backtop

Print 50 comment(s) - last by Hieyeck.. on May 4 at 8:27 AM

2010 Honda Insight  (Source: Motor Authority)

2010 Toyota Prius
Hybrid vehicles are fast becoming the cash cows of the automotive world

Money doesn't grow on trees, but it does grow from something else green -- hybrid vehicles.  From expensive pet projects, Honda and Toyota have refined the state of hybrids into a money-making venture for their companies.  Now, with sales posting long-term growth trends, these vehicles and the profits they bring have become an increasingly integral part of the company.

Some suspected the price war between 2010 Toyota's Prius, priced at $21,750, and the 2010 Honda Insight, priced at $20,470, would hurt the companies' bottom lines.  However, recently revealed information from the Japanese newspaper Nikkei indicates that both hybrids have a profit margin of approximately $3,100.

This figure seems especially staggering given that last year GM reportedly lost $1,271 per vehicle sold, while Ford lost $451 per vehicle sold.  Toyota managed a profit, but only $1,715 per vehicle sold, while Honda pulled in $1,259 on average per vehicle.

Part of the advantage of hybrids is that there's less discounting and more demand, though production numbers are lower.  The vehicles also are typically priced higher.  However, the new models from Honda and Toyota that toe the psychologically significant $20,000 price level are coming much closer to traditional sedan prices than ever before.

According to the Green Car Congress, a hybrid advocacy group, hybrids have finally achieved profit parity with small-engine gas-only vehicles, all while prices have dropped. 

Assuming that the numbers are accurate, the new state of hybrid profitability represents a win-win situation -- a win to customers, who pay less for gas and score lower prices; a win for businesses who are turning bigger profits; and a win for the environment, with less fossil fuels burned, reducing emissions of carbon and refining-stage emissions of sulfates, nitrates, and other compounds naturally trapped in oil deposits. 

It also offers hope to the electric vehicle industry, which, like the hybrid industry in its early years, features losses per vehicle and fledgling technology.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Kinda says something about the article
By Suntan on 4/29/2009 1:23:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Assuming that the numbers are accurate,


It kind of says something about the legitimacy of the info when even the author puts disclaimers into the main body of the article.

How about publishing articles with facts that are solid enough that you don't have to preference your opinions before you make them.

-Suntan




RE: Kinda says something about the article
By bighairycamel on 4/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda says something about the article
By Suntan on 4/29/2009 2:12:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.


Sorry if you think I’m cranky because I would rather read articles that are based on solid information instead of reading articles that bend the truth so far that even the author has to put disclaimers into the main body.

quote:
Regardless of if that number is accurate, the interesting thing to me was this...


This piqued my interest so for the fun of it I followed the links back to try and get to the source info (unfortunately I only made it back through two “green” websites before I hit the newspaper website that requires a membership) it is interesting to see how the reality keeps getting distorted each time a new website copies the info it links to.

For instance if you hit that “indicates” link you go to the “Autobloggreen” website (don’t think they are going to have a slightly biased outlook on hybrids do you?) Never the less they have this to say:

quote:
According to the Japanese newspaper Nikkei (via Green Car Congress), each hybrid that Honda and Toyota sell earns the respective company about $3,100 in profit. Of course, Toyota also sells the Lexus hybrids, which bumps up the average, and the numbers are calculated using 2008 sales of the second-generation Prius, but this is still good news for the Japanese automakers.


Fair enough. Now let’s follow that link on their page labeled “Green Car Congress.” They say:
quote:
The Nikkei report said that Toyota appears to have earned gross profits of around ¥100 billion yen (US$1 billion) on its sales of second-generation Prius hybrids last year. Toyota’s gross profit margin on the sales of the next-generation 2010 Prius are projected to be in the single digits in the first year.


Now a look at what that webpage actually quoted (or possibly cheerypicked) out of the original Nikkei article:

quote:
The gross profit earned on the Insight is still low when factoring in the large R&D costs involved in its development. However, the profit margin on its hybrid operations has risen to the level where Honda can count on it to generate the fourth-largest revenue stream behind its luxury, midsize and small car operations.


So now you have the source article saying that Honda’s continued efforts at refining and improving on its hybrid design will now bring it solidly into last place as far as its automobile sales are concerned (I guess the Honda Hybrid guys can finally can stop taking heat from the lawn mower engine guys about profits at the annual picnic at least…) and you have Toyota figures that benefit from the horridly overpriced Lexus hybrids as well as old figures of the previous Prius that didn’t have to price match the new Insight, further they expect the new Prius to have single digit profit margins! Then you have a Dailytech article twisting it into saying that hybrids are a “cash cow.”

…Color me unimpressed with the integrity of the Dailytech article.

Now before this devolves into yet another 200 post bicker-fest about American automakers, I don’t think anyone here is about to disagree that US makers are sucking wind and that they are not doing well. This is not the argument I am making. I have issue with the horrid sensationalism that goes on around here each day. Just because one is doing bad, doesn’t mean that the other is “raking in the bucks.”

I would be thrown out of a project approval meeting if I proposed a project that was only going to receive 15% ROI, much less 15% gross margins. Now the auto industry is in a much worse situation than the industry I am in, but the fact remains that 15% gross margin is not a cash cow in any industry.

-Suntan


RE: Kinda says something about the article
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2009 2:46:35 PM , Rating: 5
You nailed it. As soon as I read "cash cow" I knew it had to be a Mick article.

What is the deal with that guy ? It's so biased !


RE: Kinda says something about the article
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/29/2009 3:42:28 PM , Rating: 5
Y'all got Micked


By callmeroy on 4/30/2009 10:52:47 AM , Rating: 2
Move over Rick Rolled.....

new term

"Mick rolled"....


RE: Kinda says something about the article
By bighairycamel on 4/29/2009 4:28:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

quote:
The gross profit earned on the Insight is still low when factoring in the large R&D costs involved in its development. However, the profit margin on its hybrid operations has risen to the level where Honda can count on it to generate the fourth-largest revenue stream behind its luxury, midsize and small car operations.

So now you have the source article saying that Honda’s continued efforts at refining and improving on its hybrid design will now bring it solidly into last place as far as its automobile sales are concerned

I'm not sure how 4th largest suddenly turned into last... did you forget Honda also makes Vans, Trucks, and SUVs? Unless you were figuring in R&D costs in which case it is reasonable to assume that a technology as relatively young as hybrid technology would still be expensive. I doubt the folks at Honda are expecting them to recoup R&D costs in a year.


RE: Kinda says something about the article
By Suntan on 4/29/2009 4:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure how 4th largest suddenly turned into last... did you forget Honda also makes Vans, Trucks, and SUVs?


Sorry, should have said “car” sales. But is that *really* the only thing you got out of all that? Or are you now just fixating completely on trying to find minor technicalities in what I say for the sake of argument? Honestly, read all the articles completely linked in the dailytech article and tell me you still agree that you would call the Prius and Insight “Cash Cows.”

quote:
Unless you were figuring in R&D costs in which case it is reasonable to assume that a technology as relatively young as hybrid technology would still be expensive. I doubt the folks at Honda are expecting them to recoup R&D costs in a year.


I honestly don’t know what you are trying to convey here. The article stated gross margin, which is the difference between selling the thing and the cost to build the thing in the factory. It does not include R&D, tooling or other project costs.

-Suntan


RE: Kinda says something about the article
By bighairycamel on 4/29/2009 5:27:40 PM , Rating: 1
OK I think we have a mixup here....
quote:
Sorry, should have said “car” sales. But is that *really* the only thing you got out of all that? Or are you now just fixating completely on trying to find minor technicalities in what I say for the sake of argument? Honestly, read all the articles completely linked in the dailytech article and tell me you still agree that you would call the Prius and Insight “Cash Cows.”

First, I didn't know we were having an argument. My childish little poke at you in my first post was merely a springboard to the rest, which was just to say that seeing the actual numbers of profit for domestic compared to foreign was interesting. I never expounded on Hybrid numbers at all.

I just assumed your reply to my post was also just a springboard to post your research. All of which pertained to hybrids, which again, my post had nothing to do with.

Which brings me to my next point; I never "agreed" that I thought Hybrids were cash cows. In fact, I never said anything about hybrids except my agreed disclaimer that the numbers could have been fudged or inaccurate. In my second post, I only mentioned hybrids because I questioned the way you comprehended your source, because I read it differently (automobiles vs cars).
quote:
I honestly don’t know what you are trying to convey here. The article stated gross margin, which is the difference between selling the thing and the cost to build the thing in the factory. It does not include R&D, tooling or other project costs.

Exactly, which is why I coudn't understand what was so upsetting about the profit margins. It seemed to me like you went from attacking Dailytech to attacking Honda hybrids. I never agreed that they were cash cows, but having a profit at all with a relatively young tech is still respectable.


RE: Kinda says something about the article
By Suntan on 4/29/2009 11:38:13 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
First, I didn't know we were having an argument.


You originally replied with a rude, round-about comment accusing me of being crabby. And you have been replying to further posts offering rebuttals to counter mine. Added together, they sure make for what looks like argumentitive behavior.

quote:
which was just to say that seeing the actual numbers of profit for domestic compared to foreign was interesting.


Interesting maybe, but your further comments alluding to the fact that the numbers for hybrids expressed in this article show that Japanese car makers have a viable market segment is still faulty.

Just because they are doing "less bad" with their hybrids than the American car companies are doing, does not equate to "doing good."

quote:
All of which pertained to hybrids, which again, my post had nothing to do with.


Hybrids being "cash cows" is the main topic of the article. If you want to talk about Japanese vs American car makers in general, go find one of the umpteen other articles that Mick has started on the subject.

quote:
Exactly, which is why I coudn't understand what was so upsetting about the profit margins. It seemed to me like you went from attacking Dailytech to attacking Honda hybrids.


My main point is that dailytech is rife with sensationalist stories that border on the "blatantly untrue", while routinely crossing clean past "journalistically devoid of integrity."

My comments about Honda are what they are, not an attack, but not saying they are doing great things either. Planly put, 15% margin is crap on any product that isn't a commodity. Certainly not acceptable for a company to survive long term on. Given the newness of the market segment, and the current state of the automotive market in general though, it is understandable.

quote:

I never agreed that they were cash cows, but having a profit at all with a relatively young tech is still respectable.


Profit margin on a product is not the same thing as having a "profit" at the end of the day. Profit margin is not the last line on the P&L statement, it comes in closer to the middle and there are a lot more negative numbers that get added after it (paying engineers to design and test it, regulatory testing, purchasing tools to build it, paying for all those fancy commercials, etc. etc.)

Personally, I've seen projects that show a profit margin over 30% and the project still ends up in the hole after a total ROI analysis is done, and they didn't even have a fraction of the overhead as developing a hybrid system would.

To sum it up. 15% margin is not good enough to be considered a success in any of the big offices where the guys wear suits and the tables are made out of mahogany. Therefore, the hybrid market segment either needs to continue to mature and improve its margins, or it will die and be replaced by something else. Not bagging on it, just being realistic (but I am bagging on any e-turd that sits and writes a web blog proclaiming that a pathetic 15% margin is equal to being a "cash cow.")

-Suntan


By Hieyeck on 5/4/2009 8:27:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My main point is that dailytech is rife with Mick- stories that border on the "blatantly untrue", while routinely crossing clean past "journalistically devoid of integrity."
Fixed


RE: Kinda says something about the article
By bhieb on 4/29/2009 1:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
Normally I'm all for a good Mick bashing, but he did post the sources of both sets of numbers. Now you may not believe them, but it is not like the are from "Bob's Blog post" either. Fairly reputable sources, and because they tend to be somewhat counter to popular belief I don't see a big problem with the "disclaimer" as you put it.

So dare I say cut him some slack :)


RE: Kinda says something about the article
By Suntan on 4/29/2009 2:21:58 PM , Rating: 3
I’m not the one questioning the accuracy of the numbers. The author of the article is. I’m questioning the fact that the author doesn’t even have enough faith in the numbers to stand behind them, so why should I bother? Maybe its because the author knows he is miss-using the numbers…

Now a quick look at the articles he did reference clearly show that the numbers for Toyota are skewed with the higher profit margins from Lexus hybrid sales and that Toyota expects single digit profit margins on there new Prius. As for Honda, they acknowledge that their Hybrid gets beat by all their other car divisions (luxury, midsize and compact.)

Sorry, taking a number from a different article and then wrapping it around a bunch of falshoods is not ok *just* because you link to it.

-Suntan


RE: Kinda says something about the article
By omnicronx on 4/29/2009 2:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry, taking a number from a different article and then wrapping it around a bunch of falshoods is not ok *just* because you link to it.
What media outlet do you get your information from? You just described just about every news source out there. So unless you want to stop reading the news altogether, fact checking is always required. Even the original source has probably spun the topic in one way or another. Your source for example leaves out the part where Toyota has already claimed that to try and keep the base pricetag of the next gen prius low, the 'frills and pirks will likely be offered as options'. (i.e things such as solar panels).


By omnicronx on 4/29/2009 3:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me wrong though, I do agree with most of what you are saying (calling it a cash cow is pretty far off). That being said, for a low priced car, things are looking good. Last check the Prius was approaching hot sellers like the corolla in profit margin. But.. Once again, Luxus sells a good 300 thousand cars worldwide per year, so the Prius has a long way to go to be considered a cash cow, even if it does reach a profit margin of 15% in the mid-low end market.


By The0ne on 4/30/2009 12:16:57 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree with what suntan is saying news is very subjective nowadays. If you're looking for hard facts that's hard to come by. It seems here, DT just wants to put out news for the sake of getting them out. And in some small part that's ok because one can always find more info elsewhere. The same applies to just about any other news source. There's bound to be bias even in the smallest case.

If we talk about extremes you could be arguing that sales/revenue projects are also BS news because they're not hard facts. Hell, sometimes they're number from neverland :)


RE: Kinda says something about the article
By bhieb on 4/29/2009 4:33:57 PM , Rating: 4
I do see your point now that you have elaborated. Plus if this was Mick's first article I doubt anyone would have noticed, but as you pointed out it is the constant bias to serve his agenda that does get annoying. Unfortunately it is that way everywhere :(

And for better or for worse it is that bias and drama that keeps readers. I find myself far more interested in the comments that the article, sad state ... DailyNationalInquireTech is the draw I suppose. If it was just a "Facts" only site with no editorial slant it would have lost my interest long ago.


By Suntan on 4/29/2009 4:55:12 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Unfortunately it is that way everywhere :(


Actually, I found the articles he linked to, the webpages that had "green" in there name, to be significantly more candid and balanced about the state of affairs. You would think a webpage calling itself "Autobloggreen" to be more biased about automotive news than one calling itself "Dailytech" but it doesn't seem to be the case.

Perhaps in the future I will just jump straight to the links he provides to get the real article instead of waist my time reading his propaganda.

quote:
And for better or for worse it is that bias and drama that keeps readers.


True. Most articles here are best read for their entertainment value. Too many ligitimate news outlets on the web to use Dailytech as a *real* source of first hand information.

-Suntan


By callmeroy on 4/30/2009 10:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
LOL true....

Assuming I win tonight's lotto....

I'll send you some cash via pay pal...you made me laff.


Diesel
By transamdude95 on 4/29/2009 1:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
I really wish there was a bigger market for diesel in the US and people were not stuck with the impression that it is a dirty fuel.




RE: Diesel
By SpaceJumper on 4/29/2009 2:33:56 PM , Rating: 1
I either drive very far behind or pass the diesel cars and trucks everyday because they do smell really bad.


RE: Diesel
By Lord 666 on 4/29/2009 2:53:58 PM , Rating: 3
None of those smelly vehicles had a CDI or TDI badge on them since they are modern power plants that do not emit odor.

Placed my entire face and nose into my 2006 TDI Jetta tailpipe and could faintly smell something. Under hard accleration there is a little darker exhust, not just minor. Could not smell anything in the 2009 TDI tailpipe or MB 2008 CDIs.


RE: Diesel
By omnicronx on 4/29/2009 5:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
They are still louder compared to their gasoline counterparts, even the 2009's.. but to the driver new diesel engines are basically transparent. Definitely no smoke, and most of what comes out of the tailpipe is nitrogen and water vapor, i.e no smell.


RE: Diesel
By SpaceJumper on 4/29/2009 5:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
Volkswagen vehicles burn oil, I don't see how you would like to put your entire face on the tailpipe, it must be a big tailpipe.
Diesel do release higher amounts of hydrocarbon than gasoline engines. China is actually enacting the law to ban diesel engines due to air quality problems, because too many people are driving diesel vehicles. You can Google it.


RE: Diesel
By omnicronx on 4/29/2009 5:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
You are so far off it is not even funny.. How about you Google the recent changes made to not only the production of diesel in the US (Ultra low sulfur dieself), but the new diesel engines that can only use this kind of fuel and that are in pretty much any diesel car in the US since 2007.

The US and the rest of the world does not equal China..

China for example limits the sulfur content to 2000parts per million, meanwhile new US regulations require 15PPM.

Diesel exhaust today is very similar to what your home dryer spews into the air, mainly hydrogen and water vapor.

As everyone has already explained, diesel vehicles from 5+ years ago (which account for most of the Chinese vehicles in question) are not the diesel vehicles of today.


RE: Diesel
By teldar on 4/29/2009 3:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel from 10 years ago and diesel in trucks has just about nothing to do with the modern high performance diesels that are being put into sedans.
Nothing at all.


RE: Diesel
By 91TTZ on 4/29/2009 3:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
Even aside from the modern advances in diesels, diesel fuel still costs more than gasoline and there's less of it. A barrel of oil makes more gasoline than diesel.


RE: Diesel
By Durrr on 4/29/2009 10:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
That's only because the way the catalysts in the refining process cut it. Refined crude using a traditional process produces ~2 to 1 gasoline to diesel. There's an additional process that produces even more gasoline end product from diesel due to demand structures in the US. If there were more diesel vehicles, the oil companies would respond by increasing supply of said diesel.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analy...


RE: Diesel
By Suntan on 4/29/2009 11:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
How many new oil refineries have been built around here in the last couple decades?

You're not going to get anyone to completely overhaul the current refineries to change their basic production structure, and I'm guessing your not going to get a boat load of new refineries to start specializing in diesel.

Yes, the reason there is less diesel produced in America is because our refineries were intentionally set up to produce more petrol. Being aware of this fact doesn't change the reality that you're not going to get much more diesel.

Therefore it's still a demerit that makes diesel less attractive here, even if it isn't "diesel's fault" for not being produced in plentiful amounts.

-Suntan


RE: Diesel
By croc on 4/30/2009 3:21:30 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously most DT readers do not understand petroleum refining. (Not picking on you, Suntan, but this seemed the logical post to reply to.)

If a refiner had their way, they'd produce nothing but plastic feedstock. Much profit there... But they have forward orders to fill. So much (more) fuel oil for delivery in the fall / winter, so much unleaded gas needed, so much deisel, and the various AV fuels. Balancing these needs requires re-positioning various processes at various times to achieve the outcome of the business. A refinery can switch from making mostly plastic to mostly heating oil in a matter of a few days, without touching their other product streams. No refinery is an 'all unleaded' or 'all deisel' plant, that would be a foolish waste of refining resources, as well as a huge waste of feedstocks.

Some feedstocks, such as Brent sweet crude or Saudi light lend themselves more to one product stream or another, but that's just a matter of getting your feedstocks aligned with your forward orders.


RE: Diesel
By Suntan on 4/30/2009 10:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between understanding every nuance of it and understanding the reality of the overall situation.

I appreciate that refineries can and do adjust their output based on seasonal demand. It is another thing altogether to assume that a couple of switches could be thrown and all of a sudden America could be supporting half the cars on the road with diesel as these kinds of conversations always allude too (…aka, Why don’t we have diesels like Europe does.)

-Suntan


RE: Diesel
By Spuke on 4/30/2009 11:26:42 AM , Rating: 2
There are other reasons for low diesel acceptance in the US and California's strict smog rules are a big one. When the largest car market in the US practically bans diesel, there isn't going to be much hope in other states to take up the slack. Combined that with the perception of stinky and noisy and there's all the reasons you need right there.


RE: Diesel
By Suntan on 4/30/2009 11:56:28 AM , Rating: 2
And there are significant reasons why diesels are more prevalent in Europe. For a long time, insurance rates and road taxes on vehicles were directly tied to the displacement of the engine. The larger the displacement, the more expensive the insurance/taxes (by staggeringly large amounts depending on what bracket the engine fit into) even if the two engines provided the same performance.

As diesels are usually able to provide more performance for less displacement, they were seen as a more optimal way of getting more performance without having to pay excessive costs of ownership.

As this method of taxation and insurance rating was not used in America, there was never an artificial push towards lower displacement vehicles. Therefore, eliminating an “artificial” advantage that diesels had over petrol engines when comparing their acceptance rates to Europe.

-Suntan


Refinement = cheaper material
By ctodd on 4/29/2009 3:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
Every year, these companies “refine” their cars not to improve the quality but to juice out an extra dollar. My 2007 Camry is the nosiest vehicles I have ever owned. The quality of the material and the fit and finish is horrid! Everything is held together with clips and can almost be pulled apart, literally! I had to take it in once to get the dash foamed because the squeaks and rattles were so bad. And what is up with all these plastic push pins they use to hold stuff together? They pop out within the first 15k miles.




RE: Refinement = cheaper material
By afkrotch on 4/29/2009 4:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
Push pins have been used in cars for a long long time. My guess, late 80s. My 96 Opel Tigra (GM car, made by Germans) uses them. My 96 Subaru Impreza uses them. My dad's old 92 Mazda Pickup uses them.


RE: Refinement = cheaper material
By Spuke on 4/29/2009 7:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. ALL cars use push pins and clips. Nothing new here.


RE: Refinement = cheaper material
By ctodd on 4/30/2009 1:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't implying that push pins were new. My point was that they find cheap crappy solutions to reduce their cost and we as consumers pay for it. My question was more rhetorical in nature, but I guess looking back now I appear ignorant.


RE: Refinement = cheaper material
By Spuke on 4/30/2009 4:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point was that they find cheap crappy solutions to reduce their cost and we as consumers pay for it.
It may be cheap but if that's not the point of failure then I'd hardly call it crappy. Besides, whether or not you own a Rolls or a Kia, you'll find a clip or a push pin.


What does the cost include?
By MozeeToby on 4/29/2009 1:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
So what does the cost include in these estimates? If it includes only manufacturing it is a non-issue to me. If it includes engineering, testing, and added warranty support costs then that says a lot for what hybrids are actually capable of.

Personally, I'm still waiting for the hybrid that gets better performance than its traditional equivalent. Give me a car with 150 hp gas engine and 50 hp electric assist, end up with a 200 hp car that would still get excellent millage in the city unless you drove like a madman.




RE: What does the cost include?
By Spuke on 4/29/2009 1:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
What kind of gas mileage are you looking for?


RE: What does the cost include?
By Suntan on 4/29/2009 2:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what does the cost include in these estimates? If it includes only manufacturing it is a non-issue to me. If it includes engineering, testing, and added warranty support costs then that says a lot for what hybrids are actually capable of.


The linked articles say it is gross margin (price you sell it for minus the cost in parts and labor to put it together) not ROI (Return On Investment - total cost for the project including development, tooling, factory setup, etc.)

My guess is that the ROI for each company’s overall hybrid division is still negative considering the considerable research and testing that has been sunk into it so far.

Not saying this is bad, it is the reality of trying to start a completely new business sector (hybrids) but to say that they are “cash cows” is a complete farce.

-Suntan


Oh noes PROFIT
By Shadowmage on 4/29/2009 5:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
IC manufacturers like Intel, AMD, TI, NVIDIA etc. have profit margins in the 100%-1000%. LETS BOYCOTT COMPUTERS GUYZ!!!!

Jeez how stupid can you get.




RE: Oh noes PROFIT
By Suntan on 4/29/2009 11:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
Who here is saying that making a profit is wrong?

quote:
Jeez how stupid can you get.


...We're being shown right now.

-Suntan


By A Stoner on 4/30/2009 9:16:21 AM , Rating: 1
How much of that $3,100 is our tax dollars? Perhaps $8,000 or more of it? Unless the real full true cost is known, I refuse to beleive these things would sell themselves to all but a few of the environmental nutcases of the world. New technology is great and all, my beef is how it is brought about. When it is forced upon the tax payer to create the technology, it means that it is not a real benifit to the world, because if it was, private investors would be pouring money into the research and development.

Just like all the rejects of the world who think that cars could run on water and get 100MPG while weighing 3,500 lbs and carrying 6 passengers at 70MPH, the people who think the low cost, high efficeint, low environmental impact vehicle can be produced are living in a fantasy world. If it was going to be a low cost and low environmental impact vehicle, that requires that the materials to build it must be readily available and require very little effort to convert into the final product. What we have instead are very rare, hard to get resources that require massive amounts of refining, engineering, and multiple layers of converting to get to a final product. What does this mean? Rare materials require that much larger portions of the environment must be used for harvesting the resource, think on the scale of strip mining, and you are going to get the idea. Highly processed materials require many more resources to produce, from more energy (oil, gas to name two sources of this) to catalysts (rare and frequently exotic materials are typical for this) to waste products (stuff that ends, or can end up back in the environment). The final product is a highly refined and frequently toxic to the environment item which at some point in time is going to have to be decomissioned and gotten rid of. Will it end up in a landfill, dumped in a riverbed, or go through yet more processing to recover some valuable components?

Bio fuels cause huge areas of forests to be clear cut. The peat moss lands to be burned and industrial level farming in order to supply a small percentage of world energy consumption. Not exactly good for Mother Earth.

Wind farms require huge multi acre concrete slabs to mount the windmill on. Huge amounts of steel infrastructure to place the generator onto. And to replace one nuclear power plant, you need thousands of these and hundreds to replace a coal fired power plant. In the end they produce electricity that is intermittant and require a nuclear, natural gas or coal fired power plant as back up that must be run in standby mode which requires nearly as much energy as running it at normal loads. Once again, not exactly friendly to Mother Earth.

Solar farms require very exotic and rare materials that are extremely highly processed (almost as processed as the computer chip running the computer you are reading this on.) It requires many square miles of land space to replace one Nuclear power or coal fired geneartion plant, and just like the wind mills, the energy is intermittent, and requires a nuclear, gas or coal fired power plant as backup. Once again, not friendly to Mother nature.

I bring these all up because, just like the bio-fuels, wind power and solar power projects, I think that the Hybrid Vehicle is a scourg upon Mother Earth. It is likely less damaging than the other three, but by simple virtue of the cost to build these, you can get the idea of the cost to Mother Earth. I beleive that these vehicles prices are supported by tax dollars in subsidies to the companies, thus allowing them to lower the prices to the point they have. If someone has real numbers that includes tax breaks and direct subsidies, I am willing to look at them and am willing to come to another conclusion if the facts as I know them are changed.




By Starcub on 4/30/2009 3:44:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
When it is forced upon the tax payer to create the technology, it means that it is not a real benifit to the world, because if it was, private investors would be pouring money into the research and development.

I disagree. Big businesses do not take to change easily. They like to wait upon others to make the investments needed to bring about these kinds of revolutionary changes, wait to see what happens, and then use their 'industrial/economic strength' to buy the tech.

Businesses exist to make a profit, they are driven by their shareholders towards that end. Social responsibility is therefore not a primary corporate responsibility unless someone, today it seems govt action is necesssary, 'incentivises' it.

Just look at the exec's we have today. Iacocca set a precedent for the industry that has ballooned into something ugly. Today we are paying the price for it.

quote:
I bring these all up because, just like the bio-fuels, wind power and solar power projects, I think that the Hybrid Vehicle is a scourg upon Mother Earth.

What does that make petrolium?

Modern cars employ electronic systems for which hybridization allows cars to be more efficient in taking advantage of available energy. In addition hybrid cars can, and eventually will, take greater advantage of external energy generation tech's that are cleaner, more plentiful, and more efficient (among other benefits) than petrol.


Figures
By drycrust on 4/29/2009 2:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, recently revealed information from the Japanese newspaper Nikkei indicates ...


Are all the figures quoted are from this one article or are were some sourced from somewhere else? As some one else said, they should also define what was included in the term "profit".
quote:
... last year GM reportedly lost $1,271 per vehicle sold, while Ford lost $451 per vehicle sold ...

What I also find interesting is the suggestion Ford and GM were selling cars at below cost because this could impact their international sales. I believe it is illegal to "dump" in some countries, meaning a large company can't sell their products below the cost to manufacture because it can threaten small manufacturers.




Subsidized?
By dever on 4/29/2009 2:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
How can you write an entire article on hybrid "profitability" and not mention that money taken from the general tax-paying population to subsidize the hybrid owners is nearly equivalent to the claimed "profit" margin?




Gee just imagine
By xphile on 4/30/2009 9:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
<q> This figure seems especially staggering given that last year GM reportedly lost $1,271 per vehicle sold, while Ford lost $451 per vehicle sold.</q>

If they had MADE $1,271 & $451 per vehicle sold - that would be called a BUSINESS. Someone point US car manufacturers at a dictionary and show them the definition of the word PROFIT. Oh year that's right - Fiat are starting that right now...




Assignment desk
By fishbits on 4/29/2009 1:55:19 PM , Rating: 1
"This figure seems especially staggering given that last year GM reportedly lost $1,271 per vehicle sold, while Ford lost $451 per vehicle sold."

I'd never let someone who's never heard of the UAW write about the American automotive industry.




ONLY 3000 on 20K$ ????
By phxfreddy on 4/29/2009 7:45:21 PM , Rating: 1
Cash in ? Once can tell this author NEVER ran a business. I have.

The rule of thumb for small businesses is that if it costs you 100 to build you better well be able to sell it for 200.

Yes boys and girls it takes 2:1 ratio to make it work at that level.

When you say 3/20 = 15% profit as if its big anyone with any business know how laughs at you!




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki