Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (647431)	3/10/2012 7:13:22 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570759

Bottom line is that said "version 1.0 of a brilliant transitional concept" that I worked on turned out to be a real dog. That doesn't surprise me considering that you worked on it. Of course, we weren't under any political pressure to sell as much as we could. Or market it as "the product America had to build." Nah...you work for a company not on the verge of bankruptcy...what point are you proving here other than you don't know anything about business. In fact, "version 1.0" never really reached the market. It took "version 2.0" before it actually was sold to the general public. Now we're working on "version 5.0," which might finally be the version that makes any sense whatsoever. And even then, it probably wore out its welcome a long time ago. (Fortunately I got out after "version 2.0.") After the Prius and slew of other hybrids it's easily argued that the Volt is evolutionary...the transitional problem is cost isn't it? I think GM may have messed up two things...one it the fact that it not fight the impression that the car was "revolutionary"...that does not work well in the consumer space, not at this level of investment...the other is its cost...i guess GM would nor or could not set the introductory units as enough of a loss leader to create real volume quickly. In fact, "version 1.0" never really reached the market. It took "version 2.0" before it actually was sold to the general public. Now we're working on "version 5.0," which might finally be the version that makes any sense whatsoever. And even then, it probably wore out its welcome a long time ago. (Fortunately I got out after "version 2.0.") Does that sound like a project worth defending, Is anyone attacking it to make a cheap political point? Answer that then I will let you know whether it's worth defending. Al PS: I think you just showed us how little you know about business development.