 | |
Onstar
General Motors Discussions About General Motors vehicles (alt.autos.gm)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Onstar -
03-09-2007
, 09:52 PM
|
"jcr" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote in message news:_6ydnY_oi9bTlm_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com... 80 Knight wrote: My example applies. It isn't posible to upgrade an Analog phone to work with a Digital service. There's no special chip, or software. You simply have to buy a *new* (Digital) phone. Mobile carriers use a replacement device/phone and call it an upgrade. Semantics, I suppose, by the "marketing types". Depending on the phone choice, there can be no cost to "upgrade". That is true, but the fact is you are replacing the phone. You aren't taking the phone in for new programming or something, getting it back, and having it work with Digital. You are giving them the current phone, and they are giving you a totally different one. It would be like trading in your 1999 GMC for an '07 (...you get my point). Mobile device manufacturers produced dual-service phones 5-6+ years ago that would automatically switch between service types as necessary, by the way. Very true. Another option GM could have taken with OnStar and would have improved coverage even more. GM actually did take that route. As far as I can recall, most GM vehicles made after 2004 were Analog/Digital, and could work on both networks. The OnStar control unit/hardware could certainly have also been designed as a "replaceable" or "swappable" modular unit. More than likely it could have been designed as needing only a chip replacement or e-prom flash upgrade (or as I said, dual-service capable in the first place). I honestly can't say as to how much the OnStar is integrated into the car, but I find it highly unlikely it could have just been swapped out for a new one. Plus, like I have said, we don't know at which point GM knew 100% that Analog was going to be totally phased out. I disagree. I doubt there are that many people out there with Analog only OnStar who still bother to pay for the service. I know quite a few personally. I believe there are more than you're wanting to believe. I see a *lot* of 2002 and earlier OnStar equipped GM's still on the road (lord I hope so!) No offence, but just because the vehicle has OnStar, doesn't mean the owner still uses the service. My family buys GM, and only GM, and I can't think of any who use OnStar. Most have a cell phone, and that's good enough for them. Your friend is more then welcome to purchase whomever's vehicle brand he likes. And that's been GM's "shining" position (apparently) and it's dwindling market share of late underscores the result of that type of attitude. It's a free world. If you want to go buy a car made in Japan, go ahead. But, doing it only because your OnStar stopped working doesn't make much sense. Do the Imports even offer anything like OnStar? However, if he is such a dedicated customer, I just think its a bad excuse to buy another brand just becuase his OnStar won't work anymore. Twenty years I've known him (and I'm told his family decades before I knew him) were nearly exclusive GM purchases. One can't question the personal dedication to the brand after many decades, in my view. The reaction is still a reality that is being playing out many thousands of times. That impacts GM's credibility and the bottom line, regardless if any single person thinks it is a poor excuse. I just don't personally think it's *that* big of a deal. If I were to see that even 80% of people with OnStar equipped vehicles with Analog only were still using the service, then I would think it a much bigger deal. That, however, begs the question, if OnStar is so popular, and so many people with Analog only want to convert, why aren't the Aftermarket companies trying to devise an alternative? His wife is the most upset (it's the car she drives the most). She uses the OnStar service quite often (so she says). That is where you are incorrect. There is a difference between "upgrading" and "replacing". You can't "upgrade" a cassette deck to play CD's. You have to replace it with a CD deck. Semantics. However some units will work with add-on OEM devices (a bit cumbersome to use perhaps). I can play my MP3 player through the tape deck by using a cassette interface, for example. My son plays CD's through his tape deck using the same adapter. I can agree with that point there, but where did your son get the adapter? Probably RCA, or some such company. Like I said, if there is such a demand for Analog only OnStar systems to be converted into Digital, why aren't the aftermarket's doing it? I mean no offence to you, but like I said. Nor I, just difference of opinion and difference in perception of observation.  Technology moves on. GM isn't the one who decided to get rid of Analog. At the time, Analog was the way to go to get the best service. I don't understand the point. The point is, at the time, Analog had the best service area. If you wanted to get a signal most anywhere, Analog was the way to go. Of course that is true for that point in time. But the consumer market is accustomed to and therefor expects a viable upgrade path as technology changes. They don't expect to be left out in the cold with no options when it changes. I also don't think customers expected Analog to be phased out completely. Years ago, would you have been happy if GM had put in Digital, and told you it will only work in certain parts of the country, but it will be the standard in 7 years? I think not. True, but the system could have been designed to be dual-service capable or upgradeable/replaceable. This is not rocket science. Like I said, they eventually were. People would have been pissed. Uhm, they *are* pissed. :-P My point is, people are upset no matter what anyone does. No argument from me on that one! ;-) But this is one occasion that was easily avoidable. The only time I had an OnStar equipped car was in a rental, and I found it worrisome. I always thought someone could be listening to my conversations at anytime. I would say that your particular preferences are clouding your perception and understanding as to the degree of importance some customers place in having the service, since it isn't something you personally appreciate, need or desire. Perhaps, but I do think some people overplay OnStar. Some think they couldn't possibly leave the house not knowing the system was working, and that there very existance depends on it. Let's get real here. It's a cell phone built into the car. You make calls on it. Some even notify 911 if your air-bag should deploy. Some even have a GPS transmitter built in, so 911 can find you. So does my cell phone. The only thing my cell won't do is call if my air-bag goes off. Anyhow, like I said. I mean no offence to you, but people have to realize that technology moves on, and GM isn't the one who is making Analog go away. People understand perfectly! The old manufacturing tactic of "planned obsolescence" to force someone out of their current product went out of fashion 20-30 years ago. People understand what is going on and haven't accepted that premise for a very long time. GM apparently doesn't "get it" (after 20+ years?), especially since they used such poor "tact" as taking this "obsolescence" oopportunity to offer my neighbor $500 to buy a new car (since his OnStar will no longer work in the old one). Please, how gullible does GM think their customer base is anyway? No offence towards your neighbor, but GM didn't *have* to do anything. Hell, my '96 Bonnie could blow up right now, throwing parts all over the place, and GM would give me the finger. If your friend is so determined to use his OnStar, perhaps he should take up GM's offer. |
New to the thread, and I apologize if it's already been suggested, but
there's a way out for GM that would allow them to keep their current
users happy, I think.
How about if they offered to replace the current analog units with new
digital ones free of charge for those existing cars in which they are
actually used, in return for a three or perhaps five year contract?
Essentially the same thing as the cell phone folks do when they "give"
us a phone in return for a contract.
Just my 2 cents.
Take care.
Ken
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
How about if they offered to replace the current analog units with new digital ones free of charge for those existing cars in which they are actually used, in return for a three or perhaps five year contract? Essentially the same thing as the cell phone folks do when they "give" us a phone in return for a contract. |
five year contract (minimum of $1000) if your car is already five or more
years old? GM would rather you buy a new car. That is their suggested
resolution for most every problem. That is where they (should be) making
the profits.
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi... New to the thread, and I apologize if it's already been suggested, but there's a way out for GM that would allow them to keep their current users happy, I think. How about if they offered to replace the current analog units with new digital ones free of charge for those existing cars in which they are actually used, in return for a three or perhaps five year contract? Essentially the same thing as the cell phone folks do when they "give" us a phone in return for a contract. Just my 2 cents. |
involved, and retrofitting
would probably not be a good deal for GM, the client, nor any aftermarket
supplier.
I haven't done the mathematics, but GM would lose, and the client wouldnt
really gain that
much either, except in a minority of cases. This is the sort of think that
really irks a relatively
small number of GM customers, not without cause mind you, but leaves a bad
taste in
people's mouths.
At this point, GM needs all the good will it can muster. They have a long
road to hoe, even
though their truck sales looked promising, etc.
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
People understand perfectly! The old manufacturing tactic of "planned obsolescence" to force someone out of their current product went out of fashion 20-30 years ago. People understand what is going on and haven't accepted that premise for a very long time. GM apparently doesn't "get it" (after 20+ years?), especially since they used such poor "tact" as taking this "obsolescence" oopportunity to offer my neighbor $500 to buy a new car (since his OnStar will no longer work in the old one). Please, how gullible does GM think their customer base is anyway? No offence towards your neighbor, but GM didn't *have* to do anything. Hell, my '96 Bonnie could blow up right now, throwing parts all over the place, and GM would give me the finger. If your friend is so determined to use his OnStar, perhaps he should take up GM's offer. Hi... New to the thread, and I apologize if it's already been suggested, but there's a way out for GM that would allow them to keep their current users happy, I think. How about if they offered to replace the current analog units with new digital ones free of charge for those existing cars in which they are actually used, in return for a three or perhaps five year contract? Essentially the same thing as the cell phone folks do when they "give" us a phone in return for a contract. |
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
My example applies. It isn't posible to upgrade an Analog phone to work with a Digital service. There's no special chip, or software. You simply have to buy a *new* (Digital) phone. |
phone contract and they will give you one. Even if you did need to buy
a new phone, it wouldn't cost the $15-45k purchase price of a new vehicle.
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi... New to the thread, and I apologize if it's already been suggested, but there's a way out for GM that would allow them to keep their current users happy, I think. How about if they offered to replace the current analog units with new digital ones free of charge for those existing cars in which they are actually used, in return for a three or perhaps five year contract? Essentially the same thing as the cell phone folks do when they "give" us a phone in return for a contract. |
line is that GM remains a customer antagonizing company, not a customer
relationship building company.
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
I think that would depend on how much it would cost to upgrade the unit. |
is spending more than $75 to build the electronics box for it then they
don't know a thing about modern electronics manufacturing. For example,
in 2002 the price for a GPS integrated receiver IC was $3.50:
http://www.mwrf.com/Articles/ArticleID/5528/5528.html
Obviously it takes more than one IC to build the required electronics,
but it still is a way less than $75 box.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.