Comparing a widget producing industry with Google isn't a fair comparison, certainly not one with the regulatory requirements like the auto industry. It cost about the same amount of money for Google to distribute one copy of a beta software application, as it does to distribute a thousand. For an auto company, prototype vehicles currently cost about $200,000 EACH to produce, give or take 50k. Needless to say, this is why there aren't fleets of even just hundreds of prototypes running around for potential customers to give feedback on.

The audio jack example misses the point as well. The reason they were not introduced, wasn't because no one knew about them, but because the companies wanted to sell upgraded sound systems with CD changers.

The concept presented in this article is interesting and, I beleve, correct but not for the reasons the author presents.

As an automotive engineer, I agree that Detroit's car companies, along with their old-economy counterparts in other industries, should adopt some of Google's practices. For example, if the auto companies and their suppliers allowed employees to use 10% of their time to develop projects of their own choosing as Google does, I guarantee that there would have been an audio-in jack in your radio - many of us insiders had the same complaint back in 2000.

I disagree, however, that auto companies should allow unregulated vehicle personalization based on the whims of individual consumers. When the author's unfinished car, painted by a local artist, begins to rust, will he blame GM? When his individualized seats and dashboard fail to protect him in a crash becuase they do not meet FMVSS requirements, will his heirs file a lawsuit against Chrysler?