What’s also impressive, is the number of free apps (although their prevalence is in decline), and the lower prices of apps compared to other platforms. As Gizmodo reported in October, some Apps are over $100 cheaper on iPhone than on other platforms.

What’s also worth noting, is how steep the top end of the sales Vs ranking graph is. The most popular apps sell far more units than less popular apps, once you look past the top 50, sales drop markedly, past the top 100 and sales are pretty meagre. 

But when you put all these together, it could indicate a fairly bleak future for the App store. If an app doesn’t make it into the top 50, it’s not going to sell all that well, which means slim profits for the developer. If the developer cut their prices compared to other platforms in an attempt to get it into the top 50, and still doesn’t make it, things could be pretty dire indeed.

While the internet has been abuzz with success stories of developers jumping on the App Store bandwagon and coming up trumps, it doesn’t talk much about the developers who put huge resources into developing apps, and don’t quite make it. With 100,000 apps, and only around 100, even just 50, of them selling in large numbers at any given time, how many developers aren’t making their money back on their investment?

With Google Android, and every other phone manufacturer bring out their own answer to the App Store, the next buzz on the internet could be stories of developers switching their interest to other platforms, and making more money from them. That really could burst Apple’s bubble.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the App store and it’s vast selection of Apps, and I hope this doesn’t happen like I’ve described. But, could it…?

IBM aims to pose a serious challenge to Google’s uber offer. IBM loves to call their offer iNotes. It costs $1 less per month and comes with less memory capacity. Users might also videos and word processing. Business communication rarely comes with bells and whistles, you see. The offer includes a calendar – in addition to the contact management and email.

What Can Go Into Cloud?

Cost cutting is a sexy and chic term now. Cloud computing promises cost efficient solutions. The main problem with most enterprises is the fear of the unknown. When they see a brand so familiar like IBM or Google, they are likely to jump in to the bandwagon. With email, contact management and calendar it makes a low-risk entry for the businesses too. Once OK, they would use services like billing, sales force management, payroll management and other critical aspects of business as well.

Email Paves the Way

It is easy to get into the cloud computing by using a simple solution to manage email, contacts and calendar. The technology teams of businesses have less headaches to deal with. And, the cost of hosting the email servers reduced to a minimum. The cost is variable according to the number of users. That is the advantage of cloud computing – pay only for what you use.

Does the Cloud Remain an Empire Forever?

Until now, there wasn’t any serious competition in the cloud-space. Maybe, it was as if everyone expected Google to lift every business activity to the cloud. The overconfidence in desktop applications might also be the reason why not many companies has taken the battle to the Google. Meanwhile, Google has successfully seduced many to the cloud. It wooed users of Microsoft Exchange and Lotus Notes.

Some thought desktop computing remains the undisputed champion for several centuries to come. It needed someone to upset the applecart. When the change came, it came like a landslide.

Can Reputation Help IBM Challenge the Emperor?

Now IBM looks to leverage its reputation as the builders of finest business machines to gain some serious ground in the cloud space. Aggression is the only way to go.

Now it is time for iNotes to woo at least some of the users back from Google Apps. Will at least a few dozen enterprises jump boats in favor of IBM? We will get the answer before this winter sets in.

Saturn, owned by General Motors, was to be sold to the Penske Automotive Group and the deal could have been finalised by the end of the week. But problems arose when, although a manufacturer could be found, the board of directors shot the deal down.

This year Saturn, established in 1985, was down by 60% in sales from their previous year alone. While a few brands, such as the smart car, have enjoyed growing sales, the majority of the automotive market has fallen.

The news will come as a blow to the 13,000 Saturn staff who worked hard trying to preserve the company (and their jobs). The Penske group had previously planned to retain them before the deal failed.

Saturn had a different view on car dealerships. It held a ‘no haggle’ view on its prices and was incredibly successful from the 1990s until the year 2000. They won many awards during this period and several afterwards.

It’s a sad thing to see any company fold, especially when there is a high level of redundancy in its wake.

The one advantage to all of this? If you’re looking for a good deal on a car the coming months might be a good time to buy yourself a Saturn.

Apple’s Genius Bar

Out of the many business techniques that Microsoft has copied, one is for emulating Apple’s “Genius Bar“, now calling it a “Guru Bar“. The Genius Bar is in available any Apple Retail Store, and is for when you need technical support for your Apple Products such as Macs, and iPods from experts.

The similarities to Apple’s product stores don’t just end with its Genius Bar. Back in July, Microsoft described the interior of its stores, which include Windows,  Smartphone, and Office sections along the walls. In the center, there will be tables with products on them that are labeled Learn, Connect and Info – very alike to the Apple’s stores.

These may be dangerous moves for Microsoft, but it also could be totally worth it for the software giant.

The biggest fear, of course, is that Disney will invade the Marvel Comics headquarters and unleash its creations on them. Hannah Montana as the new Kitty Pride, or something. Yuck, right? We don’t need Disney characters in our favorite marvel comics, right? Right.

But I wouldn’t worry about that. Disney owns several things and none of them have been invaded by Disney owned characters. While Miley Cyrus is signed to Hollywood Records, she has not been forced onto every other artist on the labels albums. She hasn’t been featured on a Queen album.

What is best about this is that Marvel will have more of an opportunity to have its characters turned into cartoons and film. They have more money backing them then you can imagine and Disney also own companies like Miramax. Miramax films is an art-house/indie film company that has released many a film that have nothing to do with Disney. Remember Clerks? Kill Bill? Doubt? These movies have been given the freedom to be what they are with out Disney muscling their way into their productions.

Disney will not disrupt Marvel one bit.

But they could help them considerably. With out focusing on the fact that Marvel has instant access to cartoons and movies, the way DC comics has had with Warner Bros for years, we have on other aspect worth looking at.

Miley Cyrus is signed to Hollywood Records. What’s my point?

If Disney want to use Marvel to release comic books based on their shows they will. This probably won’t happen very much but think about how wonderful it would be if they did.

Comics would be targeted at young kids, again. Not all, of course, but some. This won’t destroy the serious graphic novel but it will offer an alternative. Manga does very well because it is disposable. We put too much emphasis on collecting comics and this will change with the next generation of comics readers if Disney does involve itself even slightly.

Also, a Hannah Montana comic would mean one simple thing. Business. Money. Do you know how bad are economy is doing? Comics has been hit hard and anything that pumps money and – more importantly – new readers into our medium, we should rejoice.

I am.

This also effects the stock market. The fact that a major business is spending this much money to buy another major business in the hopes of making even more money, means that stocks will once again start to rise and that, my friends, is the best news of all.

Most people immediately say no.  But lets also remember the fact that Disney is invested in several industries that aren’t necessarily for children.  Disney within the last few years has been trying to appeal to a older audience and invests in companies such as Image Movers Digital a production company run by Robert Zemeckis.  This company specializes in motion capture and did all the work for Beowolf, Monster House, Castaway, Polar Express, and even the up coming Jim Carry film A Christmas Carol.  Yes some of these movies are for children but there are movies being producted that are for an older audience.

Image via Wikipedia

Let’s also not forget Pirates of The Caribbean which yes children can enjoy but is meant for an older audience.  Disney has been trying more and more to find a franchise which they can appeal to an older audience which is why we have seen the return of Pirates of the Caribbean and now in Disney parks world wide you can’t miss a massive arsenal of pirate merchandising.  Disney was smart enough to capitalize off of this idea and work with people who can do it right which is why Jerry Bruckheimer was hired to do the job.  Bruckheimer of course has worked on shows such as CSI which is definitely a show not recommended for adults.

So where does Marvel fit into all of this?  Well as you know Marvel has a very well known character base which they most likely intend on using.  Just because they bought these characters doesn’t necessarily mean that your going to be taking pictures of Superman side by side with Micky Mouse.  Granted Disney could begin to Nerf the comics and try to make them less graphic which is a sad thought. 

But if you look at the last 5 years Disney has done the exact opposite, they tried to do a Haunted House movie which tried to appeal to a wide audience of adults and children and it failed miserably.  Disney noticed this and decided to instead do something which will be somewhat graphic and a little scary.  There are still rumors floating around saying that Disney intends on doing movies now on each classic roller coaster at Disney parks so keep all of this into perspective.

Disney might have a childish reputation but times change and so does a company image.  Disney has children locked into their material well especially since the fall of Warner Brothers (after all you never see Buggs Bunny anywhere anymore).  Disney plans on keeping children interested into their material but they want to make sure they have a form of entertainment which appeals to all audiences.  Lets just hope that I am not wrong as I write this article but Disney over all has been a smart company when it comes to understanding its audiences, especially after serious blunders.  And believe me Disney recognizes blunders relatively fast, just look at the billion dollar renovation that is going on right now at Disney’s California Adventure.

Quality is something everyone strives for in a consumable good. Quality is especially important when it comes to bigger purchases such as automobiles. The American Automobile industry has suffered a loss in market share to the foreign automotive companies. One of the reasons for the loss in market share is quality management. The quality of an American automobile is just not the same as a foreign name brand like Toyota. This paper will compare and contrast the differences in Quality Management of General Motors the leading American competitor to the leading foreign competitor Toyota. “In 1950, America produced 79.4% of the world’s automobiles. By 1981, its share had slipped below 30%” (Yates 1983). In 2007 the American Automakers held 52.6% of the market share in the United States, which was up from 2006 at 51.5%. As the market shares continue to fluctuate GM is the front-runner of the American automobile industry with 23.8% of the U.S. Market share while Toyota holds 16.2% of the U.S market share. (Autodata corp.)

Part 1: History of General Motors

September 16, 1908 General Motors was formed. At the time GM consisted of Buick, Pontiac, Cadillac and GMC. In 2008 GM consists of Chevrolet, GMC Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, Hummer, Oldsmobile Saab, and Saturn. By the 1920’s the demand for automobiles grew to unexpected heights. “General Motors set the pace of production, design, and marketing innovation for others to follow” (GM.com). By 1929 General Motors was established in India, Brazil, China, Canada, and Europe. Quickly becoming one of the world’s leaders in automobiles.

In 1942 World War II was upon us and GM converted 100% of its operations to the war effort. GM delivered more than $12 billion worth of materials including airplanes, trucks and tanks. During the 60’s and 70’s the fuel prices started to rise and foreign competition led to the downsizing of the vehicles across all of General Motors lines. People were beginning to want lighter, aerodynamic, and fuel-efficient vehicles. By 1982 GM added Saab and Hummer to the lines and in order to strengthen the reach and variety of vehicles sold worldwide. 1995 was the biggest year for General Motors as sales outside of North America exceeded 3 million units while sales in the United States hit 5 million units. “By the end of the 90’s, the foundation for global growth in the new millennium had been set” (GM.com).

At the turn of the 21st century it was prevalent that the environment needed to be preserved. General Motors began creating vehicles that were more environment friendly. General Motors has innovated itself by creating fuel-efficient vehicles, bio fuels and hybrids. In 2003 General Motors partnered with Shell Hydrogen, a division of Shell Oil to hydrogen fuel cells and fueling infrastructure technology.

Part 2: History of Toyota Motor Co.

The Toyota Motor Company was established in 1937 with the A1 prototype passenger car. Under the reign of Sakichi Toyoda the soon to be largest automobile manufacture was beginning to take shape. In 1953 the company slogan was “Good Thinking, Good Products.” This slogan would play an important role in the growing years of Toyota to come. By 1957 Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. was established. This gave way to the first export of Japanese passenger cars to the U.S. “In June 1960, Eiji Toyoda, then Executive Vice President of Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. (TMC), laid down guiding principles for quality control in a document named “Requests regarding inspection.” In it he introduced the notion of “building quality into processes,” pointing out that “the idea behind an inspection is to eliminate the need for inspections.” As long as standards in processes could be kept at the highest possible levels, Toyoda thought inspections would, in an ideal world, become unnecessary.”(toyta.co.jp). In 1962 the Corolla was introduced which is still being built today. Also in 1962 Toyota reached the 1 million units produced in Japan mark. By 1969 Toyota had already exported over 1 million units.

In 1970 Toyota was awarded the first Japan Quality Control Medal. As the number of units produced in Japan exceeded 10 million in Japan by 1972. By 1975 the cumulative exports reached 5 million units. Then in 1977 the Toyota Technical Center U.S.A. was established. Shortly after the 5 million mark in 1975 by 1979 Toyota already reached the 10 million export mark. By 1986 Toyota had already reached its 50 millionth vehicle and 20 million exports. As Toyota grew rapidly in the Japanese markets as well as the U.S. markets Toyota decided in 1988 to start production on the Toyota Motor Manufacturing plant in Kentucky. Soon after in 1989 the Lexus dealerships started to arrive in the United States. Lexus is Toyota’s high-end luxury brand of automobiles. Just like Cadillac is to General Motors.

In the mid 90’s the annual overseas out put was exceeding 1 million units. Toyota began to open up manufacturing pants like the one in Kentucky in Indiana, West Virginia, and in the United Kingdom. By the end of the 20th century Toyota was listed on the New York and London Stock Exchanges and exceeding annual overseas sales of 3 million units.

“By 2002 the North American production achieved 10 million units cumulative production” (Toyota.co.jp). By 2005 Toyota was producing vehicles in Russia, China, Brazil, United States of America, United Kingdom, and Mexico. Also in 2005 Toyota launched the Lexus brand in Japan. Along with General Motors Toyota is creating Hybrid vehicles and already have some Hybrids on the road. With sales expected to grow as the fuel prices rise.

Part 3: Quality Comes First

When we buy an automobile we expect it to be reliable and built with quality. J.D. Power and Associates do an Initial Quality Study twice a year for new model automobiles. “The 2007 Initial Quality Study is based on responses from more than 97,000 purchasers and lessees of new 2007 model-year cars and trucks surveyed after 90 days of ownership. The study is based on a 228-question battery designed to provide manufacturers with information to facilitate problem determination and drive product improvement. The Initial Quality Study serves as the industry benchmark for new-vehicle quality and captures problems experienced by owners in two distinct categories – quality of design and quality of production (defects and malfunctions).” (J.D. Power) The data is interpreted by “Problems Per 100 Vehicles.” The industry average for the study is 125 Problems Per 100 Vehicles (PP100). In the most recent survey released in June 2007, 35 automobile manufactures were apart of the study, Lexus, Toyota’s luxury brand was ranked second overall with a 94 PP100. Toyota came in at 7th with a score of 112 PP100 and Scion followed in 11th with a score of 123 PP100. All of the scores were below the industry average of 125 PP100. General Motors had 8 brands of the 35 studied and all were over the industry average. Buick was ranked 14th with a score of 127 PP100, Chevrolet was ranked 15th with a score of 129 PP100. Overall the average score for General Motors was 135 PP100. While Toyota’s overall average was quite lower at 110 PP100. Below is a chart showing the data provided by J.D. Power and Associates.

J.D. Power and Associates 2007 Initial Quality Study

Only Toyota and General Motor’s brands June 6, 2007

Another ranking that is given out by the Initial Quality Study is the Assembly Plant Awards. The assembly plant awards are solely based on the defect counts. The lower the defects the higher the ranking. Platinum is the highest award a plant can receive. “Among other North and South American plants, the General Motors Oshawa 2 plant in Ontario, Canada which produces the Buick LaCrosse and Pontiac Grand Prix, received the Silver Plant Quality Award.” (J.D. Power) In the Asia Pacific region, Toyota’s Kyushu, Japan, plant, which produces the Lexus ES 350, Lexus IS 250 / IS 350, Lexus RX 350, Lexus RX 400h and Toyota Highlander / Highlander Hybrid received the Gold Plant Quality Award. Toyota’s Fujimatsu, Japan, plant, which produces the Toyota Prius, earned the Silver Plant Quality Award.

“Over the past 20 years, the automotive industry has improved in quality at the rate of 6 percent per year on average –a 20-year improvement rate of more than 120 percent” (JD Power). This study has become very helpful for automobile manufactures to retool and improve the automobiles of the future. The study shows that vehicle redesigns and product launches create quality challenges for manufacturers. Vehicle redesign increases problem counts on average by 10 PP100. “Ideally, manufacturers should aim to achieve high initial quality when launching a new model, since this builds strong foundation for future years can become a differentiating factor to the competition” (J.D. Power).

Part 4: General Motors Quality History

In the early years of General Motors after World War I the automobile business slowed and the founder of GM William Durant was forced to resign as president in a severe financial and management crisis. Alfred P. Sloan, Jr. would take the position and head the corporation. Shortly after GM would become the largest producer of cars and trucks in the world. “The new product concept which evolved under Sloan was to produce “a car for every purse and purpose” and continuously improve all GM vehicles” (Smith 1983,15). Sloan’s management style was to maintain balance between individual and group management, preserving the advantages of each. Sloan called it “decentralized operations and responsibilities with coordinated control.” Basically give the employee a clear responsibility and let the employee do it.

While GM was improving its products with many automotive firsts the war was just beginning to start. When World War II started GM halted all automobile manufacturing and turned all of its plants to help the war effort. From 1940 to 1945 GM’s “contribution spanned from the tiniest ball bearing to massive tanks, naval ships, fighter planes, bombers, guns, cannons, and projectiles” (Smith 1983, p16).

Car making resumed after the war. In the fifties the sales of General Motors soared. Then in the sixties the government started regulating the American automobile industry. Then in the seventies the fuel prices began to rise due to the events in the Middle East. “Foreign manufacturers, which had a ready supply of small, fuel-efficient vehicles, gained a strong hold in the U.S. market segment” (Smith 1983, p19)

At some point around 1960, “America began to rush to exploit the quickening demand for consumer goods swept aside pride-of-workmanship in the name of quick profit”(Yates 1983 p232). This would become a snowball effect and leads us to where we are now with the poor quality General Motors vehicles when comparing them to Toyota. “In the rush to meet the demands of the bursting marketplace, quality and quality control were left far behind” (Yates 1983 p233). It was as if every automobile that was manufactured in Detroit had some degenerative disease; as if the molecules of metal began disintegrating the moment the helpless customer rolled his new car onto the street. The situation reached its height in 1978, the last boom year for Detroit. The American automobile manufacturers were pumping out automobiles at a furious rate, with little regard for quality. While pressures from the governement to meet emmision standards, the engineers were focused on the future and not on the automobiles pouring off of the assembly lines. This resulted in some of the worst automobiles in the history of the industry.

General Motors had the line of cars called the X-cars to compete with the foreign front wheel drive market. These cars were recalled no less than four times in 1980 alone. While General Motors was considered the best of the domestics it was still not as good as its foreign counterparts.

Another important aspect when buying a car is you want it to look good for a long time. The nice paint job is important and should last for many years to come. American paintwork looked inferior to Japanese and European cars. The Americans were struggling with color matching between metal and plastic surfaces. Adding to the problem was poor fit body panels and doors, wavy chrome trim, and badly stitched interiors. This led to a massive barrier in the marketplace. Because of the Eviromental Protection Agency and OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations it made it harder in America to paint the vehicles. They were not allowed to use some of the chemicals, and methods the Japanese were. In Japan they did not have such stringent rules against the environment and occupational safety of their employees. “Nobody realizes how difficult it is to paint a car, or how expensive it is to design and build a modern paint shop that will produce first-class results and still be environmentally clean” (Yates 1983, p235). Because of all of these issues it has resulted in a public perception of domestic car quality as inferior to that of foreign markets.

Part 5: Toyota’s Total Quality Control

In June of 1960 the Vice President of the Toyota Motor Company Eiji Toyoda laid down principles for quality control. He released a document named “Requests Regarding Inspection.” In the document he introduced the concept of “building quality into processes,” pointing out that “the idea behind an inspection is to eliminate the need for inspections” (Toyota.jp.co 2008). Eiji created this because “increased output in response to the incredible surge in demand due to Japan’s rapid motorization at the time saw a huge influx of insufficiently trained new staff at the factories. This was having serious repercussions on quality” (Toyota.jp.co 2008).

By June of 1961 Toyota Motor Company had adopted the system of Total Quality Control to modernize management operations. All of the Toyota Motor Company employees were required to “regard the next processes (on the production line) as their customers and provide them with the required amount and quality of goods and services on a timely basis” (Toyota.jp.co 2008). Toyota also created individual quality control circles to determine the cause of defects to keep them from happening again. In addition quality control teams were formed at all levels to promote company-wide participation.

Another area of the quality aspect that is easy to overlook is the suppliers that supply the automakers with the raw material and parts to make their automobiles. Toyota makes sure they do not buy any materials from suppliers unless they are thoroughly inspected so when they are arrive to the plants they know they are getting a good product. They also hold these suppliers accountable to continue delivering top-notch quality materials. On the other hand General Motors has a warranty reduction department to identify parts or materials that break down in the field causing high warranty costs and help suppliers of those parts reduce breakdowns. However this does work often times it is more costly and too late if you have to complete a warranty job on someone’s vehicle. Toyota makes sure not to have these problems in the first place so when their customer buys their product they know they are getting quality automobile.

Jeffery L. Liker, author of “The Toyota Way” worked for General Motors and other U.S. automobile companies before joining Toyota. When he joined Toyota he mentioned, “In no time at all I noticed a fundamental difference between Toyota and my previous employers.” “I witnessed the transformation of a workforce from one of the worst in the General Motors system to one of the best in any manufacturing facility in the United States. The difference was the “Toyota Way”(Liker 2004 p. xi). “The Toyota Way” is a model that many companies in the United States have adopted as their own. “The Toyota Way” consists of 14 management principles that all work together to create one of the most successful automobile companies in the world. “Toyota’s success derives from the balancing the role of people in an organizational culture that expects and values their continuous improvements, with a technical system focused on high-value-added “flow.”(Liker 2004 p. xv) Below is a picture of what the Toyota Way looks like.

The Toyota Way (Liker 2004 p.6)
Toyota uses a production system called “The Toyota Production System (TPS).” “The Toyota Production system is Toyota’s unique approach to manufacturing” (Liker 2004 p7). It consists of the “lean production” along with the Six Sigma approach. The 14 principles that make up the Toyota Way follow the TPS approach.

Principle 5 is one of the most important principles in terms of quality. Principle 5 states; Building a Culture of Stopping to Fix Problems, to Get Quality Right the First Time. “Russ Scaffede was the vice president of Powertrain for Toyota when it launched the first American powertrain plant in Georgetown, Kentucky. He had worked decades for General Motors and had an excellent reputation for a manufacturing guy” (Liker 2004 p. 128) At General Motors Scaffede learned the golden rule of engine production, do not shut the assembly plant. At General Motors the managers are judged by their output. The more that was outputted the better they were. If you did not output enough you would loose your job. This is where Toyota separates itself from a company like General Motors. In Scaffede’s case the first month with Toyota he did not shut the plant down once for a whole month outputting a lot of engines. Scaffede thought he was doing great when president of the Toyota Motor Company in Kentucky said, “If you are not shutting down the assembly plant, it means you have no problems. All manufacturing plants have problems. Please take out some inventory so the problems surface. You will shut down the assembly plant, but you will also continue to solve your problems and make even better-quality engines more efficiently” (Liker 2004 p. 129). With this said it just shows how much the Toyota Motor Company lived by their “Toyota Way.” They needed to make sure they took the time to get things right first so there will be few mistakes and few imperfection in quality. By not running the plant constantly 100% of the time and taking the time to get things right first they are able to output more inventory over the long run.

“Toyota learned long ago that solving quality problems at the source saves time and money downstream. By continually surfacing problems and fixing them as they occur, you eliminate waste, your productivity soars, and competitors who are running assembly lines flat-out and letting problems accumulate get left in the dust” (Liker 2004 p.130). Toyota prides itself on quality and because of this they have been one of the most successful auto manufactures in the world.

Toyota keeps things simple and use four simple key tools. The first tool is “Go and See.” In other words this is where management will go and look at the problem first hand to see for them selves what is going on. The second is, “Analyze the Situation,” which means to fully understand the problem and complexity and make sure you have the right solution to fix it before moving forward. The third is to, “Use one-piece flow,” which consists of the type of manufacturing. Using a continuous manufacturing where everyone stops in the section when a problem surfaces. The final key tool is “ Ask why? five times. Using this tool when a problem surfaces if you ask why at least five times you will get to the root of the problem. An example would be: Why is there oil on the ground? (one) The car is leaking. Why is the car leaking? (two) A bad seal somewhere. Why is the seal bad? (three) That’s the way the supplier made it. And as you can see you could keep going through the “whys?” and get to the root cause of the problem.

While Toyota continues to improve its quality they are constantly re-innovating and coming up with new types of vehicles to stay competitive with the fuel-efficient market like the Hybrid vehicles. It is obvious that quality has been an essential part in Toyota’s development since the 1960’s. As they continue to dominate the market only time will tell how large they will grow and thrive on their own successes.

Part 6: Conclusion

“In 1979, GM controlled 48% of the domestic car market. In 2007, it’s struggling to hang on to 25% of it” (Lorenzo 2007). They ignored the seriousness of competition from their Japanese competitors for so long that by the time they woke up to the reality of what was happening, it was way too late. Toyota’s products were better, more reliable, and often cheaper than the Detroit automakers. Although the quality gap has grown smaller between the two the fact of the matter is that Toyota can build their vehicles for far less cost than that of General Motors and GM will always be playing catch up in the market.

General Motors needs to learn and adapt some of the Toyota Way principles in order to develop the quality of their cars. There was a time in the 70’s to 80’s that certain government agencies kept GM from using certain chemicals or processes to build their cars. They have since overcome these obstacles and are reinventing the different ways to paint and build the cars abiding to these regulations. As General Motors continues to develop their quality they will rebuild their reputation.

Although General Motors and other American automakers have gotten the stigma that their quality is poor it is obvious that it is improving. In the J.D. Power associates quality ratings the gap between Toyota and General Motors is getting smaller each year. General Motors is improving their quality so maybe one day soon they will be able to stay competitive with Toyota in terms of quality.

Google’s Benefits Philosophy: We strive to be innovative and unique in all services we provide both to customers and employees, including our benefits and perks offerings. We realize and celebrate that our employees have diverse needs, and that this diversity requires flexible and individually directed support. Our priority is to offer a customizable program that can be tailored to the specific needs of each individual, whether they enjoy ice climbing in Alaska, want to retire by age 40, or plan to adopt 3 children.

  Google treats their employees first-class as well. Google makes each company to suit all their employees’ needs. Google offers its employees an exceptional package of fringe benefits. Google also offers their employees gourmet meals, on-site doctors, shuttle services, financial planning classes, oil changes, car wash, dry cleaning, massage therapy, gym, hair stylist, fitness classes, bike repair, holiday parties, health fair, credit union, sauna, roller hockey, volleyball, discounts, swimming pools, billiards, ping pong, snacks, drinks, etc.

            Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt says “The goal is to strip away everything that gets in our employees’ way. Programmers want to program; they don’t want to do their laundry. So we make it easy for them to do both.” One of goggles motivational techniques they came up with is innovation time off. Google engineers take one day of their work week and spend it working on their own products and ideas. Google’s analysis showed that half of the products Google launched came from the innovation time off. This Idea is a great way to motivate the engineers to come up with their own ideas because Google may use them on their website and it gives pride to the employee who came up with the idea.

Schmidt gives his employees all of these perks because he wants his employees to participate in the culture life of the Google organization. Schmidt gets involved with his employees he tries to be accessible, and doesn’t withhold information from employees and answers questions they might have. Schmidt also rewards and recognizes when employees come up with new ideas or there doing a good job. Without proper recognition employees will slack off at work. Schmidt interacts with employees because employees feel more at ease when they talk to supervisor about any problems that may arise.

Google has 20,164 full-time employees as of March 31, 2009, and has made the Fortune Magazine as the #1 company to work for. According to the Millward Brown Group Google is the most powerful brand in the world. Google revenue comes from advertising programs that is where 99% of the revenue is made. Google’s success is due to the vast superior of talent and knowledge that Google employs and their management team. Eric Schmidt has been the CEO of Google since March 2001 until August 2009. Schmidt resigned due to conflict of interest. During Schmidt’s 8 years as CEO he has shown exceptional leadership and motivational tactics to keep employees and managers enthusiastic and loyal to Google.

Many people are motivated by money, but there are more ways to motivate people. Some people need more than money to motivate them.  People work to experience a sense of fulfillment or they enjoy their job. Others like to help people out. Different people get motivated for different reasons. Schmidt takes all these different forms of motivation and comes up with new and improved ways to motivate goggles employees. In return for motivating employees the Google Company receives a higher application rate then competitors in their industry and they get to pick from the best of the best. The turnover rate is much less because employees like the way they are treated by the company and are loyal. This saves Google money because the turnover rate for a mid-level position is between $40,000 and $100,000. Health care cost is lower because there are negative impacts to employees that are stressed. Schmidt also encourages employees to come up with new ideas and doesn’t punish failure. Employees will come up with creative and innovative ideas keeping Google ahead of the competitors. Schmidt keeps his employees happy and stress free in return the employees are more productive and have high company loyalty.

 From the first day as a Google employee “noogler” you feel welcomed with open arms and part of a family. Nooglers hear speakers from some of Google’s different departments. After the speeches the nooglers are given a folder with benefits and coupons, and given a tour of the facility. Towards the end of the day noodlers are shown where they will be working by their mentors. They are welcomed to their department with balloons and a bag of chocolate. The nooglers first week they are checked on frequently to see how they are doing and if they need help with anything.

I cannot believe it. What a pity but desperate times call for desperate measures. Can Myspace save itself by cutting down the fact? Should myspace renew it website? What do you think? Is the same going to happen to Facebook and Twitter if a new social networking site is created? I hope not, but the evolution you never know.

Now no one talks about myspace anymore. It is like myspace has never existed despite its popularity. This is the night mare part of business when it comes to evolution. What is lost for such a powerful company. Can Myspace compete against facebook and twitter? I do not know how about you?

Image via Wikipedia

Now I have been selling items on Ebay for about 10 years with most of them being books.  Before these changes went into effect over the past year, I would ship all of my items USPS media mail with delivery confirmation.  I would also have to purchase boxes or padded envelopes, packaging fillers (peanuts, bubble wrap, etc) and tape.  I do not own a store and am a private seller so I would not keep abundant supplies of these on hand but would purchase when needed.  Media mail usually ranges somewhere around $3.00-$4.00 a package and delivery confirmation is another $.65.  With all of the packaging supplies needed, I would usually round out each package to ship for $6.00 with of course discounts on multiple items won and items shipped together.  As you can see from this example I would certainly not be overcharging and sometimes would end up losing small amounts from setting the price right at $6 especially if the book was on the larger size or heavier than most.  Now let’s take a look at the new shipping policy.  To ship the same book now, Ebay will not let me charge more than $4.00 no matter what reasons.  Ebay now makes you select the exact shipping method you will be using and assigns a value that you cannot exceed.  What Ebay is failing to take into account is the delivery confirmation charge for these packages and also any packaging materials you have purchased.  These costs are now being eaten by the seller thereby lowering their profits.  Isn’t it bad enough that we get charged first for listing the item and then charged again for selling it and now we have to absorb extra shipping costs? 

I really think that Ebay needs to revert back to their old way of letting the buyer determine the shipping rates or at least set some kind of range for them to use.  Whatever they do, they need to ensure that buyers are not getting ripped off in the process.