This is like the most used reason on why LTC will not "succeed".
Since when does innovation = success and only then?
Ford was an innovator...but along came Toyota, Honda, Kia...etc. They weren't very innovative as they basically copied the idea and layout.
Now had Toyota or the others came up with the idea of the airplane ...now that is innovative. But it didn't require innovation to be successful.
Since when does innovation = success and only then?
Ford was an innovator...but along came Toyota, Honda, Kia...etc. They weren't very innovative as they basically copied the idea and layout.
Now had Toyota or the others came up with the idea of the airplane ...now that is innovative. But it didn't require innovation to be successful.
Toyota is successful today because they innovated, maybe you should learn about their history before calling them copy cats. They have a long history of innovating starting with the way cars are mass produced and built to today where they pioneered hybrid vehicles via the Prius.
Honda's history: http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/
Honda's recent innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/
Honda got its start innovating the use of auxillary engines in motorcycles and is still today focused on innovation.
Honda's history: http://world.honda.com/history/limitlessdreams/encounter/index.html
Honda's current innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/
Although Kia didn't get its start innovating products per say, it was the first company in South Korea to make domestic bicycle, motorcycles, cars, and trucks. Today they definitely have a strong focus towards innovating and were innovative in the US market by making vehicles affordable, among other recent innovations.
Kia's history: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovation
Kia's current Innovations: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovation
Maybe you should research claims a little bit before you make them? It took me 5 minutes to look all this up...
I never said they weren't innovative. I said they weren't very innovative as they did not invent something new. Obviously this is my opinion lol.
My point was innovation =/= success as so many including you appear to be claiming here.
Nice backtracking there buddy. Seems like I'm not the only one that "gives themselves enough wiggle room to back out of their statements."
Sure, it's not the only reason for a company's success obviously. They could have a very innovative product, and be scammers at the same time, killing their chances of being successful. Being innovative certainly helps companies be successful though. To deny that is just you being dumb.
My point I will say again is innovation =/= success 100% of the time.
You really sound butthurt lol.
Please tell the smart money how dumb they are (or "not smart") even though you are not in a position to be a judge of that based on your past failures.
