Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Tim O'Reilly
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 months ago
in Chopra named Obama CTO, White House tech plans coming together on VentureBeat
The quote at the end of the paragraph that you attribute to Chopra was my reflection on a conversation we had, not an actual quote from him. There were no actual quotes from Chopra in the piece that I wrote, and that you quoted from.
1 reply
Eric Eldon
Oh, right. Thanks, Tim. I've fixed.
7 months ago
in How You Can Use Social Media to Help the U.S. Auto Industry on The Social Media Marketing Blog
Scott -
This is a good post, and does make the case that Ford is not GM, and has been making proactive changes.
Two things:
1. All of the things you talk about are incremental changes. There is little in the way of truly transformational change, or "moon shot" style initiatives designed to change the game. If Ford is truly coming to grips with long term issues like climate change and the coming end of cheap oil, it would be working a lot harder to come up with disruptive changes to the industry. You say "No one could have foreseen" the economic collapse. That was also said about 9/11, yet there were ample warnings of both problems, to those who were paying attention. In any event, great corporate strategy makes an effort to develop robust strategies that are designed for radically different scenarios, not just variations on a theme.
2. You fail to address the continued opposition of Ford (as well as the others of the Big Three) to higher fuel economy standards. If you hadn't done that, you would be in a far better position today. The Prius first went on sale in 1997, more than ten years ago. The technology was clearly there. You guys made a decision to favor short term profit over long term values. I know that the American buying public was a big part of your decision, but that was partly a failure of leadership. If you guys had broken with GM and said "We NEED higher fuel economy standards," you could have moved the industry forward instead of holding it back.
I really appreciate your attempts to speak up for Ford. But without acknowledgment of past mistakes (and even current practice, still opposing higher fuel efficiency standards), your efforts come across as a kind of greenwashing, rather than a real change.
This is a good post, and does make the case that Ford is not GM, and has been making proactive changes.
Two things:
1. All of the things you talk about are incremental changes. There is little in the way of truly transformational change, or "moon shot" style initiatives designed to change the game. If Ford is truly coming to grips with long term issues like climate change and the coming end of cheap oil, it would be working a lot harder to come up with disruptive changes to the industry. You say "No one could have foreseen" the economic collapse. That was also said about 9/11, yet there were ample warnings of both problems, to those who were paying attention. In any event, great corporate strategy makes an effort to develop robust strategies that are designed for radically different scenarios, not just variations on a theme.
2. You fail to address the continued opposition of Ford (as well as the others of the Big Three) to higher fuel economy standards. If you hadn't done that, you would be in a far better position today. The Prius first went on sale in 1997, more than ten years ago. The technology was clearly there. You guys made a decision to favor short term profit over long term values. I know that the American buying public was a big part of your decision, but that was partly a failure of leadership. If you guys had broken with GM and said "We NEED higher fuel economy standards," you could have moved the industry forward instead of holding it back.
I really appreciate your attempts to speak up for Ford. But without acknowledgment of past mistakes (and even current practice, still opposing higher fuel efficiency standards), your efforts come across as a kind of greenwashing, rather than a real change.
1 reply
scottmonty
Tim,
Thanks for taking the time to stop by and comment here. I agree and disagree with your points, and let me tell you why.
1. No one has a crystal ball. This is Monday morning quarterbacking that you're engaging in. You claim that there were ample warnings regarding the economic collapse, but let me ask you this: did you cash out all of your stock holdings so that you're now completely liquid? I doubt it.
But you know what? Ford did prepare. We sought out credit and leveraged some assets nearly two years ago, so we would have liquidity. The recent economic impact was so severe that even that doesn't necessarily insulate Ford from the harsh realities of a major downturn.
And when the auto industry - which typically takes two or more years to get a product from concept to the public - faces a sudden shift in public sentiment and market conditions in less than one quarter, I don't care how prepared you are with strategic plans, changes are nearly impossible to achieve in that amount of time.
2. As far as higher fuel economy standards go, Ford is committed to making more fuel efficient cars. I get your point about us zigging while the competition zags. There's no question that that's how you beat the competition.
We're working on a variety of fuel-efficient solutions - some of which I'm not permitted to tell you about - that I think will be absolutely fantastic in this area. And let's not forget, that when the Prius first went on sale, it was a money loser for Toyota. It took a few years before it was profitable and people started to pick up on it.
As you can imagine, as the social media guy speaking on behalf of Ford, I'm not personally able to comment on past actions of the company. I'm sure there are others who are more qualified to address this than I am.
Tim, thanks for your continued debate. You are a tough debate partner, but one of the reasons I enjoy our exchanges is because you're respectful and logical. Keeps me on my toes!
Thanks for taking the time to stop by and comment here. I agree and disagree with your points, and let me tell you why.
1. No one has a crystal ball. This is Monday morning quarterbacking that you're engaging in. You claim that there were ample warnings regarding the economic collapse, but let me ask you this: did you cash out all of your stock holdings so that you're now completely liquid? I doubt it.
But you know what? Ford did prepare. We sought out credit and leveraged some assets nearly two years ago, so we would have liquidity. The recent economic impact was so severe that even that doesn't necessarily insulate Ford from the harsh realities of a major downturn.
And when the auto industry - which typically takes two or more years to get a product from concept to the public - faces a sudden shift in public sentiment and market conditions in less than one quarter, I don't care how prepared you are with strategic plans, changes are nearly impossible to achieve in that amount of time.
2. As far as higher fuel economy standards go, Ford is committed to making more fuel efficient cars. I get your point about us zigging while the competition zags. There's no question that that's how you beat the competition.
We're working on a variety of fuel-efficient solutions - some of which I'm not permitted to tell you about - that I think will be absolutely fantastic in this area. And let's not forget, that when the Prius first went on sale, it was a money loser for Toyota. It took a few years before it was profitable and people started to pick up on it.
As you can imagine, as the social media guy speaking on behalf of Ford, I'm not personally able to comment on past actions of the company. I'm sure there are others who are more qualified to address this than I am.
Tim, thanks for your continued debate. You are a tough debate partner, but one of the reasons I enjoy our exchanges is because you're respectful and logical. Keeps me on my toes!
10 months ago
in Why Do I See So Many Open Source Advocates Using Twitter? on Stay N' Alive
Jesse,
In addition to twitter, I happily use Mac OS X, gmail, amazon, google, and many other proprietary program. Arguing the benefits of open source software doesn't mean that you use it exclusively. That was part of the split with the free software movement. This isn't a religious/political issue, but a practical one.
I became an open source advocate to help people realize how much of the software that they used and valued came from an "invisible" open source community - programs like apache, perl, python, BIND, php -- that were widely used but didn't get enough respect. Ditto for Linux as server infrastructure.
As to Linux on the desktop, I've always seen that as a massive distraction for the Linux community, the distraction that allowed for a new layer of proprietary "infoware" to become dominant on top of open source web servers. (See http://tim.oreilly.com/opensource for the series of essays in which I argue this position.)
My principles have NEVER argued that I should use a program because it is open source. I use whatever works, happily. I do argue that programs should interoperate.
I believe it's perfectly reasonable to use twitter instead of identi.ca if twitter works better for you. Let identi.ca compete in the marketplace because it's really better, just as apache beat out IIS and Netscape, perl, python, php and other scripting languages beat out VB, ruby on rails beat out asp.net, and not because of some so-called moral injunction. Not only is it silly, it doesn't work.
In addition to twitter, I happily use Mac OS X, gmail, amazon, google, and many other proprietary program. Arguing the benefits of open source software doesn't mean that you use it exclusively. That was part of the split with the free software movement. This isn't a religious/political issue, but a practical one.
I became an open source advocate to help people realize how much of the software that they used and valued came from an "invisible" open source community - programs like apache, perl, python, BIND, php -- that were widely used but didn't get enough respect. Ditto for Linux as server infrastructure.
As to Linux on the desktop, I've always seen that as a massive distraction for the Linux community, the distraction that allowed for a new layer of proprietary "infoware" to become dominant on top of open source web servers. (See http://tim.oreilly.com/opensource for the series of essays in which I argue this position.)
My principles have NEVER argued that I should use a program because it is open source. I use whatever works, happily. I do argue that programs should interoperate.
I believe it's perfectly reasonable to use twitter instead of identi.ca if twitter works better for you. Let identi.ca compete in the marketplace because it's really better, just as apache beat out IIS and Netscape, perl, python, php and other scripting languages beat out VB, ruby on rails beat out asp.net, and not because of some so-called moral injunction. Not only is it silly, it doesn't work.
1 reply
jessestay
Tim, thanks for commenting - I value your opinion very highly. I
think your points are fair enough.
I do think there is some added value to open source in the fact that
one can not only use the software, but modify it to do the things they
want and in turn give back to the community because of that. However,
not everyone, in particular the general audience of Twitter, can
modify code like that. I do still hope that more people that can
contribute can come join this effort and help bring an open
infrastructure like Laconi.ca to the masses. I'd rather not be
trapped by Twitter. I do understand the practicality concept and even
live that myself for the most part - I use a Mac for my desktop,
gmail, amazon, google and other similar services as well.
think your points are fair enough.
I do think there is some added value to open source in the fact that
one can not only use the software, but modify it to do the things they
want and in turn give back to the community because of that. However,
not everyone, in particular the general audience of Twitter, can
modify code like that. I do still hope that more people that can
contribute can come join this effort and help bring an open
infrastructure like Laconi.ca to the masses. I'd rather not be
trapped by Twitter. I do understand the practicality concept and even
live that myself for the most part - I use a Mac for my desktop,
gmail, amazon, google and other similar services as well.
1 year ago
in Web 3.0 Nonsense on A VC
FWIW, I don't like the term "Web 2.0" much either and I'm the one who made it stick! But for a bit of context, remember what it's origin was: we wanted to do a conference that said "the web is back" after the dot com bust, and everyone thinking the web is over. That's the 2.0 part.
Then in explaining what made 2.0 "different," I spent a lot of time articulating what made some sites survive the bust, and what I saw in the ones that were up and coming.
So my question about Web 3.0 is simple: what's going to make us need a 3.0 term? Will it be after the next bust? Meanwhile, there are lots of trends that are going to converge to make a significant revolution. But it's not more of the same stuff that's already driving Web 2.0.
The kind of stuff Jason is talking about is at best, Web 2.0.1 if it were to succeed to its fullest. It's just not anywhere near a revolution.
Then in explaining what made 2.0 "different," I spent a lot of time articulating what made some sites survive the bust, and what I saw in the ones that were up and coming.
So my question about Web 3.0 is simple: what's going to make us need a 3.0 term? Will it be after the next bust? Meanwhile, there are lots of trends that are going to converge to make a significant revolution. But it's not more of the same stuff that's already driving Web 2.0.
The kind of stuff Jason is talking about is at best, Web 2.0.1 if it were to succeed to its fullest. It's just not anywhere near a revolution.
- 2 points
- Jump to »
vruz
Given enough people believing it (and funding it) any commentary will pass as truth... even your definition of web 2.0, and this is still true for Jason's too.
The problem is, I just don't think too many people can be fooled twice with the same thing :-)
The problem is, I just don't think too many people can be fooled twice with the same thing :-)
fredwilson
Tim
Thanks for your help in getting our collective mojo back I will be always grateful to you and john for doing that
Fred
Thanks for your help in getting our collective mojo back I will be always grateful to you and john for doing that
Fred
