvette-C7-Stingray-Suppliers.jpg
| Quote: |
| Not all car companies are multinationals. You've heard of Telsa, haven't you? |
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/forum/forums/suppliers-outsourcing
Do you really think everything that goes into a car is designed by the company?
Please tell me you aren't one of those goofballs who screams about "Buying American" when it comes to a car. You've got Mazda's built in Flat Rock and Fords built in Mexico, and parts and designs from around the globe with firms collaborating with each other. This isn't the 1930s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Ford has had joint ventures with Mazda and other companies. It at one time owned Jaguar, Land Rover, and Volvo. GM has owned Vauxhall and Holden, as well as other companies and has had joint ventures with Toyota and other companies. Not to mention there are parts suppliers that manufacture components of their cars. Firms like Pininfarina or Bosch or Nakamichi contribute components, styling, and luxury items.
Do you really believe that everything in a Ford F-150 comes from Ford facilities in Detroit, USA? The Ford Taurus SHO had a Yamaha V6 in it. The Ford Probe, the Mazda K-Series. Ford was lagging on computerized fuel efficient engine designs to the Japanese like Honda with its VTEC and Mazda with its VRIS and sought a joint venture in part to shore up this part of its designs. The resulting partnership with Mazda and a significant partnership with Porsche led to the Duratec series of engines you see on the Ford Contour, Mondeo, Mustang, and wait for it...The F-series pickups.
As for the Corvette...
http://gmauthority.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2014-Corvette-C7-Stingray-Suppliers.jpg
| Quote: |
| Not all car companies are multinationals. You've heard of Telsa, haven't you? |
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/forum/forums/suppliers-outsourcing
Do you really think everything that goes into a car is designed by the company?
Please tell me you aren't one of those goofballs who screams about "Buying American" when it comes to a car. You've got Mazda's built in Flat Rock and Fords built in Mexico, and parts and designs from around the globe with firms collaborating with each other. This isn't the 1930s. |
Off on another one of your patented derailments. The topic is innovation, now what company owns what.
As for innovation, you've mentioned the Japanese--see my prior post--Germany and the U.S. You've proven my point.
"Everything"--another straw man. Will you never learn?
Suppliers didn't design the Corvette. They provide parts that fit into what the engineers at Chevy specify. Same goes for the Tesla. They may well already manufacture some of those parts or not. And they may come up with a better way to make those parts or even refine the design. In other words, more innovation.
BTW, in the past all those companies for the Corvette would have probably been owned by GM. Anti-trust laws put an end to that.
I-N-N-O-V-A-T-E
Read it.
Learn it.
Know it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
The reality is that Korea has a lot of patents per capita and has managed to make products that people all over the world want to buy.
|
The reality, from their own sources even, is more like this:
| Quote: |
Quote:
Korea Has Only 1/5 of Japan's, 1/9 of U.S.' Essential Patents |
|
Korea having fewer essential patents than its competition falls in line exactly with the situation as I portrayed it: few real ground-breaking innovations, many small tweaks. "Focuses on applied technology" is a fine way to put it, and the royalty payments they make are a legitimate cost of their approach. As an aside, it should be noted that in any case where royalty payments are made, there's a clear difference between copying and licensing.
| Mix1 wrote: |
| So, when your students copy each other, do you just let it happen because it's all "subjective"... or do you take a stance on it and judge it in some way? Do you respect that behavior? |
When my students copy each other, I take issue precisely to the extent that it impacts the intended goal: their education. Sometimes copying to a certain extent is all right, and sometimes it isn't. Likewise, as I all ready suggested, Korea's innovational scheme should be understood in terms of the goals towards which it works. If it enriches Korea (it does), and if it provides benefit to the rest of the world (it does), then denying it on the grounds of it being "less respected" seems pointless.
| Mix1 wrote: |
| If you had a contest in class called "The Most Innovative Essay". Would you award it to the kid with the most original essay with the most novel ideas, or... would you award it to the kid who copied him word for word and just changed the title and font, then tried to pawn it off as his own work? |
I feel like what you wrote right here highlights the our difference of opinion on the matter: you're looking at innovation almost as a kind of talent show, which is probably also why you're thinking in subjective terms like respectability instead of objective terms like usefulness. If all you care about is essential patents, then yes, Korea is obviously not at the top. But if that's all to which you pay attention, then you aren't talking about innovation in its entirety, but merely one flashy sub-category of it, so I don't blame the original article for not viewing the matter that way. |
Actually you are talking about it in terms of your preferred subcategories, presumably to justify the rankings.
And you sort of dodged the questions about the students, which cut to the heart of how one views copying in general. It seemed like you were praising/justifying copying and it would be interesting to see if you do the same in your classes.
So, if the copying student paid the other student to let him copy off him ("licensing") would it cease to be copying? Would he win the "Most Innovative Essay" prize? In your view, he just might, especially if it turned out to be "useful" and "beneficial" to him, since apparently those are more important concepts in your mind than actual innovation.
It's not even specifically about patent numbers, it's about a long-term, general cultural tendency of copying products and ideas, whether they paid for some of it or not. Copying may make some money and successful products, but it shouldn't win one a prize for being the "most innovative". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mix1 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
The reality is that Korea has a lot of patents per capita and has managed to make products that people all over the world want to buy.
|
The reality, from their own sources even, is more like this:
| Quote: |
Quote:
Korea Has Only 1/5 of Japan's, 1/9 of U.S.' Essential Patents |
|
Korea having fewer essential patents than its competition falls in line exactly with the situation as I portrayed it: few real ground-breaking innovations, many small tweaks. "Focuses on applied technology" is a fine way to put it, and the royalty payments they make are a legitimate cost of their approach. As an aside, it should be noted that in any case where royalty payments are made, there's a clear difference between copying and licensing.
| Mix1 wrote: |
| So, when your students copy each other, do you just let it happen because it's all "subjective"... or do you take a stance on it and judge it in some way? Do you respect that behavior? |
When my students copy each other, I take issue precisely to the extent that it impacts the intended goal: their education. Sometimes copying to a certain extent is all right, and sometimes it isn't. Likewise, as I all ready suggested, Korea's innovational scheme should be understood in terms of the goals towards which it works. If it enriches Korea (it does), and if it provides benefit to the rest of the world (it does), then denying it on the grounds of it being "less respected" seems pointless.
| Mix1 wrote: |
| If you had a contest in class called "The Most Innovative Essay". Would you award it to the kid with the most original essay with the most novel ideas, or... would you award it to the kid who copied him word for word and just changed the title and font, then tried to pawn it off as his own work? |
I feel like what you wrote right here highlights the our difference of opinion on the matter: you're looking at innovation almost as a kind of talent show, which is probably also why you're thinking in subjective terms like respectability instead of objective terms like usefulness. If all you care about is essential patents, then yes, Korea is obviously not at the top. But if that's all to which you pay attention, then you aren't talking about innovation in its entirety, but merely one flashy sub-category of it, so I don't blame the original article for not viewing the matter that way. |
Actually you are talking about it in terms of your preferred subcategories, presumably to justify the rankings.
And you sort of dodged the questions about the students, which cut to the heart of how one views copying in general. It seemed like you were praising/justifying copying and it would be interesting to see if you do the same in your classes.
So, if the copying student paid the other student to let him copy off him ("licensing") would it cease to be copying? Would he win the "Most Innovative Essay" prize? In your view, he just might, especially if it turned out to be "useful" and "beneficial" to him, since apparently those are more important concepts in your mind than actual innovation.
It's not even specifically about patent numbers, it's about a long-term, general cultural tendency of copying products and ideas, whether they paid for some of it or not. Copying may make some money and successful products, but it shouldn't win one a prize for being the "most innovative". |
Bill Gates is a perfect example of what you just said. The Koreans are copying the example set by the west. As copiers go, I would say they are pretty innovative. The prize should be titled "Most Innovative Thieves." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Off on another one of your patented derailments. The topic is innovation, now what company owns what. |
Yes, and we were talking about what company innovates what on a car and how its done. You're just getting uncomfortable because you through out a very poor example with the F-150 and Corvette and anyone who knows anything about the auto industry knows it.
| Quote: |
| As for innovation, you've mentioned the Japanese--see my prior post--Germany and the U.S. You've proven my point. |
Your point was this- "Not all car companies are multinationals. You've heard of Telsa, haven't you?
What partnership is responsible for a Ford F-150? Or a Chevy Corvette?"
Also, GM bought out much of Daewoo. Heck, all of Korea's car companies are a hodge-podge. Hyundai and Kia share designs and components with their cars, despite being separate companies. A Kia Optima is a re-badged Sonata. Samsung? It's a partnership with Nissan-Renault.
| Quote: |
| So I guess we can scratch Korea as world leader in connection with innovation. |
Really? Not in semiconductors? Even firearms?
| Quote: |
| Suppliers didn't design the Corvette. They provide parts that fit into what the engineers at Chevy specify. Same goes for the Tesla. They may well already manufacture some of those parts or not. And they may come up with a better way to make those parts or even refine the design. In other words, more innovation. |
It's not Chevy, its GM, as GM cars share technology through brands such as Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, and others and even into international subsidiaries and through joint ventures.
When designing a car, the designers incorporate existing parts from suppliers into their design and/or also submit requirements to suppliers. Many of these suppliers sell parts to multiple car companies in different companies.
Do you really think the engineers at Tesla designed every part of the car? This isn't the 1910s. Heck, in WWII, aircraft incorporated parts and designs from other companies. The North American P-51 didn't become what it was because of the engineers at North American. It became what it was because the the P-51s sold to the British got Merlin engines tossed onto them instead of Allisons. It was the engine that made the Mustang. The engine preceded the aircraft. The Hispano-Suiza company's (a neutral firm) 20mm cannons were used in US and British designs. Do you think the Grumman and Supermarine sent specifications to H.S. or did they decide to use H.S. cannons? Now this was during war time for military applications. Are you seriously suggesting that in peacetime for commercial purposes similar things aren't done?
Ford decides not to design many components because its better to spend the money that would be spent on expensive R&D and instead spend it on say, marketing or pensions and employee benefits. Let a subcontractor design the parts and just purchase them as needed. Who cares if they sell brakes to Honda and VW as well?
| Quote: |
| BTW, in the past all those companies for the Corvette would have probably been owned by GM. Anti-trust laws put an end to that. |
Care to point to the anti-trust steps taken against GM for gobbling up parts suppliers?
atwood, you just don't know what you're talking about. Are you one of those people who bought a Geo Prizm and thought you were buying an American car? Do you think a Mazda MX-6 is a Japanese car? F-150 only comes from Americans in Detroit?
This is the 21st century in the automotive industry. Get a clue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mix1 wrote: |
| Actually you are talking about it in terms of your preferred subcategories, presumably to justify the rankings. |
Eh? I'm acknowledging a variety of types of innovation, while you're insisting that one kind ought to be outright disqualified for consideration in favor of another. I don't see how you can say I'm preferring any particular subcategory. I even outright acknowledged that if one only considers essential patents it creates a different result. I'm just not willing to limit my own considerations to that specific metric.
| Mix1 wrote: |
| And you sort of dodged the questions about the students ... |
I gave the only answer I could to a completely bizarre counterfactual revolving around a "most innovative essay" contest. I don't think you're being fair here.
| Mix1 wrote: |
| It seemed like you were praising/justifying copying and it would be interesting to see if you do the same in your classes. |
I outright said I tolerated copying to some extent (namely, to the extent that it aids learning rather than impedes it).
| Mix1 wrote: |
| So, if the copying student paid the other student to let him copy off him ("licensing") would it cease to be copying? |
Look, I'm trying to be polite, but this analogy simply isn't a good fit for the issue at hand. I've been as clear as I can be regarding it, and tried to give as honest and complete an answer as I could, but it's just an outright bad analogy. Global innovation isn't some talent show where you're trying to earn the teacher's approval, it's results driven. A kid who spruces up an essay a bit and a company who makes a semiconductor slightly more efficient are two totally different things, and I don't see any profit at all in comparing them. You evidently do, and that's fine, but given I don't, my ability to respond to you here is limited.
| Mix1 wrote: |
| It's not even specifically about patent numbers, it's about a long-term, general cultural tendency of copying products and ideas, whether they paid for some of it or not. Copying may make some money and successful products, but it shouldn't win one a prize for being the "most innovative". |
Yes, you've made your opinion on that clear. I don't share it, and I've explained why I don't share it. What else do you want me to say? I think I've been reasonably fair to you in this exchange, but I don't like these conversations that never go anywhere. I don't think you're going to budge from your position (and that's fine), and you clearly haven't convinced me, so how about you make any final remarks you feel need making and that will be that? Thanks for the conversation, and I hope you have a nice day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
Off on another one of your patented derailments. The topic is innovation, now what company owns what. |
Yes, and we were talking about what company innovates what on a car and how its done. You're just getting uncomfortable because you through out a very poor example with the F-150 and Corvette and anyone who knows anything about the auto industry knows it.
| Quote: |
| As for innovation, you've mentioned the Japanese--see my prior post--Germany and the U.S. You've proven my point. |
Your point was this- "Not all car companies are multinationals. You've heard of Telsa, haven't you?
What partnership is responsible for a Ford F-150? Or a Chevy Corvette?"
Also, GM bought out much of Daewoo. Heck, all of Korea's car companies are a hodge-podge. Hyundai and Kia share designs and components with their cars, despite being separate companies. A Kia Optima is a re-badged Sonata. Samsung? It's a partnership with Nissan-Renault.
| Quote: |
| So I guess we can scratch Korea as world leader in connection with innovation. |
Really? Not in semiconductors? Even firearms?
| Quote: |
| Suppliers didn't design the Corvette. They provide parts that fit into what the engineers at Chevy specify. Same goes for the Tesla. They may well already manufacture some of those parts or not. And they may come up with a better way to make those parts or even refine the design. In other words, more innovation. |
It's not Chevy, its GM, as GM cars share technology through brands such as Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, and others and even into international subsidiaries and through joint ventures.
When designing a car, the designers incorporate existing parts from suppliers into their design and/or also submit requirements to suppliers. Many of these suppliers sell parts to multiple car companies in different companies.
Do you really think the engineers at Tesla designed every part of the car? This isn't the 1910s. Heck, in WWII, aircraft incorporated parts and designs from other companies. The North American P-51 didn't become what it was because of the engineers at North American. It became what it was because the the P-51s sold to the British got Merlin engines tossed onto them instead of Allisons. It was the engine that made the Mustang. The engine preceded the aircraft. The Hispano-Suiza company's (a neutral firm) 20mm cannons were used in US and British designs. Do you think the Grumman and Supermarine sent specifications to H.S. or did they decide to use H.S. cannons? Now this was during war time for military applications. Are you seriously suggesting that in peacetime for commercial purposes similar things aren't done?
Ford decides not to design many components because its better to spend the money that would be spent on expensive R&D and instead spend it on say, marketing or pensions and employee benefits. Let a subcontractor design the parts and just purchase them as needed. Who cares if they sell brakes to Honda and VW as well?
| Quote: |
| BTW, in the past all those companies for the Corvette would have probably been owned by GM. Anti-trust laws put an end to that. |
Care to point to the anti-trust steps taken against GM for gobbling up parts suppliers?
atwood, you just don't know what you're talking about. Are you one of those people who bought a Geo Prizm and thought you were buying an American car? Do you think a Mazda MX-6 is a Japanese car? F-150 only comes from Americans in Detroit?
This is the 21st century in the automotive industry. Get a clue. |
None of what you've posted has anything to do with innovation.
Go back to the F-150. Its engine is co-designed by Ford and FEV technology. They are both western companies, so the innovations in that engine are western technology. Your rant about current business practices misses the point.
Ford has built cars, trucks and tractors overseas for a long time. But they're still Ford cars that originate in Dearborn. That Rolls Royce engine you're so proud of, the Merlin? It was built in a Ford factory. Either way we're talking about Western innovation as opposed to Asian incremental innovation.
As for GM and anit-trust:http://www.autonews.com/article/20090601/ZZZ_SPECIAL/306019998/before-toyota-the-u.s.-threatened-mighty-gm
As for GM divestitures:
| Quote: |
| In addition to these brands selling assembled vehicles, GM also has had various automotive-component and non-automotive brands, many of which it divested in the 1980s through 2000s. These have included Euclid and Terex (earthmoving/construction/mining equipment & vehicles); Electro-Motive Diesel (locomotive, marine, and industrial diesel engines); Detroit Diesel (automotive and industrial diesel engines); Allison (transmissions, gas turbine engines); Frigidaire (refrigeration and air conditioning); New Departure (bearings); Delco Electronics and ACDelco (electrical and electronic components); GMAC (finance); General Aviation and North American Aviation (airplanes); GM Defense (military vehicles) and Electronic Data Systems (information technology). In short, there are few, if any, industrial sectors or categories in which GM did not play a major role in the Twentieth century, worldwide. |
Current GM innovation: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/12/16/gm-general-motors-invest-13b-engine-10-speed-transmission/4040401/
I don't have to link you up to Henry Ford do I?
As for semiconductors and Samsung those are memory chips. Samsung refines them, sure, but that's incremental innovation. For who invented semiconductor chips: http://doctord.dyndns.org/Courses/UNH/CS216/Ram-Timeline.pdf
Any more questions, casey jones, before you set off on your next derailment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Go back to the F-150. Its engine is co-designed by Ford and FEV technology. They are both western companies, so the innovations in that engine are western technology. Your rant about current business practices misses the point. |
The design for the engine, you know the innovation part, traces its roots to Mazda and Porsche.
I'm not talking about Western tech, I'm talking about your claim that no partnerships, especially foreign ones, are responsible for an F-150 or Corvette.
| Quote: |
| Ford has built cars, trucks and tractors overseas for a long time. But they're still Ford cars that originate in Dearborn. |
No, many are joint ventures with other companies, IE the Ford Probe, which uses a Mazda engine. The Geo Prizm is a GM badged car that was designed in Japan.
| Quote: |
| That Rolls Royce engine you're so proud of, the Merlin? It was built in a Ford factory. |
It was designed in England. And it was built by Packard, not Ford.
Also, your comment "that Rolls Royce engine you're so proud of" betrays your lack of knowledge and appreciation for the significance of that engine. That was the engine that was on the Spitfire and Hurricane. You know, aircraft that were flying against the Luftwaffe before the P-51 existed in anyone's imagination.
| Quote: |
Either way we're talking about Western innovation as opposed to Asian incremental innovation.
|
In other words, Asians and Westerners can do the exact same thing, but one has the added negative connotation of being "incremental" innovation.
| Quote: |
| As for GM and anit-trust:http://www.autonews.com/article/20090601/ZZZ_SPECIAL/306019998/before-toyota-the-u.s.-threatened-mighty-gm |
Read your own article: "But in the end, it was the market — not government regulation — that defanged GM. Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and other Asian automakers relentlessly chipped away at GM's dominance."
It continues- "The complaint alleged that GM's acquisition of suppliers enabled the corporation to control its costs and fatten its profit margins by forcing other automakers to buy its parts."
Yes, other car companies were buying parts from GM subsidiaries.
| Quote: |
| I don't have to link you up to Henry Ford do I? |
I don't know, do I have to link to the compass, gunpowder, inoculation, and paper in China? Do we go to the Ancient Near East?
| Quote: |
| Any more questions, casey jones, before you set off on your next derailment? |
We're talking about how innovation occurs in the automobile industry. You are saying that innovation in a design like the F-150, comes from Ford and Ford alone. I'm saying that in the modern-era, innovation comes through partnerships, joint ventures, foreign subsidiaries, suppliers, and other sources, as well as the domestic engineering of the parent corporation. These are two-way streets.
And in the end suppose every innovation ever to take place in the world came from westerners. What then? What is it you want from this? For the rest of the world to bow down to you and acknowledge some greatness that you seem to be living through vicariously?
The argument is pointless. Hyundai could come out with the most innovative car out there and you'd still say its all because of westerners. Likewise, GM could go out and do a joint venture and put Hyundai engines, designed in Korea, in its next cars and say that its still GM and American innovation. Basically you won't be happy unless Hyundai announces it will close up shop and just do whatever GM and foreigners say.
Anyways, its not the 1950s anymore. The automotive world has changed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are Korean contributions unimportant? Certainly not. But that doesn't make them innovative.
| Quote: |
| Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different rather than doing the same thing better. |
Courtesy of wikipedia, this is certainly more in line with what I imagine the definition of "innovation" to be. To give a Western example, portraying the iPad mini as an innovative iteration of the iPad would, to me at least, demean the value of the term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
optik404
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I bet atwood and steelrails have dreams about each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| optik404 wrote: |
| I bet atwood and steelrails have dreams about each other. |
We have our rows, but I don't have anything personal against the guy. I don't go seeking out his posts. He sure has an axe to grind against me though.
And while I may disagree with him on other threads, when it comes to this whole "Designed and Innovated in Detroit" because it has the Ford logo on it, he is utterly and embarrassingly wrong. It would be pretty obvious to anyone who is a car guy/gal.
I kept on bringing up the Ford Probe, Geo Prizm, and Taurus SHO. This is because I used to own a Probe and two of my friends owned the others. We did or own maintenance and for the SHO and the Probe, we did some moderate tuning. When you're looking through Japanese aftermarket and parts catalogs for pieces for your "Ford" car, you quickly realize how little that whole "Built in the USA" stuff means. I'm not the biggest gearhead out there, but I know enough, and being born and raised in the Detroit metro area, you get exposed to everything and hear in conversations what people are up to if they work for a parts supplier and the Big Three. Everyone in SE Michigan has someone in their extended family who is in the auto industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Go back to the F-150. Its engine is co-designed by Ford and FEV technology. They are both western companies, so the innovations in that engine are western technology. Your rant about current business practices misses the point. |
The design for the engine, you know the innovation part, traces its roots to Mazda and Porsche.
I'm not talking about Western tech, I'm talking about your claim that no partnerships, especially foreign ones, are responsible for an F-150 or Corvette.
| Quote: |
| Ford has built cars, trucks and tractors overseas for a long time. But they're still Ford cars that originate in Dearborn. |
No, many are joint ventures with other companies, IE the Ford Probe, which uses a Mazda engine. The Geo Prizm is a GM badged car that was designed in Japan.
| Quote: |
| That Rolls Royce engine you're so proud of, the Merlin? It was built in a Ford factory. |
It was designed in England. And it was built by Packard, not Ford.
Also, your comment "that Rolls Royce engine you're so proud of" betrays your lack of knowledge and appreciation for the significance of that engine. That was the engine that was on the Spitfire and Hurricane. You know, aircraft that were flying against the Luftwaffe before the P-51 existed in anyone's imagination.
| Quote: |
Either way we're talking about Western innovation as opposed to Asian incremental innovation.
|
In other words, Asians and Westerners can do the exact same thing, but one has the added negative connotation of being "incremental" innovation.
| Quote: |
| As for GM and anit-trust:http://www.autonews.com/article/20090601/ZZZ_SPECIAL/306019998/before-toyota-the-u.s.-threatened-mighty-gm |
Read your own article: "But in the end, it was the market — not government regulation — that defanged GM. Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and other Asian automakers relentlessly chipped away at GM's dominance."
It continues- "The complaint alleged that GM's acquisition of suppliers enabled the corporation to control its costs and fatten its profit margins by forcing other automakers to buy its parts."
Yes, other car companies were buying parts from GM subsidiaries.
| Quote: |
| I don't have to link you up to Henry Ford do I? |
I don't know, do I have to link to the compass, gunpowder, inoculation, and paper in China? Do we go to the Ancient Near East?
| Quote: |
| Any more questions, casey jones, before you set off on your next derailment? |
We're talking about how innovation occurs in the automobile industry. You are saying that innovation in a design like the F-150, comes from Ford and Ford alone. I'm saying that in the modern-era, innovation comes through partnerships, joint ventures, foreign subsidiaries, suppliers, and other sources, as well as the domestic engineering of the parent corporation. These are two-way streets.
And in the end suppose every innovation ever to take place in the world came from westerners. What then? What is it you want from this? For the rest of the world to bow down to you and acknowledge some greatness that you seem to be living through vicariously?
The argument is pointless. Hyundai could come out with the most innovative car out there and you'd still say its all because of westerners. Likewise, GM could go out and do a joint venture and put Hyundai engines, designed in Korea, in its next cars and say that its still GM and American innovation. Basically you won't be happy unless Hyundai announces it will close up shop and just do whatever GM and foreigners say.
Anyways, its not the 1950s anymore. The automotive world has changed. |
No, you wanted to argue the partnership aspect, not me. That all of the innovation doesn't come directly from Ford or GM is not the point. The point is that they are innovating and asking those who contribute to their products to innovate as well.
My point remains the same, no matter how much you try to spin it. Innovation in Korea is incremental as opposed to the radical innovation that has come from the West and even Japan.
When Hyundai come out with a truly innovative car, I'll be glad to acknowledge it. Might even buy it. The Veloster is a nice take on the classic Civic CRX, but they've still not there yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Innovation in Korea is incremental as opposed to the radical innovation that has come from the West and even Japan.
|
So what?
| Quote: |
| No, you wanted to argue the partnership aspect, not me. |
Atwood- this is what you said: "Not all car companies are multinationals. You've heard of Telsa, haven't you?
What partnership is responsible for a Ford F-150? Or a Chevy Corvette?"
This was in regards to how cars are developed in the modern era. I was pointing out how cars today are an amalgamation of efforts when it comes to innovation in the industry.
Your question of "What partnership is responsible" betrayed a staggering ignorance of the automotive industry. You seem to think of innovation as being rigidly defined in origin and a zero-sum game where you can trace the specific actors. I'm trying to show you how innovation defies those simplistic categorizations.
| Quote: |
| When Hyundai come out with a truly innovative car, I'll be glad to acknowledge it. Might even buy it. |
Funny, I buy cars based on price, quality, reliability, features, maintenance costs, safety, and gas mileage. I don't go "Well until they design something innovative, I'm not going to buy it." Just because a Dodge minivan is innovative doesn't mean I want to be driving it.
| Quote: |
| Innovation in Korea is incremental as opposed to the radical innovation that has come from the West and even Japan. |
To go back to this, what is so bad about incremental innovation if it is frequent, widespread, and reaches millions of more people than radical innovation? Isn't the goal here to improve people's lives and offer them products and technologies that help them? If incremental innovation helps millions of people then great for it. Why knock people for incremental innovation? I don't get why this makes you upset. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
Innovation in Korea is incremental as opposed to the radical innovation that has come from the West and even Japan.
|
So what?
| Quote: |
| No, you wanted to argue the partnership aspect, not me. |
Atwood- this is what you said: "Not all car companies are multinationals. You've heard of Telsa, haven't you?
What partnership is responsible for a Ford F-150? Or a Chevy Corvette?"
This was in regards to how cars are developed in the modern era. I was pointing out how cars today are an amalgamation of efforts when it comes to innovation in the industry.
Your question of "What partnership is responsible" betrayed a staggering ignorance of the automotive industry. You seem to think of innovation as being rigidly defined in origin and a zero-sum game where you can trace the specific actors. I'm trying to show you how innovation defies those simplistic categorizations.
| Quote: |
| When Hyundai come out with a truly innovative car, I'll be glad to acknowledge it. Might even buy it. |
Funny, I buy cars based on price, quality, reliability, features, maintenance costs, safety, and gas mileage. I don't go "Well until they design something innovative, I'm not going to buy it." Just because a Dodge minivan is innovative doesn't mean I want to be driving it.
| Quote: |
| Innovation in Korea is incremental as opposed to the radical innovation that has come from the West and even Japan. |
To go back to this, what is so bad about incremental innovation if it is frequent, widespread, and reaches millions of more people than radical innovation? Isn't the goal here to improve people's lives and offer them products and technologies that help them? If incremental innovation helps millions of people then great for it. Why knock people for incremental innovation? I don't get why this makes you upset. |
Tesla is not a multinational company. You don't seem to understand what a multinational is.
Your premises are wrong. Innovation can be traced to specific actors. For example, re. semiconductors: http://inventors.about.com/od/istartinventions/a/intergrated_circuit.htm
You also don't seem to understand that radical technology must happen before incremental technology can be applied. So before Samsung and LG could add a feature here and a feature there, a bigger screen, etc. IBM had to invent the smartphone. How about a flat panel TV, invented at the University of Illinois? There's plenty more, of course.
In other words, incremental innovation is not, as you put it, "reaching millions of more people?" In fact, it's the other way around. Everyone using a smartphone is benefiting from IBM's invention, while only a segment of those people are benefiting from whatever incremental innovation individual manufacturers add on.
And I use the word "benefit" guardedly because no one has yet made it clear how "these products" help people. And if they do help people, as you argue, how do they help anyone any better that the products that they replaced did? In other words, how has the incremental innovation truly made someone's life better? In plain English, how does a 60" LED HDTV help someone?
Be that as it may, hopefully you can see the substantial difference between radical and incremental innovation and which is the real driver of change.
BTW, I don't know why you're accusing me of being angry, when you're the one ranting. Maybe you can rent or borrow a Corvette, or Mustang, or 911, or even a VW GTI and drive away from your apologista blues. But no, you'll probably argue those cars aren't up to your standards and that you'll stick with your Tico.
Safe driving! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| Actually you are talking about it in terms of your preferred subcategories, presumably to justify the rankings. |
Eh? I'm acknowledging a variety of types of innovation, while you're insisting that one kind ought to be outright disqualified for consideration in favor of another. I don't see how you can say I'm preferring any particular subcategory. I even outright acknowledged that if one only considers essential patents it creates a different result. I'm just not willing to limit my own considerations to that specific metric.
| Mix1 wrote: |
| And you sort of dodged the questions about the students ... |
I gave the only answer I could to a completely bizarre counterfactual revolving around a "most innovative essay" contest. I don't think you're being fair here.
| Mix1 wrote: |
| It seemed like you were praising/justifying copying and it would be interesting to see if you do the same in your classes. |
I outright said I tolerated copying to some extent (namely, to the extent that it aids learning rather than impedes it).
| Mix1 wrote: |
| So, if the copying student paid the other student to let him copy off him ("licensing") would it cease to be copying? |
Look, I'm trying to be polite, but this analogy simply isn't a good fit for the issue at hand. I've been as clear as I can be regarding it, and tried to give as honest and complete an answer as I could, but it's just an outright bad analogy. Global innovation isn't some talent show where you're trying to earn the teacher's approval, it's results driven. A kid who spruces up an essay a bit and a company who makes a semiconductor slightly more efficient are two totally different things, and I don't see any profit at all in comparing them. You evidently do, and that's fine, but given I don't, my ability to respond to you here is limited.
| Mix1 wrote: |
| It's not even specifically about patent numbers, it's about a long-term, general cultural tendency of copying products and ideas, whether they paid for some of it or not. Copying may make some money and successful products, but it shouldn't win one a prize for being the "most innovative". |
Yes, you've made your opinion on that clear. I don't share it, and I've explained why I don't share it. What else do you want me to say? I think I've been reasonably fair to you in this exchange, but I don't like these conversations that never go anywhere. I don't think you're going to budge from your position (and that's fine), and you clearly haven't convinced me, so how about you make any final remarks you feel need making and that will be that? Thanks for the conversation, and I hope you have a nice day. |
No worries, you too.
More dodges but that's fine. I don't think the analogies were pointless; they are similar behaviors in different contexts. If you are fine with copying and would praise and reward it over pure innovation (like in the example) then that explains a lot regarding why we disagree here.
I'm just basing this on the commonly held definition that the key factor of innovation is something NEW. While copying and slight tweaks can show some level of innovation, it shouldn't win someone the first prize over completely new ideas. If you look at their product history, it's hard to argue that Korea has not largely been a copying culture, whether they paid for the ideas or not, so it's odd to see them get first place for "innovation". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
