Um, I don't get the problem

11/16/05 3:37:22 PM

I think you do.

There were 2 issues.

1) The task force was secret. Their meetings and minutes weren't released (due to claims of executive privilege) until they were sued by the [link|http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/taskforce/tfinx.asp|NRDC]. Even then, the information is redacted in places.

2) They got input from the energy industry, but supposedly not from environmental groups. People complain that it was one-sided.

The latest bit about the congressional testimony just serves to keep it in the news (and potentially put the CEOs in danger of sanctions for their potentially incorrect / lying / misremembered / erroneous / etc testimony).

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #234,513

by boxley

11/16/05 3:41:00 PM

Lets see, energy policy should receive input from env groups

why? Energy is a transformation of matter not a religious event at all.
thanx.
bill

Post #234,519

11/16/05 3:50:48 PM

I guess only the police should have input on the law then?

Cheney's group was attempting to set policy for the entire country. The population has a right to know what they're doing. The judge who ordered the release of the documents [link|http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/040401.asp|said]:

"citizens' right to know 'what their government is up to,' . . . cannot be defeated by detailing an agency employee to a task force operating out of the White House or some other non-agency."

Freeing, say, the oil industry to do whatever it likes to increase production or increase refining capacity or build new ports, pipelines and storage facilities or ... has potential environmental impacts. People who are experts on those impacts should be able to give their views so that the country can know the plusses and minuses of the new policy. By stacking the deck in favor of the experts in the industry - even if what they said is right and true and holy - it gives the appearance that the interests of the country as a whole are ignored to reward a particular industry. And that's a bad thing.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #234,522

by boxley

11/16/05 3:54:28 PM

I agree the meetings should have been open to the public

but letting environmentalists set energy policy is like allowing fundamentalist christians dictate science in the classrooms, it may look pretty and fit together but doesnt work worth a damn.

Let the energy suppliers/producers/exploratory/resellers build the policy then let the whackjobs loose on it.
thanx,
bill

Post #234,529

11/16/05 3:58:40 PM

There are several problems

with the task force...but I keep seeing that line I quoted being repeated...as if asking the experts is somehow >bad<. Not just because they produce, or drill, or sell...but also because they fund the most research, understand the most re: the future possibilities and the current capabilities of the industry.

Pardon me for thinking that most environmental groups, beyond grandstanding, are going to bring that level of expertise to the discussion. You can pretty much guess what they are going to say. (end global warming, rid us of fossil fuels, make Detroit get better mileage).

I also understand why the Exec branch wants to keep the docs away from the press and why the execs would NOT participate in the same fashion if they were not granted some privacy.

You couldn't get me to sit in front of Congress and do anything but plead 5th even if the question was "Whats your name". The way it goes now...you'd forget to say Jr. and be in jail that afternoon and trashed in the Times based on a college prank you played in 1923

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,621

by jake123

11/17/05 12:05:10 AM

Well, they're right about one thing

The US would be doing their own car industry a favour by requiring better milage, let alone everybody else (ie, people). Better milage means lower oil demand means lower prices AND implies less pollution per mile travelled.

At the same time, you'd think a visionary energy company would be investing a lot into better sources for energy than petroleum. The company that makes it work will become a colossus and make its owners fabulously wealthy.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #234,736

by scoenye

11/17/05 4:16:22 PM

They *are* investing

Just not in the traditional R&D sense. They let everyone else do the hard work, they buy the working end results. By the time everything is said and done, oil will be out, but the same players will still be in charge.

Post #234,749

11/17/05 5:20:04 PM

Read "The Innovator's Dilemma"

That may be their plan, but I guarantee that the current players are highly unlikely to successfully execute it.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #234,774

by boxley

11/17/05 9:18:26 PM

dunno BP owns a lot of patents and is doing own R&D

Post #234,805

11/18/05 1:27:21 AM

That doesn't help. Read the book for why.

The short version is that the best opportunities look unappetizing until they must be accepted as inevitable. And once they hit the latter description, it is too late to move into them because that part of the business ecosystem is already full.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #234,827

11/18/05 9:15:09 AM

So you don't think

my co, a direct decendent of Ma Bell, will be successful in inventing and promoting the technology that destroys its legacy?

Too late.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,857

by jb4

11/18/05 11:47:00 AM

No, I think Big Oil != Nynex

(or whatever they're called this week...).

Post #234,881

11/18/05 1:01:56 PM

So you don't equate

the 2 largest monopolies/cartels in the history of the country? Hmm.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,884

by boxley

11/18/05 1:08:09 PM

one is an evul environmental horror with ties to Whitehouse

the otherone sells gasoline.
thanx,
bill

Post #234,996

11/18/05 8:55:48 PM

They may well invent and promote it...

but will they build a successful business about it? Likely not.

The basic theory goes like this.

Innovations come in 2 forms. The first is, "Better at what we already do." There is no problem in existing companies adopting these - the value proposition is clear. The second is, "Sucks too badly to be used for what we already do." The second is the interesting category. The value proposition is not there, nor does the company have any skills to help it locate the business opportunities which the new technology might work for. Furthermore even if it did find those opportunities, the current volumes and profit margins are so bad that every business instinct pushes the company to not go into that business.

Add to this the basic law that technology tends to progress faster than people's needs increase.

The result is a consistent trend that established industries tend to get wiped out wholesale when technologies that formerly sucked too badly to be useable improve to the point where they are good enough to win. There are strategies that you can use for this situation. But historically companies have fared very badly in this case.

Examples: Sailboat manufacturers after steam took over, micro computer manufacturers after Unix took over, manufacturers of larger disk drives when smaller ones took over (happened several times), wire-based shovels when hydraulic ones took over, etc.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #234,997

by jake123

11/18/05 9:11:09 PM

Then there's the classic: Gillette and Bic

The person who invented the disposable razor first approached Gillette with it. They decided not to take him up on it as they were concerned that it was going to destroy their razor sales (sell the actual handle thing at a loss and make a boatload on the consumables... sound familiar anyone?) Anyhoo, he ended up approaching a Japanese plastics company that was at that point known for their pens (ie- Bic) and they immediately recognised the value proposition of his innovation, and nearly destroyed Gillette in the process, though eventually they managed not to be crushed like say Wilkinson was, by belatedly adopting the technology they had spurned before.

The interesting thing was that it turned out that the executives at Gillette had completely understood why it was a good idea, but they hoped it would go away instead of working because they would have to retool their entire production process. The result of this was that they lost almost all their business to Bic for many many years.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #235,000

11/18/05 9:25:12 PM

Not quite a classic illustration of this particular point

The new technology was good enough at the outset to be used by most customers of the existing one, and the established ones did survive.

In the examples that I listed, the new technology started off too bad to be used by customers of the existing one, and the established companies either did not survive, or survived in vastly reduced form.

Let me give what a better example might look like. According to The Innovator's Dilemma, given minimum needs for a car (among the most important: accelerate fast enough to merge onto an Interstate), and the projected technology curve for electric cars, electric cars will be able to compete on American highways around 2020 or so. Between now and then the prediction is that niche markets will be found for electric car technology (possibilities include golf carts and third world countries), and companies who establish themselves in those niches will wipe out the established automobile industry.

Imagine Ford, GM, Toyota and so on replaced by a glorified golf cart manufacturer.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #235,003

11/18/05 9:43:03 PM

I don't think that'll happen.

In the 1970s there was a company that sold glorified golf carts - [link|http://sloan.stanford.edu/EVonline/erakko.htm|Bob Beaumont's CitiCar]. It didn't make it.

GM and Ford may not survive. It's quite likely they'll shrink further or be broken up in some fashion in the next 20 years to reduce their debt loads. But they'll be done in by competition from Toyota, Hyundai and other traditional car manufacturers - not Bob in his garage. Global over-capacity in auto production is putting huge stresses on the US and European manufacturers, especially those with wages and benefits that built-up over years of little low-wage competition.

Auto manufacturing has huge barriers to entry: 1) Federal safety and 100,000 mile emissions requirements, 2) Dealer distribution and maintenance network requirements, 3) Marketing requirements (gotta build a brand and convince people your car is worth the money and will last). Remember [link|http://www.delorean.com/|DeLorean]'s attempt to start a new car company? He was a big manager at GM for many years. He was very smart, had good technology, and had a buzz about him. He failed.

A better example of the innovators dilemma is probably what's going on now with broadband, wireless and VOIP with respect to the traditional telephone and network TV companies. Or web versus paper publishing of newspapers and magazines.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #235,007

11/18/05 10:18:13 PM

Of course he failed - that is according to theory

Electric car technology does not currently meet the minimum requirements that Americans demand from cars. They don't accelerate fast enough to get on Interstates or brake hard enough. Sure, there are plenty of people who could do 95% of what they need with an electric car. But the key is that 5%, because if you're going to have to buy a real car anyways, why bother buying an additional electric one?

The prediction isn't that electric cars are great and are about to inevitably wipe out Detroit.

The prediction is that electric cars suck. But given current rates of improvement in the technology, around 2020 it will become possible to build an electric car that does perform to peoples' needs. And after that happens, people will start to switch. But when that time comes, it will be too late for traditional automobile manufacturers to get onto the bandwagon.

But for the next 15 years, nobody will make a successful business selling electric cars for US drivers. The ones who will succeed in doing it after that point will need to find some other way to make money in the meantime.

Incidentally the barriers to entry that you give for cars are not as hard to solve as you might expect. If history is any sign, the new technology will be sold differently than traditional cars. The example in the book of how Honda motorcycles succeeded in the USA demonstrates a disruptive product managing to bypass traditional channels that everyone believed were necessary to build up.

Now you're right that US car companies face other kinds of immediate threats and may not survive. But I'll bet that, if electric improves as it has been, that in 30 years electric will win.

Cheers,
Ben

PS Delorian's difficulties in forming a traditional kind of car company using traditional technology against established competitors is also in accord with theory. Companies in established industries tend to be good at what they do - that is how they become established. They lose wholesale when what they do becomes useless.

PPS I should note that the rise of hybrids was also predicted in The Innovator's Dilemma. (It was written in 1997.) The prediction is that in the end expertise with building hybrids will help traditional manufacturers no more than hybrid steam/sail technology from sailboat manufacturers helped them when steam got good enough.

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #235,037

by cforde

11/19/05 12:54:06 AM

predictions

he prediction is that in the end expertise with building hybrids will help traditional manufacturers no more than hybrid steam/sail technology from sailboat manufacturers helped them when steam got good enough.

Now I find that very surprising. I'd expect the experience gained with battery technology, regenerative braking, et al. from the development of hybrids would be essential stepping stones to all-electric. But, you seem to be saying that maintaining the internal combustion baggage in a hybrid limits a manufacturer's ability to grok an all-electric design and therefore hinders their ability to develop an all-electric vehicle. Is that a fair summary?

Have fun,
Carl Forde

Post #235,040

by drewk

11/19/05 12:59:15 AM

Not so much the ability to grok, as the will to risk

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #235,048

11/19/05 1:48:07 AM

Not so simple. Read the book.

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #235,047

11/19/05 1:44:49 AM

Definitely

But the barriers to that understanding aren't where you'd think they would be. They are economic, not technical.

It is in the nature of companies to focus on ever more lucrative opportunities. There is a lot of pressure on them to do this.

It is in the nature of disruptive technologies that, when they first become viable for mainstream use, they are crap relative to existing products. And are priced accordingly. With resultingly thin profit margins.

Which means that existing companies are geared to run away from the opportunity. And companies which are geared to take advantage of that opportunity have a strong desire to improve the product farther so they can take more business.

This is what makes it a hard business problem. Technical knowledge is fairly straightforward to aquire. Reorganizing your basic internal business processes and incentives is another story.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #235,281

by cforde

11/21/05 3:19:54 AM

case study

[link|http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000967068793/|TV vs HDTV]
I think I'm beginning to get it.

Have fun,
Carl Forde

Post #235,293

by SpiceWare

11/21/05 9:43:11 AM

Very true

HDTV viewers love HD quality. The more HD you watch, the more important HD quality becomes to you. HDTV viewers arent accepting by programming type. Once a viewer goes HD, he/she wants all programming in HD.

The only normal TV my DVR is set to record is Battlestar Galactica, Firefly and Tripping the Rift and all 3 are in reruns. Everything else is HD.

Darrell Spice, Jr.                      [link|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore

Post #235,058

by Ashton

11/19/05 5:32:15 AM

Electrics, batteries - and the 5% problem

It's always fun to extrapolate, but hardest of all when very many dependencies are seen to be up for grabs.

Assuming that folks (think they will..) persist with One-car to fit all uses from 7-11 to SF --> Vegas - your guesstimate depends heavily upon prestidigitating a light, high capacity storage technology, at the very least. Hard to approach the energy/# of gasoline. Seen those numbers for ~ 30 years, now.
('Performance' places even more demands upon storage, of course.)

Secondly (we've had this discussion, so I'm just reiterating) - "hydrogen" and related solutions to sub-parts of the [energy - power/work - recharge] cycle, currently would rely upon the electric grid for part #3. Fossil, coal fired, NG, solar Primary sources just use any hydrogen they make (for ex.) as an accumulator/battery - with attendant thermodynamic %losses all along the cycle. We lose / Entropy wins.

Nuclear, with its plethora of tradeoffs (and a social-reluctance to deal realistically with its byproducts) is a whole nother thread; is obv. solely about Primary generation.

We May.. discover something Interesting, of course - but I seriously doubt it will be a New Law of Thermodynamics.

Alas too, as in-city housing becomes less and less affordable, and for the increasing legions of the displaced/outsourced holders of more McJobs: so is there no relief from the long commute in sight. So I see this seeming techno matter is entwined with the social matters we always neglect: er, 'inextricably'?

With close-in commuting: you'd have a small 7-11 + short commute all-electric vehicle. That, cheap enough that your Las Vegas cruiser (likely hybrid), seeing fewer miles/yr (lower insurance accordingly) - could make the 2-car compromise palatable. It wouldn't need to be replaced very often.

But: One car for all things + the typical commute miles (and Hours Wasted - big sub-thread) -- makes None of the currently visible/envisionable technologies look very promising to me - because Physics Rulez.

ie I think you're optimistic about it ending up "electric winning" - within ~30 years. (I have no idea what 'looks good'; partly because I believe that our fortunes thus options have been so damaged by Neoconman-think -- 30 year predictions even re this seeming just-techno topic are ephemeral.)

Of course we have to 'plan' something.. even while we determine if we can somehow ameliorate the vengeance of the massive Kill America group we've recently vastly multiplied and ignited. Plan... if we aren't too busy with the Unexpected (?)

Post #235,066

11/19/05 8:16:57 AM

Great post. Thanks.

Post #235,068

11/19/05 8:18:42 AM

ObLRPD: Solar powered jet packs. I think that's the ticket.

Post #235,124

11/19/05 12:52:24 PM

My copy of the book is in storage or I'd give numbers

But yes, you are right that this assumes the future existence of far better batteries than we have today.

However that is more reasonable than you might think. It turns out that Moore's law is not an isolated example. Most technologies that have an obvious metric to be measured by show exponential improvement on that metric over fairly long periods of time. The exponents tend to be smaller than in Moore's law, but they are there.

The 2020 estimate was achieved by looking at the performance of batteries in 1997, and looking at the apparent rate of improvement in energy density and discharge capacity. Given the minimum requirements for a US car (sufficient acceleration to get onto an Interstate, good enough braking for emergencies, able to drive at least 100 miles before refueling), battery technology won't be good enough until around 2020.

So sure. Batteries are not good enough today. Have not been good enough for the last 30 years. And won't be for many years to come. But unless batteries stop improving, they will eventually become good enough.

In fact a clear sign of how much batteries have improved is the viability of hybrid cars. We could have built hybrid cars a decade ago. But there was no point - batteries weren't good enough for you to get enough out of the complexity to be worthwhile. Today they are good enough.

And to answer the common objection of whether electric is better than gasoline, just look at the mileage that hybrids get. Electric has a huge advantage over gasoline - you get to recover a lot of energy in normal driving conditions. That's why hybrids get better mileage than gasoline. And pure electric has several advantages over hybrids. They have a simpler design, lighter engine, are more efficient and more reliable. (All of these things come from not having 2 engines with complex subsystems to switch between them as needed.)

There is no question that, if you could build a good enough electric car, it would be better than what we have. The technical problem is that today you can't build that car because batteries aren't good enough. The business problem is that when electric cars are barely good enough, traditional car manufacturers won't know how to market and sell them. And by the time they are really good enough, traditional car manufacturers will be facing entrenched competitors whose pricing structure is much leaner.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #235,141

11/19/05 2:24:12 PM

This paper from MIT in 2000 is interesting.

[link|http://web.mit.edu/6.933/www/Fall2000/solarEclipse.pdf|Solar Eclipse: The Failure of a Promising Technology]. It's about the history of a solar powered car that was being developed at MIT and talks about it in relation to Christensen's book.

p.23

Stepping back from the cars themselves and studying their history, trajectory, and demise have brought to light the indicators to their failure, the survival skills of those involved in designing them, and their impact on technology today. The initial belief that these cars were going to cause a real threat to the gasoline industry slowly yet surely disappeared. The engineers could only push the technology so far before the physical limitations of the cells and the sun's energy were too large to overcome. By the time the parts had become reliable, the whole was still not sufficient. There was no way to put the components together such that a customer would switch from gasoline to solar.

This study thus shows that such technologies fail because of exactly this situation: the innovations saturate before a viable product can be produced for the targeted market. The question is then put forth of whether there could have been a better market, and that is a possibility that remains, yet cannot be determined until someone attempts it.

The MIT team went on to found [link|http://www.solectria.com|Solectria] which is now (or part of) [link|http://www.azuredynamics.com/|Azure Dynamics]. They still make all electric vehicles (apparently no longer solar powered), but they also do a lot of hybrid vehicle work.

Ben writes:

So sure. Batteries are not good enough today. Have not been good enough for the last 30 years. And won't be for many years to come. But unless batteries stop improving, they will eventually become good enough.

It depends on what you mean by "good enough". And that's obviously where the choice of market comes into play. The military is willing to spend millions on electric vehicles that have unique capabilities. Box, e.g, probably isn't. :-)

Will electric-only vehicles displace hybrids? In some niches, yes - it already does (see below), but not overall. As Ashton pointed out, the power density in liquid fuels is much higher than that obtainable from batteries. There will continue to be a need for internal combustion engines for a long time to come (e.g. you're not going to see a practical electric 18-wheeler anytime soon.) Meaning several decades, IMO.

Car companies are continuing to improve the efficiency of [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_cycle|Otto-cycle] internal combustion engines. VW has a new turbo+supercharger [link|http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103408|"Twincharger"] engine that gives good performance and improved fuel economy. Improved electronic controls allows reduced emissions and improved economy in even conventional cars. Even some [link|http://www.hybridcars.com/silverado-sierra.html|large pickup trucks] now have features like turning off the engine at a stoplight to improve mileage and reduce emissions.

Conventional cars are going to become more hybrid-like because it's better (from emissions and efficiency standpoints at the moment; potentially from a total cost standpoint) to convert motion to stored energy than generate fresh motion. Even electric cars have or will have regenerative braking in most cases. Yes, batteries are going to improve, but they've been worked on for a very long time (Franklin coined the term in 1748) and the improvements are coming at greater and greater cost. Several other electric energy storage systems are [link|http://www.onr.navy.mil/fncs/aces/focus_pwrgen_energy.asp|under investigation] but no breakthroughs are in sight yet.

So, at least for the next 50 years (my wild guess), it's probably safe to say that conventional autos will be around and a large part of the market, but they'll become more hybrid-like over time. I also think it's safe to say that companies like Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, BMW, Daimler-Chrysler and VW (or their successors) will be providing most of the vehicles - not Azure Dynamics.

IOW, I don't think electric vehicles are a good example of a disruptive technology - as I understand the term (and with the caveat that I've only skimmed TID).

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #235,144

11/19/05 3:02:53 PM

What I mean by "good enough"...

is good enough to make a low-end all-purpose consumer car. At that point it will be possible to deliver a reliable all-electric car at a much better price point than an internal combustion one.

It will be a long time - maybe never - before they are good enough to match internal combustion engines for high-end purposes. But they don't have to to win in the market. They just have to meet people's actual needs at a better price.

And the complexity and overhead of doing internal combustion and other stuff means that internal combustion won't be able to match the price of electric.

But you're right. Until it happens, this is not a good example to use. If it pans out, it will be a very good prediction. But for examples it is better to use something that already happened.

An incidental point. When disruptive innovations start disrupting, the high-end market is always stuck on the old technology. You see, even as the disruptive innovation becomes good enough for many, it still sucks relative to the established technology and is not good enough for high-end use.

Take, for instance, the case of hydraulic shovels. Starting in the 50's, the traditional wire shovels started being disrupted by hydraulics. But as of 1997, there were still 4 wire shovel companies left. However they had retreated to the top end of the market. In fact the only market that was left was building scoops for strip mining. If you need to remove less dirt than an entire hillside, hydraulics are good enough. But they can't do that (yet).

Take, for another instance, traditional steel mills vs mini-mills. As Christensen spends some time explaining, the steel industry is segmented according to how demanding the metal is to produce. The mini-mills have been working their way up to harder and harder metals. Yet despite the fact that they have been eating away at Bethlehem Steel since the 70's, the highest-end steel production still is done by Bethlehem.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #235,103

11/19/05 11:03:33 AM

Not that I care...but looking at history...

who thought Eastern, Delta, TWA, Pan Am in the 1970 seventies would be threatened (and in some cases beaten) by a company called SouthWest?

Post #235,105

11/19/05 11:10:31 AM

Good point. But they're selling a service, not a Thing.

Post #235,120

11/19/05 12:28:36 PM

Kodak sold things. They're hurting pretty badly.

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #235,137

11/19/05 2:02:30 PM

But thats a different beast

Kodak bet their future that film would survive...and didn't realize they were wrong until much too late.

And they also didn't invent their successor technology.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #235,145

11/19/05 3:13:51 PM

Again, read the book.

It is easy to pass such facile judgements. It is much harder for the company involved to do anything about them.

I'd be willing to bet that Kodak knew that digital was coming, explored it in their labs, and made a sincere attempt to get on the bandwagon. Lemme google...looks like I'd win my bet. According to [link|http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/kodakHistory/1990_1999.shtml|this history], Kodak was selling 1.3 megapixel cameras in 1991!) And they were one of the early innovators in digital imagining. This didn't help them at all.

This isn't an isolated example. Christensen found that CEOs at the losing companies knew long before it happened what bandwagon they needed to be on and tried to do something about it. But there are basic organizational challenges that make this an exercise in swimming upstream, and he only found one CEO who had faced disruptive innovation and managed to force the company to switch. And that CEO said that, had he known how hard it would be, he wouldn't have bothered.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #235,148

11/19/05 3:20:21 PM

I will actually. Looks interesting

even if I may not agree

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #235,221

11/20/05 11:52:14 AM

Organization learning....

part of the reason the organization as a whole can't make these radically changes is that by and large it's leaders have been promoted under the old system. Everything they know, what they can do, will be rendered worthless if they (as an organization) change.

Take Kodak...it's middle managers (and upper managers) knew film. They'd lived and breathed it for their entire lives. They can possibly acknowledge that digital is coming and what they know is going to be worthless.

They cannot acknowledge that the kid down the hall knows what it necessary to keep the company in business over the next few decades.

Post #235,225

11/20/05 12:22:31 PM

And that is reinforced...

by the fact that at all points the customers that the company has contact with (and knows how to contact) prefer film. And at all points the people who work with film have better economic opportunities. (Larger sales, higher profits, all stuff that is hard to ignore.)

This is why the only successful strategy for disruptive innovations seems to be to start a spin-off, and then after the disruptive wave is well established, re-merge. However even with that you have to be careful - you can't subsidize the spin-off very much. If it is subsidized, then it becomes dependent on the subsidy and will find it hard to succeed.

The Innovator's Solution has more to say about this, but it boils down to the maxim, "Good money is impatient for profit but patient for growth. Bad money is impatient for growth but patient for profit."

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #235,227

11/20/05 12:43:34 PM

It's not so black and white.

So to speak. :-)

As Ben's link above points out, Kodak has been doing digital photography for years and they still do. They also still do film.

Part of Kodak's problems were due to heavy competition from [link|http://internationalecon.com/fairtrade/fairpapers/ddaniels.html|Fuji]. Whether the competition was fair or otherwise, I can't say. There was also the expensive battle with Polaroid in the 1980s over instant cameras.

But Kodak is still around, and according to [link|http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/annualReport04/financials.shtml|this] they had $13.5B in sales and 55,000 employees in 2004. They did have a big restructuring charge, but they're not in horrible shape.

A better example of a company that was done in by digital imaging was [link|http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050427-1329-polaroid-bankruptcy.html|Polaroid]. E.g. almost no-one uses film for microscope or oscilloscope cameras any more. And you don't see camera phones that spit out polariods. ;-) Their [link|http://www.dpreview.com/news/0110/01101201polaroidch11.asp|stock price] went from $60.31 to $0.28 in a little over 4 years. Digital photography ate Polaroid and resulted in its bankruptcy. (Yes, a company called [link|http://www.polaroid.com|Polaroid] exists now, with some of the same products, but it's not the same entity. It was purchased for its brand name (they sell TVs and DVD players too now)).

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who seems to be in a contrary mood on this topic. :-)

Post #235,085

11/19/05 10:24:58 AM

They spun the business and remerged it several times

ATT/Bell Labs invented the cellphone network...essentially the death knell for the landline phone business that it also created. They are also the fundamental creator of the network infrastructure for VOIP which end up killing the long distance business of the founding ATT.

Now, there are some complications because of the telecom business spinning off and buying each others parts...but the core has remained the same...and they are busy inventing the things that will continue to kill the legacy telephone business.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #235,119

11/19/05 12:27:27 PM

OK, they invented. Will they build the next business model?

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #235,136

11/19/05 2:00:21 PM

We'll see

but its very certainly the plan and there's alot of revenue attached to it already.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #235,146

11/19/05 3:15:18 PM

That we will. (I'm betting on Skype and relatives.)

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #235,149

11/19/05 3:22:41 PM

Too limited

its not about the device anymore. It has to be across a broad spectum of devices, net or wireless...and they all have to interconnect seemlessly.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #235,155

by drewk

11/19/05 4:37:07 PM

Seemlessly? Is that anything like unseemly?

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #235,161

11/19/05 5:17:55 PM

grrrr

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,745

by boxley

11/17/05 4:30:12 PM

1/2 of BP R&D is recylcling and new energy sources

Post #234,539

by JayMehaffey

11/16/05 4:45:48 PM

More like saying the Mafia should write the law.

Post #234,520

11/16/05 3:52:26 PM

That's a fair question....

but, if you're going to take that stance, why lie about it? Just admit you only met with Energy Groups.

Post #234,557

by a6l6e6x

11/16/05 5:37:37 PM

The problem is evasion of "sunshine laws".

The public's business needs to be done in public. Anyone who cares can see who proposed what, who got his/her way adopted and be able to draw some conclusions. To do otherwise invites corruption.

Alex

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

Post #234,561

11/16/05 6:00:11 PM

So every meeting of every public servant

should be recorded and published? Regardless of subject and regardless of its pertinence in developing of the actual policy?

Better yet...put them all in the bubble like Truman. Cameras everywhere...and we can all watch on TV.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,564

11/16/05 6:42:03 PM

Welcome to Government Service...

Florida has a "Sunshine" law that is exactly like that.

Post #234,581

by boxley

11/16/05 7:58:48 PM

yep, absolutely

discuss in public decide privately vote in public works pretty well. Now you dont even need to have the oil boys on the hill. Everyone of them has a PR staff that could write a white paper. Whackos have great PR machines as well. Read the advice, back channel to a few folk for fact checking then make and publish a policy. Beep, how many times have you wasted in meetings with vendors bosses and boards that produced anything but a vague go forth and fix. At least as many as I have, not a lot is accomplished by these sessions.
thanx,
bill

Post #234,610

11/16/05 10:47:58 PM

Disagree

Theres a step in front, where civil servants confer with experts, lawyers and other advisors to (ideally and in a better world than ours) LEARN about what it is they are about to legislate.

Thats what these meetings were, apparently. Meetings with aides (and since they were aids, I bet alot of these meetings happened without any direct knowledge of the CIEIO)where issues were being discussed that these folks thought an energy policy would need to address.

I have no issue with these types of meetings being private and the notes of these meetings being confidential to the taker.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,637

by Ashton

11/17/05 5:23:42 AM

Nor would I -

in that 'better world', or even just.. amidst a group of officials less-dedicated to a lifetime of personal aggrandizement of the "exponential $growth" ilk - via the Same industry.

ie Cheney -all by hisself- is a Piece of Work. Him, closeted ___?
These are not 'Normal' times. Or personnel - in Government or in bizness.

Post #234,648

by boxley

11/17/05 9:27:15 AM

I just got back from a "step in front"

although interesting I doubt the gummint folks that attended learned dick
thanx,
bill

Post #234,667

11/17/05 10:47:11 AM

Qualification on your disagreement

First of all, there is so much work to do that often if you miss those meetings, you miss out. Except on their key issues, politicians tend to become figureheads, rubber stamping choices made by staffers. So a lot of policy is made at what is supposedly a non-policy level. And conversely, after policy is made, what it turns into depends on how it is implemented at lower levels.

But I do agree that there are plenty of meetings that are useless to monitor. (You can remove the words "to monitor" and I still agree with the sentence.) That said, if there is an "out" which government and industry can use to "fly below the radar" on controversial stuff, I firmly believe that they will seek the shade. Therefore I am not inclined to leave them with any.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #234,670

by admin

11/17/05 10:56:54 AM

Any loophole will be used enthusiastically.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #234,677

by imric

11/17/05 11:36:42 AM

ICLRPD (new thread)

Created as new thread #234676 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=234676|ICLRPD]

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #234,703

by inthane-chan

11/17/05 12:39:09 PM

If you can say that with a straight face...

...after reading David Brin's "The Transparent Society", then we'll pick this conversation up and continue it. Until then, I'm not picking this fight.

When somebody asks you to trade your freedom for security, it isn't your security they're talking about.

Post #234,712

11/17/05 1:49:22 PM

I would regardless

there is oversight and then there is obtrusive, non-necessary watchdogging.

In today's environment its leaning too far towards the latter...with a specific focus on "throw their ass in jail" if they say something you don't like.

If you have read the news stories about this...those execs who said "to my knowledge we didn't" are now being threatened to jailtime by congresscritters when they very likely had no real knowledge of these lower staffer meetings and their subjects.

The PAC folks don't ask the Chief Exec to come to these things..they have local and lower business folks come to these things and call it "Government Relations".

Now, do you think that industry experts will be coming forward to offer advice in the future. Guarantee that these folks disallow it by policy...meaning the end result of this is a FURTHER dumbing down of our government.

Superb result.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,738

by hnick

11/17/05 4:20:42 PM

Extremes again

Government should be watched, assuming a free society. When the government no longer has to ask permission to exercise power and the people do, it's not a free society any more. When government becomes as secretive as it has, the suspicion is that government isn't asking permission any more. We have had some pretty heavy handed government in the last 20 years or so. Very few really trust government or at best trust government to be corrupt. Hence the watchdogging mentality. If government would like to avoid this it could be more honest.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with government issuing a statement stating that after meeting with representitives (listed) from Big Oil, various enviromental lobbys (listed), and any other applicable special interest groups (listed), they have come up with an energy policy (stated), for these reasons (stated). It might engender some trust and possibly a decent policy. When they make decisions that shape the future of the entire country, it would be good to know why. If they won't say, then it is up to the citizenry to find out.
That's currently supposed to be done though oversight by our representitives. I would like to say that a candid and honest government would probably not have the same watchdogging going on, but I don't really remember one. I am fairly confident that a dishonest and secretive government is going to attact a lot of snoops and conspiricy theorists. My memory is good enough for that statement...
Oh, and having someone else do the dirty work for you is not a real good defense. So the concept of all those mini meenies doing dastardly deeds in spite of the best intentions of our exemplary, honest, and loyal representitives has probably been run through a horse.

Post #234,750

11/17/05 5:24:27 PM

Not that extreme

because given the way this and the last several "advice" sessions have gone...all "outed" by the watchdog groups that many feel are necessary...the end result has always been very bad PR >at best<.

If I were running a company I would have a completely changed process by now for my PAC group and my Gov Rltns team when dealing with the Fed...and it would start with "Thou shalt not"

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,751

by hnick

11/17/05 5:33:15 PM

That would be nice

A government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations is called a fascist government. I'd prefer not to have one of those. I would like to see corporations stay out of government entirely. Then maybe people would get some representation; they sure can't outbid a major corp now.
Maybe the last several advice sessions have been bad PR, because they benefited a few corps allied with the present government at the expense of the vast majority of citizens. And they got caught. Poor babies... that can't be allowed to stand. Lock them doors! Shutter the windows! We don't need no stinking democracy. On with the secrecy!
Sheesh...

Post #234,770

11/17/05 7:55:28 PM

I see we are forgetting a simple credo

Those who can do, do
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach gym.
Those who can't teach gym run for office.

(ok...I made up that last one ;-)

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,823

by a6l6e6x

11/18/05 8:26:36 AM

Speaking of "Government Relations".

How about [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602518.html|Wal-Mart hiring the wife of a legislator] on a key vote:

Preparing for a showdown with organized labor in the Maryland legislature, Wal-Mart has deployed at least a dozen Annapolis lobbyists and is making strong overtures to black lawmakers, including a $10,000 donation to help them pay for a recent conference.

The retail giant hopes to derail legislation that would effectively force the company to boost spending on employee health benefits.

o o o

Other lobbyists registered to represent the company included Pamela Metz Kasemeyer, the wife of a state senator who voted for the bill;...

And this is in broad daylight!

But then these folks gave us [link|http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000059|Spiro Agnew] so we can "get the best government money can buy".

Alex

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

Post #234,830

by boxley

11/18/05 9:31:52 AM

proves they are cheap bastards, thats all

In Alaska the wife of the chair insurance committee got 75K from insurance co's on workmans comp. 10k pocket change.
thanx,
bill

Post #234,798

by imqwerky

11/17/05 11:38:39 PM

Litmus test

All things being equal, if this had happened during the Clinton Admin, would you consider it suspicious and/or worthy of investigation?

"It's never too late to be who you might have been." ~ George Eliot

Post #234,800

11/17/05 11:53:42 PM

Let's see...

[link|http://naturalhealthline.com/newsletter/15jun03/hillary.htm|Linky]:

The Clinton Administration's Health Care Task Force worked in near-complete secrecy. Its 1,364 page "[link|http://www.ibiblio.org/nhs/NHS-T-o-C.html|Health Security Act]" is a study in complexity. In the view of Jane M. Orient, M.D., author of the forthcoming book Your Doctor Is Not In (Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1994), the Clinton plan "creates cartels, empowers bureaucrats, and disenfranchises both patients and doctors."

Emphasis added.

I think that one of the reasons why the Clinton health care plan failed was the secrecy. It may not have been the most important reason, but it certainly was a reason.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #234,826

11/18/05 9:12:55 AM

for fairly obvious reasons...that its no different than before and unfortunately agree with the stance of both administrations that in order to get candid advice to members of the government (in their case the exec branch)...you have to allow these meetings to be and remain private.

To expect different is sort of like expecting it to be ok for your employer to review all your posts here because sometimes you ask for advice that you use in the office.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,828

by imqwerky

11/18/05 9:21:34 AM

Aha!

According to the report from Scott's link: "Judge Royce Lamberth of the District Court for the District of Columbia judge imposed sanctions for the Clinton administration's misconduct and ordered the government to pay more than $285,000 to the AAPS. The AAPS' litigation contended that the Clintons' Task Force on Health Care Reform operated illegally, relying on private advisors and meeting in secret."

Therefore, Bill, since you concur above, one can definitely and objectively state that the sauce is for both goose and gander.

I rest my case.

Peace,
Amy

"It's never too late to be who you might have been." ~ George Eliot

Post #234,837

11/18/05 10:41:17 AM

Don't think you understand

If there are laws being broken, which apparently someone felt above...fine. I've no problem with the injured parties seeking redress for that. And, if this current group ran afoul of those same laws, then fine, give the injured parties compensation through the courts.

I haven't seen anyone make a similar argument in this case.

I still don't feel that there is a need to have 100% of all government meetings, inclusive of lower staffers, watchdogged.

This current situation has turned into a witchhunt. Call it entrapment. Get someone to tell you something, then look at all possible methods of "proving" a lie and slamming them for perjury. And its not the government they are hunting, for the most part. Now its private citizens that possibly even thought they were doing their civic duty.

Now what are you telling them. Your civic duty will get you 3 to 5.

Sorry, I don't volunteer for that and in the end this will be a BAD result. Its a spiral downward that noone will benefit from.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,840

by hnick

11/18/05 11:02:32 AM

This has gone from funny to sad...

If you can prove that no laws have been broken without oversight, then we don't need no stinking oversight. I'm sure all the bad guys will volunteer to be indited.

Watchdogging is none or all. "100% of all government meetings, inclusive of lower staffers"... sheesh.

"This current situation has turned into a witchhunt. Call it entrapment." Awww... just 'cause they act in an untrustworthy manner we are such meanies for suggesting that we don't trust them explicitly. Who'd a thunk it?

In the end it'll be BAD... Worse than a civil war? Worse than a fascist state? Well, the business guys will like fascism, and maybe they can sell weapons in the civil war...

And of course only business people can manage anything. We should be grateful that they allow us as much representation as we get. 'Cause they know better 'cause they're business people...

pathetic.
and sad.

Well, we didn't need a democracy anyway. We haven't been using it any time recently.

A sense of humor doesn't help anymore.

Post #234,846

11/18/05 11:16:51 AM

You're doing it again.

Hey Bill,

I still don't feel that there is a need to have 100% of all government meetings, inclusive of lower staffers, watchdogged.

[link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_in_the_Sunshine_Act|Sunshine laws] don't, and shouldn't, apply to 100% of all government meetings.

One of Congress's most important functions is oversight of the Executive branch. In [link|http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03894.pdf|this] GAO report (31 page .pdf) it says:

p.5-6:

From the outset, OVP [Office of the Vice President] did not respond to our request for information, including descriptive information on the process by which the National Energy Policy report was developed, asserting that we lacked statutory authority to examine NEPDG activities. We were also denied the opportunity to interview staff assisting the Vice President on the NEPDG effort. As a result, throughout the spring and summer of 2001, we engaged in extensive attempts to reach an agreement with OVP on our information request in an effort to fulfill our statutory responsibilities in a manner that accommodated the Vice President\ufffds asserted need to protect certain executive deliberations. Importantly, we significantly narrowed the scope of our review by, among other things, withdrawing our initial request for minutes of NEPDG meetings. We also offered flexibility in how we would access certain documents. Despite our concerted efforts to reach a reasonable accommodation, the Vice President denied us access to virtually all requested information, with the exception of a few documents purportedly related to NEPDG costs that OVP provided to us. The Vice President\ufffds denial of access challenged GAO\ufffds fundamental authority to evaluate the process by which NEPDG had developed a national energy policy and to obtain access to records that would shed light on that process. As authorized by GAO\ufffds access-to-records statute, after exhausting the processes specified in that statute for achieving a resolution and receiving a request from two senate full committee chairs and two senate subcommittee chairs to pursue our evaluation,4 we filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on February 22, 2002, to obtain the limited factual NEPDG information that we had requested.5 On December 9, 2002, the district court dismissed GAO\ufffds suit on jurisdictional grounds, without reaching the merits of GAO\ufffds authority to audit and evaluate NEPDG activities or to obtain access to NEPDG records.6 After considerable bipartisan outreach efforts to the Congress, GAO decided not to appeal the district court decision.7 A detailed chronology of our efforts to obtain access to NEPDG records can be found on GAO\ufffds Web site.

p.7-8:

According to the best information that we could obtain, the National Energy Policy report was the product of a centralized, top-down, shortterm, and labor-intensive process that involved the efforts of several hundred federal employees governmentwide. NEPDG\ufffdcomprised mostly of cabinet-level officials (Principals)\ufffdand its Support Group\ufffdcomprised mostly of select DOE officials detailed to OVP\ufffdcontrolled most facets of the report\ufffds development. [...]

This wasn't a few people meeting in the hallway and talking about what they were going to do over the weekend. Congress apparently tried to address legitimate concerns by the administration but were thwarted at every turn.

On the "witchhunt" - sure there's some posturing and grandstanding going on by the opposition. That's part of the purpose of having an opposition. But shouldn't it be the case that the rules about testifying truthfully, even if not under oath, are respected? Wouldn't it be disconcerting if incorrect information was presented in response to subpoenas by a Senate committee and nobody cared?

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #234,885