If they only had soul...
Here is an extended version of the article I wrote for print this month - describing the correlation of the car industry to the PC industry. It's a long one, don't say I didn't warn you....
I recently traveled to California for some meetings, and as is my wont, I rented a car in San Francisco and drove to Cupertino. I was pleased to hear that the car was an Impala when I checked in at the Hertz counter because I am currently in the process of restoring a 1964 Impala SS Convertible. As I walked down the aisle looking for the Impala, I wasn’t sure what to expect, but I certainly didn’t expect the uninspired piece of crap I found waiting for me.
As I sat in the car, I began to see a correlation between the soulless American cars of today and the potential reasons why American car manufacturers are in trouble. I, like many, appreciate cars with “soul,” and as most would agree, almost every 1960s-ish American car had a soul. Take the 1965 Lincoln Continental Convertible with suicide doors, for example. This car was a thing of beauty, perhaps way ahead of its time. Of course, the 1960-plus Corvettes and the Mustang pony cars would make anyone smile. These are some serious cars with an incredible heritage, so what happened to the soul? Where did it go?
At the risk of making Mark Solomon (our lead industrial designer and the guy who designed Blackbird) puke, I’m about to tell the story that I’ve been telling a lot at HP for the last little while. Also, a warning to longtime CPU readers: I touched on this topic (albeit not nearly as much detail) in my very first CPU column back in 2005. As you can probably tell, it has a deep meaning for me and, I feel, directly correlates to our industry. Back in the 1960s, Henry Ford II recognized a correlation between winning races and selling cars. He led the charge with the help of Lee Iacocca, then president of Ford and the father of the pony car, to help sell more Mustangs. It was Lee Iacocca who said, “Race on Sunday, sell on Monday.”
Henry Ford II asked Lee Iacocca to find out who the best race car builder was, and of course at the time it was Ferrari. They then set out to buy Ferrari, not knowing that Ferrari had already approached Ford by way of a dealership in Germany in order to figure out a way that they might partner. Long story short, Enzo Ferrari needed Ford just as much as Ford needed Ferrari.
They eventually worked out a deal where Ford would buy all of Ferrari for $18 million dollars, and Ferrari would run the races while Ford would handle production cars. Believe it or not, both Enzo and Lee were sketching “Ford Ferrari” logos for production sports cars and “Ferrari Ford” logos for race cars. The goal: to create the ultimate race car, win the 24 Hours of Le Mans, and sell more Mustangs.
The Indianapolis 500 is renowned as the world’s biggest single sporting event, and the Monaco Grand Prix is also very famous and prestigious, but the 24 hours of Le Mans stands apart as the most revered of all motor races. Le Mans has hosted races since before the turn of the century and was the site of the first officially recognized French Grand Prix in 1906.
Well, it was all good until it became clear that Enzo wanted control of Indianapolis, as well, and Ford would have none of it. In the end, the relationship quickly dissolved and Enzo killed the deal, enraging Henry Ford in the process. Ford was so incensed that he pledged to crush Ferrari by spending as much as it took to destroy the company at Le Mans.
Ford charged Iacocca with finding another racing partner. Iacocca made a deal with Lola Cars and also hired a consultant named Carol Shelby to help create what was then the most talked-about race car in American history, the Ford GT 40.
It took a few years to get it right, but in 1966 there was jubilation in Dearborn as GT40s swept the first three places at Le Mans against the best Europe had to offer. Ford had accomplished something no American company had ever done before.
Ford repeated wins in ’67, ’68, and ’69 when lighter, more powerful GT40 Mark IVs again beat the Ferraris and Porsches at Le Mans. The GT40’s lap record stood until 1970, and its speed and distance records until ’71.
The bottom line is Ford was successful, and sold more Mustangs during that period than expected. But after proving it could be done, the company stopped. Japanese and German car companies entered the market, gas mileage became an issue, costs were cut, parts were shared, and fast-forward to today, where by and large cars have all but lost their soul. Many American cars look the same, and most models are created to fit certain “price bands” rather than cater to a specific customer. Sound at all like the PC market?
Well it does to me.
About Sharing Parts: There’s nothing wrong with sharing parts, when done right. When done wrong, however, you end up with way too many models which all look the same, with a different badge on the back, and a different price range. You end up with a bunch of models with no significant difference! American car manufacturers should take a page from Audi and Lamborghini and learn how to share parts without ruining a brand. They should simplify their portfolios and cut out the models which have no customer affinity. Ford is starting to do this, and thus they are starting to turn around.
About Winning Races in the PC Industry: The phrase “Win races on Sunday, sell cars on Monday” has huge implications across multiple industries, including ours. I believe it was Jen-Hsun Huang (CEO of Nvidia) who first brought this correlation into our industry when Nvidia went out years ago recruiting the best gaming companies to use their cards in our review systems.
AMD was quick to follow suit, most likely under the direction of Henri Richard, a car enthusiast, and a bit of a marketing guru.
(side note: Interestingly, AMD isn't even close to winning any races at the moment, although their graphic side is starting to pick up. ...It's probably worth noting that I'm very surprised and disappointed at AMD's constant mis-steps in execution on the CPU side as of late, we really expected and hoped for much more at this stage in the game. Like any of our partners, we wish both well and hope competition remains but it looks like Intel continues to school AMD on execution.)
Thus Intel is actively picking up the slack, they're winning the race in a big way and their numbers prove it.
We also see companies like Dell doing similar things with the XPS to help lift their entire portfolio. Of course at HP there is Voodoo DNA, Acer with Ferrari, and so on.
A couple of years ago most of the industry was made up of little more than re-marketers for large companies such as Intel and Microsoft. There was as a lack of innovation, they were sharing parts, cutting margins, cutting retail prices, up until the point where the personal computer completely lost its soul.
Then customers started to change. They became smarter about technology buys, because the emerging demographic “grew up” on computers. I’ve said much of this before, but the dinosaurs of technology are almost gone. I have customers in their 50’s using high end PCs to play games on. It’s amazing how the demographic of advanced technology users is expanding in both directions (age wise) and to both male and female. It's therefore important to design devices that look and feel great - devices that include compelling user experiences.
By the way, if any of you have any comments on the car industry – and why you think the American’s lost their soul, we would love to hear from you. This kind of thinking helps inspire new ideas at our company.
I am still a big believer in what Ford is doing. Can you believe the new Shelby 500KR is already a collector before it's even released? That's pretty cool.
I recently traveled to California for some meetings, and as is my wont, I rented a car in San Francisco and drove to Cupertino. I was pleased to hear that the car was an Impala when I checked in at the Hertz counter because I am currently in the process of restoring a 1964 Impala SS Convertible. As I walked down the aisle looking for the Impala, I wasn’t sure what to expect, but I certainly didn’t expect the uninspired piece of crap I found waiting for me.
As I sat in the car, I began to see a correlation between the soulless American cars of today and the potential reasons why American car manufacturers are in trouble. I, like many, appreciate cars with “soul,” and as most would agree, almost every 1960s-ish American car had a soul. Take the 1965 Lincoln Continental Convertible with suicide doors, for example. This car was a thing of beauty, perhaps way ahead of its time. Of course, the 1960-plus Corvettes and the Mustang pony cars would make anyone smile. These are some serious cars with an incredible heritage, so what happened to the soul? Where did it go?
At the risk of making Mark Solomon (our lead industrial designer and the guy who designed Blackbird) puke, I’m about to tell the story that I’ve been telling a lot at HP for the last little while. Also, a warning to longtime CPU readers: I touched on this topic (albeit not nearly as much detail) in my very first CPU column back in 2005. As you can probably tell, it has a deep meaning for me and, I feel, directly correlates to our industry. Back in the 1960s, Henry Ford II recognized a correlation between winning races and selling cars. He led the charge with the help of Lee Iacocca, then president of Ford and the father of the pony car, to help sell more Mustangs. It was Lee Iacocca who said, “Race on Sunday, sell on Monday.”
Henry Ford II asked Lee Iacocca to find out who the best race car builder was, and of course at the time it was Ferrari. They then set out to buy Ferrari, not knowing that Ferrari had already approached Ford by way of a dealership in Germany in order to figure out a way that they might partner. Long story short, Enzo Ferrari needed Ford just as much as Ford needed Ferrari.
They eventually worked out a deal where Ford would buy all of Ferrari for $18 million dollars, and Ferrari would run the races while Ford would handle production cars. Believe it or not, both Enzo and Lee were sketching “Ford Ferrari” logos for production sports cars and “Ferrari Ford” logos for race cars. The goal: to create the ultimate race car, win the 24 Hours of Le Mans, and sell more Mustangs.
The Indianapolis 500 is renowned as the world’s biggest single sporting event, and the Monaco Grand Prix is also very famous and prestigious, but the 24 hours of Le Mans stands apart as the most revered of all motor races. Le Mans has hosted races since before the turn of the century and was the site of the first officially recognized French Grand Prix in 1906.
Well, it was all good until it became clear that Enzo wanted control of Indianapolis, as well, and Ford would have none of it. In the end, the relationship quickly dissolved and Enzo killed the deal, enraging Henry Ford in the process. Ford was so incensed that he pledged to crush Ferrari by spending as much as it took to destroy the company at Le Mans.
Ford charged Iacocca with finding another racing partner. Iacocca made a deal with Lola Cars and also hired a consultant named Carol Shelby to help create what was then the most talked-about race car in American history, the Ford GT 40.
It took a few years to get it right, but in 1966 there was jubilation in Dearborn as GT40s swept the first three places at Le Mans against the best Europe had to offer. Ford had accomplished something no American company had ever done before.
Ford repeated wins in ’67, ’68, and ’69 when lighter, more powerful GT40 Mark IVs again beat the Ferraris and Porsches at Le Mans. The GT40’s lap record stood until 1970, and its speed and distance records until ’71.
The bottom line is Ford was successful, and sold more Mustangs during that period than expected. But after proving it could be done, the company stopped. Japanese and German car companies entered the market, gas mileage became an issue, costs were cut, parts were shared, and fast-forward to today, where by and large cars have all but lost their soul. Many American cars look the same, and most models are created to fit certain “price bands” rather than cater to a specific customer. Sound at all like the PC market?
Well it does to me.
About Sharing Parts: There’s nothing wrong with sharing parts, when done right. When done wrong, however, you end up with way too many models which all look the same, with a different badge on the back, and a different price range. You end up with a bunch of models with no significant difference! American car manufacturers should take a page from Audi and Lamborghini and learn how to share parts without ruining a brand. They should simplify their portfolios and cut out the models which have no customer affinity. Ford is starting to do this, and thus they are starting to turn around.
About Winning Races in the PC Industry: The phrase “Win races on Sunday, sell cars on Monday” has huge implications across multiple industries, including ours. I believe it was Jen-Hsun Huang (CEO of Nvidia) who first brought this correlation into our industry when Nvidia went out years ago recruiting the best gaming companies to use their cards in our review systems.
AMD was quick to follow suit, most likely under the direction of Henri Richard, a car enthusiast, and a bit of a marketing guru.
(side note: Interestingly, AMD isn't even close to winning any races at the moment, although their graphic side is starting to pick up. ...It's probably worth noting that I'm very surprised and disappointed at AMD's constant mis-steps in execution on the CPU side as of late, we really expected and hoped for much more at this stage in the game. Like any of our partners, we wish both well and hope competition remains but it looks like Intel continues to school AMD on execution.)
Thus Intel is actively picking up the slack, they're winning the race in a big way and their numbers prove it.
We also see companies like Dell doing similar things with the XPS to help lift their entire portfolio. Of course at HP there is Voodoo DNA, Acer with Ferrari, and so on.
A couple of years ago most of the industry was made up of little more than re-marketers for large companies such as Intel and Microsoft. There was as a lack of innovation, they were sharing parts, cutting margins, cutting retail prices, up until the point where the personal computer completely lost its soul.
Then customers started to change. They became smarter about technology buys, because the emerging demographic “grew up” on computers. I’ve said much of this before, but the dinosaurs of technology are almost gone. I have customers in their 50’s using high end PCs to play games on. It’s amazing how the demographic of advanced technology users is expanding in both directions (age wise) and to both male and female. It's therefore important to design devices that look and feel great - devices that include compelling user experiences.
By the way, if any of you have any comments on the car industry – and why you think the American’s lost their soul, we would love to hear from you. This kind of thinking helps inspire new ideas at our company.
I am still a big believer in what Ford is doing. Can you believe the new Shelby 500KR is already a collector before it's even released? That's pretty cool.
16 comments:
I imagine the car industry has lost it's soul the same way that the PC industry has. The industries have been taken over by bean-counters. No-one's willing to take any risks because those risks that might inspire people and appeal to people on an emotional level aren't guarantees for profit.
I don't for an instant believe that the Toyota Corrola became the best selling car because it was an inspired design, it did that by being reliable, and being a good value for the money. Soulless bean-counters saw that success and tried to replicate it, resulting in bland copies, but with less quality.
Personally, I love efficient designs. Probably the most efficient design to come along in a while was Mercedes with their Boxfish concept vehicle. It has a strong frame and an incredibly aerodynamic shape, but they won't build it. It doesn't appeal to enough people.
Right now I'm keeping my eye on http:\\www.fuelvaporcar.com. Unconventional, efficient and a design you'll either love or hate.
I drive an hour to work every day, and if I could find a cheap 2 seater that was great on gas and felt like driving a jet-fighter, that's what I'd buy.
Peloton seems to be stopping.
Of course, when all-owning 3GHz Phenom with magically higher IPCs shows up, it all will be well again.
It seems that in both industry's, what ultimately happens is that the innovative product seems to get overlooked by the general public, because the mainstream products are so over marketed. The public does not know about it because the "Common" product is pushed before the "innovative" one. I recently found out about the Izzu Trooper for example. A small little SUV that was actually fun to drive and own. The people that own these trucks, hoard them because the are so hard to find. While the general population knows little or next to nothing about them.
I know there are many examples in the computer field, where WOM (word of Mouth) advertising has been somewhat effective, but if the general public doesn't know of the product, it doesn't sell except to hardcore enthusiasts. Sure a fancy flame job by some famous artist may help sell a limited edition, but posters in shops, TV spots and radio sure go a long way to reach the masses. There is only so much a Fanboy can do with a lone site, and Magazine spots and reviews.It's only half of the equation to innovate and create a truly unique product, the other half is how to get the word out to the population. I think the latter is the more difficult to do.
Mr Sood,
I think u need to publish an article about AMD Phenom. You had hyped it tremondously and calling it a "stone cold killer". but unfortunately it has been the worst release by AMD since quad father.
I think u need to publish an article about AMD Phenom. You had hyped it tremondously and calling it a "stone cold killer". but unfortunately it has been the worst release by AMD since quad father.
I agree completely about writing more on AMD specifically.
Although I really tried to qualify my statement as best as possible based on what I saw --- AMD's execution this year has been nothing short of horrible.
I agree that you should write about what you have observed at AMD.
IMHO, AMD's execution issues are a direct result of shoe-horning a CPU design into the incorrect manufacturing process (65nm). The economics, power cosumption, performance and die-size of a quad core CPU all make more business sense at 45nm.
If AMD could have released Barcelona\Phenom at 45nm, then they would have the highest performing product on the market (because they would still be reaping the benefit of their Integrated Memory Controller - an advantage that Intel cannot claim to have). As it stands now, the IMC at 65nm is not enough to make up for a generation behind in process technology and a slightly tweaked instruction set.
Unfortunately for AMD, it appears as though by the time that they deliver on their 45nm promise Intel will be releasing a new architecture that negates any of their pre-existing advantages.
Man, I wrote a comment when you posted the videos for this whole Ferrari/Ford metaphor, the gist of which was "could Ford have achieved what it did by using the exact same parts as Ferrari?" (you didn't post it but that didn't surprise me). Because that's pretty much what happens in the PC industry. You aren't just using the same parts, you are building pretty much the EXACT SAME COMPUTER. As nice as the design of the Blackbird is, you'd be hard pressed to make the case that it is substantially different from any other PC. In order to bring prices down, the technology had to be standardized and, for the most part, homogenized. When PCs were less powerful, high-performance PCs were more important because there were significant performance differences across the board... Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Quark Express, etc. all ran noticeably better on faster computers. So "gaming computers" weren't really "gaming" computers, they were BETTER computers which you could sell for a justifiable price premium. Because games have always required far more horsepower than the average app, designing computers that could run games well was a good benchmark for overall performance. A good gaming PC ran EVERYTHING better so there was a motive for people to purchase them.
Fast forward to now... extraordinary gaming performance doesn't have near the impact that it once did. Even the most anemic laptop has the horsepower to run the majority of apps, including many graphically intensive ones, at acceptable speeds. When was the last time anyone complained about the speed of Quark Express or Photoshop or Office? As processors and GPUs have become more powerful at the baseline, the need for a "gaming PC" has declined dramatically. It could be argued that, at the consumer level, the "gaming PC" concept is already obsolete. There are still many people and occupations that require cutting-edge power and that is likely to always be the case but such situations will continue to shrink steadily. Even assuming that your premise that neophyte "dinosaurs" are fading away to be replaced by other generations that are far more computer savvy is true, let's look at the reality of the situation... those kids aren't using graphics-intensive programs, they are primarily using phones and so-called Web 2.0 apps. When it comes to gaming, better usability, subsidization and economies of scale continue to give consoles a significant edge over PCs. Simply put, there are fewer and fewer ways to justify spending 5K+ on something that will be getting smoked in 18 months.
As for why American cars suck, just take a look at them. Inexpensive shouldn't be synonymous with unimaginative. American vehicles look like shyte and have piss-poor ergonomics. However, I don't agree that the car industry is like the PC industry... it isn't. Cars are expressions... in many ways, they REPRESENT the individual. Mobile phones are the same way. However, computer are TOOLS, like hammers and screwdrivers. They should be clean, simple to understand and easy to use. More importantly, they should not occupy conscious thought, they should SEAMLESSLY enable the swift completion of any task for which they are suited. For PCs, the user experience should be one in which the device becomes INVISIBLE. Making a PC that reflects someone's personality or occupies any area of the upper mind is like putting racing stripes on a power drill.
Hi rahul sood, do you know when hp may release a gaming 17 inch laptop? The dv9500t with the 8600m GS is not so good and this card is even seen in 14 and 15 inch notebooks!
Hopefully AMD releases the 3GHZ phenom soon. Intel's 45nm sku's are disappointing and intel would have no incentive to increase clockspeeds if they already have the lead.
At the start of 2007 the top three Japanese automakers each had over 1 million vehicle count recalls. These recalls for very important safety related issues in the design of those vehicles. If you also were to notice there was a manual “recall” on Hondas at the end of 2006 so the 2007 recall wouldn’t push their year to year numbers over 1000% growth in quality issues.
2007 also marks the first year where GM consistently outperformed Toyota in crash test scores almost across the board (The tundra actually had to go back and be retested because they were already shipping to customers and failed to pass as they were supposed to)
I will not argue that most of the American sedans are un-inspiring. However I would qualify that by saying that there isn’t a sedan these days that IS. If you line up a Camery, 500, Accord, Impala, and Sonata, they all look the same, get the same gas mileage, and drive roughly the same. There will be personal likes and dislikes between then for different people but ultimately there isn’t anything that really distinguishes them. Personally the last sedan I appreciated was the Intrique.
Right now the American car manufacturers are stuck trying to beat the Japanese for value and reliability and the Germans for performance while paying twice as much in labor over either of them. That’s a pretty tall order and GM is doing a decent job of it this year. Ford is gradually changing their corporate structure to come along as well.
There isn’t too much that I can see to draw an analogy between the American car companies and computer companies due to fact that technology typically isn’t a labor intensive industry, nor is strapped with ancient union contracts. There are generic concepts that apply but mostly you’ve already covered those before.
I personally would stay away from German cars right now unless you are in the market for a Porsche. BMW’s quality numbers are going down and are no where near where they used to be (I drove one of the ‘80s BMW tanks for several years). Mercedes hasn’t changed in terms of their reliability numbers (there is a reason a Mercedes doesn’t have any resale value if it hasn’t been religiously serviced by a Mercedes dealer), however I’ve had the chance to see the internals of Mercedes electrical systems and I’m not impressed (the new c-class airbag controller uses quite a bit of “hot-glue” to meet vibration guidelines)
While well written, I disagree with just about everything "anonymous" said. More specifically, that all PCs being sold these days are roughly the "exact same computer" and that PCs are not extensions of the individual consumer's personality.
I have a recently purchased PC and I am fairly certain that if I were to replace it with a blackbird, that just about everything would be greatly improved. If you don't believe me, then you've never seen a PC with a 10,000 rpm hdd reboot.
Also, If PCs are not an extension of the consumer's personality, then why are the expensive and stylishly designed macs flying off the shelves? People do relate with well-designed products (no matter the product), and are willing to pay a premium for them.
I honestly believe that Computer Companies lost their "soul" about 1990 or so. The migration by most PC companies then to the IBM PC "standard" lost all the individual Uniqueness and fun that most computer manufactures are missing today. I was not a big Motorola fan by any means, but the different chips at that time meant so much more imagination on the programmers. How to squeeze out that "little bit" extra in code. The diversity of languages , and the wars on the Amiga, Atari, Tandy and so on. With little or no real difference in the hardware these days, it is easy to get lazy and "Borrow" other bits of code. I think thats why Apple to this day has such a fan base, but that will soon change, as Apples are no longer unique and you can run OS 10 on any Machine now.
This translates over well to the cars, when using all "off the shelf" car parts, other than the body, there petty much the same. This is why for an example: a "Classic" Volkswagon Bug is so much more desirable than a new one. Sure the new one goes a lot faster, and has more creature comforts, but the classic rear engine design is so different, it has soul.
Now, I am not suggesting that HP (or Voodoo) for that matter design their own computer (like back in the eighties), but to re-think how the machine is designed. Give it some Character, stretch the limits of imagination.Who says the laptops all have to have a touchpad (for example) who says the laptops all have to be rectangular in shape? Who says we can't put a "Broken" or ergonomic keyboard in a laptop?
These are all questions, that once designers realize that "Nobody" says they have to to it the same way it is always been done, Thats when innovation starts.
The Blackbird is a good first step in "Breaking Free" of imposed limits.
Colin:
Owning four Macs, I can honestly say that I didn't buy them as a personal expression. That isn't to say that no one does and, if the PC modding world is any indication, some people do indeed develop emotional attachments to their systems. But the numbers we are talking about are miniscule compared to the overall PC market. I think that's one of the flaws regarding people who have more than a general interest on this topic. Rahul Sood seems to really enjoy PC technology but, in my opinion, I think that makes it very easy for him to overestimate how people will respond to technical innovations in the market. He also works with people who likely feel exactly like he does. While that mindset is a strength when engaging the "pro-sumer," it's a liability when attempting to determine how an innovation will effect the mainstream. There was a time when "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" was more valid for high-performance computing but I think that thinking applies to PCs only in a very broad sense now. The Blackbird is a great marketing piece for HP and Voodoo but I don't think it's going to convince anyone to purchase a high-performance PC who wasn't already committed to purchasing one.
As for building the "exact same computer," having built and used a great many, I'm pretty comfortable in stating that anyone who boots up a 5K computer and a good $1500 computer would have a hard time telling the difference between the systems for everyday computing and, even if they could, it wouldn't really matter. There was a time when that wasn't the case. The performance difference was so significant that a gaming PC felt almost like an entirely different platform. As time goes on, the differences between "gaming" PCs and mainstream PCs will continue to shrink to the point of being insignificant. For most of the general public, there already is little reason to purchase a PC costing more than 2K compared to one costing $1500... trying to justify purchasing one for 5K becomes exponentially more difficult. For instance, I paid roughly $5500 for my current home network of Macs... roughly the price of one Blackbird. For games, I go with my PS3 (granted, there are just NOW decent games for it). Whether PC or Mac, that's the type of choice the overwhelming number of people would make if they had the cash, several very good computers for one great one. As consoles continue to become the dominant gaming platform, it will just make far less sense for an individual without very, VERY specific needs to choose a high-performance computer like the Blackbird. As for "pro-sumers," they will likely always represent the vanguard of the PC industry but their ranks will continue to dwindle and, as consoles become the gaming platform of choice, they will become less relevant. The marketing of high-performance PCs will likely shift to a more specified type for markets and occupations that will still require them. No one markets medical imaging equipment to me because the odds of me purchasing it are very slim... in the near future, Blackbirds and the like will be marketed far less to individual consumers simply because it won't be very profitable.
I respect your difference, but market dynamics are in my favor in this respect.
Hi Mr. Sood
Allmost all people are so impressed by any "virtual" benchmark number and forget, that while now the processor performance has reached really high levels overall, a 10-20% even 30 % disadvantage is not notable on the desktop, if u do your daily work.
Its just a year ago, when dell sold "celeron - servers".
A few hundred million people do have Workstation class pcs at home idleing a boring day.
Yes, everybody expected more from AMD (I expected VERY VERY much more).
But i think some nice High End Spider's will enter your store, and if, it will be reasonable.
Lot, i think, wait on your comment.
The Car-Industry is trapped, as more and more poeple have less income - you can sell luxury cars with soul or cheap anonym cars who are affordable to the masses.
This is nothing, that can resolved in a fast pace, as we are facing a serious crisis and even the biggest companys may fall victim to this.
Dont bet hopes on china, china will do the best for china and nothing else and china remebers history very well as they where illtreated from western countrys.
Post a Comment