BMW CEO to quit after carmaker loses early lead in electrics - <AUTHOR> https://apnews.com/cdae456e8c1948e5b7f01c602eda23dc <comment><USER2> As others have pointed out, BMW has been in the EV market for years now with the i3 and i8. I think where they dropped the ball is that they seemingly didn't want to cannibalize sales of their other vehicles.

The i8 is extremely niche and low-volume and can't be much of a factor for them. This left the i3 as their only EV offering. But the i3 is so unlike everything else they make, that they can't build on their appeal to people who already like their cars. That really doesn't build on any of BMW's strengths in the auto industry, in fact it attempts to avoid all of their strengths in the market (German sports luxury vehicles with a lot of history). This it really hard for them to compete with Tesla and other EV makers that are going right for the core of BMW's customer base.

I think part of it was that they didn't want to cannibalize themselves, but surely BMW would rather be cannibalized by BMW than eaten by Tesla. They just didn't have the strength to make that move, for whatever reason.

<comment><USER3> I think there's a lot of insight in this comment. I also believe a lot of customers (current and potential) would really like to buy an EV from an established car maker rather than a new comer, and I believe they really want it to look and feel just like a 3-series, or 5-series, or whatever they're called – not the abomination that is i3. I believe this is what everyone except Tesla understands, and I really don't know but maybe it's exactly for the reasons you lay out: they don't want to cannibalize on the gas guzzler series. But if they don't eat themselves, someone else sure will!

<comment><USER4> My abomination i3 is the best car I've ever owned. To each there own, I personally think it looks like it came out of Blade Runner and the only real complaint I have is I wish it were AWD and had wider, less bicycle-like tires.

<comment><USER5> > I wish it (had) less bicycle-like tires.

Agree completely. I absolutely love the i3 (especially the futuristic design, and the rex engineering), and was going to try to get one at some point -- until I discovered the bicycle tires.

I'm not sure it's even safe to drive on US roads with tires like that. Did BMW forget that potholes are a thing?

<comment><USER6> My bro-in-law had one and liked it, then moved to Nebraska. First snowfall they had to get rid of it - it was terrible on anything slippery.

<comment><USER7> Then he had the wrong tires, guaranteed.

<comment><USER8> Exactly - bicycle tires.

<comment><USER9> Perhaps the parent meant to suggest [https://www.bmwblog.com/2015/04/04/bmw-i3-winter-tires- revie...](https://www.bmwblog.com/2015/04/04/bmw-i3-winter-tires-review- bridgestone-blizzak-lm-500-vs-nokian-hakkapelitta-r2/) for the winter. At least according to that review, using the winter tires would have been better in the snow.

Of course if you'd rather run all-weather tires without the hassle of changing from summer to winter tires, it seems like the i3 is a bad choice.

<comment><USER10> The 19" tire is "All Season" rated. The 20" performance tire is "Summer Only." So if you want an i3 "without the hassle" you simply get one with the more- common 19" wheels.

<comment><USER9> Yep. I rock all season tires on my (not an i3) car as well. They'll never be great in the snow, but I live in an area where snow is rare so that's fine.

I can certainly imagine the "bicycle" tires must not be very good at all in the snow unless they're the specialized winter version!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The car industry has seen EVs only as compliance vehicles, sell 10% electric and you just reduced your total fleet emissions by 10%. So you might be able to stay in the business of heavy ICE luxury cars. That's why their marketing and sales sucked there was a defined number of these to be sold and not more. Now the game is changing and the wind is turning but it's not Tesla driving the change, it's good old regulation. And it has always been regulation, the actors are California, China and the EU. Several countries have now decided on a defined year when the last ICE is going to be sold so the future market is already shrinking and other countries will follow. There will be no market left. Regulation.

<comment><USER12> Well will point out that Tesla has been eating BWM's lunch in the mid range luxo car market. That BWM hasn't been taking that seriously is a sign current management needs to leave.

<comment><USER13> Worse, BMW thought they were in a comfortable position to exploit their customer base for money -- cutting back on their maintenance program, warranties, etc. and banking on people to not care.

If anything, BMW was driving people away from themselves faster than customers were already fleeing to e.g. Tesla or, more recently, Audi (e-tron), Jag (i-pace) and Mercedes (EQC) for electrics.

<comment><USER14> Charging a subscription for CarPlay is unacceptable too

<comment><USER13> It's all of these little things adding up that caused me not to get a new lease two years ago.

(this might become a BMW rant, for which I apologize)

1\. Reduced the 4y/50k maintenance to 3y/36k. This wasn't impactful for the average lease but slammed car owners.

2\. Locked the maintenance program to the first owner -- as if they didn't hate owners enough, you had to pay extra for a maintenance program that transferred to the next owner.

3\. To your point: offensive subscription charges (carplay)

4\. (subjective) Bizarre styling changes on their mainstream cars, e.g. X7 and the new 7 series.

5\. Refusing to produce normal electric vehicles, per the title of this article.

End result is you now have cars like the i3 and i8 cratering in value because they're hideously complex, in need of specialized maintenance knowledge, and are exceedingly unlikely to carry a maintenance plan without incurring an e.g. 2, 3, 5k fee. It's awful for BMW because now nobody wants to buy one of their more innovative cars because they'll lose 20% of their value right off the lot and another 40% in the next three years, but it's even worse for people who wouldn't mind adopting "established" electric because they don't want to chance the marked-up repairs nor do the research to figure out which cars either have pre-existing maintenance plans or how much they should pay to get all-inclusive maintenance plans that would cover their used cars.

It's just a whole bunch of dumb all around.

<comment><USER15> Are i3's really "hideously complex"? An electric motor is far simpler than an ICE. There is very little scheduled maintenance, for example. On the forums, I do not see many stories of painful repair experiences. They just work.

<comment><USER14> Maybe they were referring to the i3 REx, which also has an ICE.

Also i3s use a special, skinny tire that is really expensive

<comment><USER15> Yep looks like $600 and they only last 20-25K miles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There has been a cultural war inside of BMW for quite a while. Klaus Fröhlich, a board member and executive at BMW actually called EVS overhyped the same week that BMW unveiled their current planning around EVs.

Most reviews have the Tesla Model 3 performance outperforming the similarly priced M3. Many have the LR Tesla model 3 as competitive to sometimes beating the BMW 3 series. The sales success at Tesla has come partially at the cost of BMW car sales.

<comment><USER17> They may be competitive in some performance metrics, which of course does matter, but Teslas aren't even remotely in the same league when it comes to fit and finish.

Teslas feel cheap and poorly made. The offerings have some pretty stark differences.

<comment><USER18> I see people online complain about fit and finish, but not sure the credibility of people like you. I own a model 3 and there is 0 issues, if you go and do a test drive then there is 80 % chance you will end up buying it if you are in the market

<comment><USER17> I've owned three BMW 3-Series sedans in a row. I was very very tempted by Tesla, until I actually drove one.

It feels like a Honda Civic. Like a cheap downmarket economy car. Sure it has acceleration but so does a BMW more than you'll ever need too. The experience is obviously disappointing if you're used to German luxury cars.

The point being, that if the German luxury brands get the hang of the electric thing Tesla's going to be in severe danger.

<comment><USER19> > if the German luxury brands get the hang of the electric thing Tesla's going > to be in severe danger.

Of course.

I think that what is frustrating and annoying to many people is that BMW, VW, Mercedes, et al., could have done the same as Tesla and done it better but they didn't. And the only rational conclusion is that they behaved that way because they were scared that they would cannibalize their existing product lines and because a number of high ranking people in the car business would have found themselves to be irrelevant and quite likely unemployed.

They have only themselves to blame for their short sighted, self serving, polluting, cheating behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The internal politics in these companies has to be brutal - there are 1000+ people divisions not to mention hundreds of subcontracting companies to whom building an EV is an existential threat. Think ICE component engineers, gearbox experts, all the companies producing the parts for those cars... so MANY people that have vested interest into making sure that the corporation doesn't fire them and redirect resources to the EV project.

I wonder if those kind of corporations will even be able to change their direction in time.

</comment><comment><USER21> Good. Maybe this will help. I'm not a "car guy", but I appreciate driving dynamics enough that I special ordered a BMW, picked it up in Munich, drove around Europe, shipped it back and drove it in the states for 12 years. Really nice car.

Got to test drive the Model S a few times and was impressed. But it's expensive, and despite the wonders of the low center of gravity and good balance, it's heavy. Also got to try a 3-series "E" as a loaner. Turned it in wondering why the %#%* they didn't just make it all electric, instead of the 11 mile electric range they gave it. I would have bought that car immediately.

When the model 3 came out, it seemed faster and slightly cheaper than the most comparable 3 series. Personally, I prefer the Tesla interior to the Bmw. The handling is much better than the S, and with the 3 series handling no longer the focal point, I think the Tesla is more fun to drive, too.

Which leaves me scratching my head. I can only conclude that most traditional car companies are run by ICE people who believe in tweaking engines to get more power. They just can't imagine that electric propulsion is not just an environmental thing, but a better driving experience— instant torque, low center of gravity, great balance— all the stuff that BMW was supposed to be good at.

</comment><comment><USER22> BMW has an overall product problem as well, not just EVs.... their newest cars' outside design is getting stale, and their cars just keep adding weight...

They are loosing their 'sporty' pedigree and credibility fast, and turning into another me-too luxury car brand, without a proper identity and/or market distinctiveness....

Their new M8 "performance grand tourer" weights almost as much as a Ford F-150 Truck.... not kidding They can add as many 'sport badges to it', it is still an overweight sedan...

The only improvement has been in interiors, where they always lagged. Their quality has actually risen last few years.

<comment><USER23> IMHO previous gen BMW models were stale. But all the new ones that came out in the recent 1-2 year have been good, including current gen 3 series.

Agree on the interior quality improving, but only because they cost too much corner in previous gen models, including F30, which was an abomination.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's well worth watching Doug Demuro's review of both the BMW i3 and the Tesla model 3. It will give you a quick understanding of why BMW is behind the 8 ball right now with regard to EVs.

<comment><USER24> Can someone who knows cars tell me how valuable Doug Demuro's analysis is? I appreciate him as an entertainer but have no way to determine if what he's saying about the cars he reviews is accurate and/or useful.

<comment><USER25> His analyses are generally pretty good for things you notice and interact with everyday (like another user mentioned, the quirks and features). He knows when he sees bad quality, mistakes, and oversights in a car's UI/UX and design.

However, his opinion is usually based on a few days of driving and using the car, and does not reflect how ownership of the car will actually pan out. He attempts to take this into account with his "daily doug score". But by no means is this entirely accurate, and is more so a reasonable estimate based on the manufacturers history, that model, and consumer reviews.

I generally take his analyses as "This is what I thought after driving the car for a few days" and is based on his opinion, his preferences, and his thoughts. I would take his opinion into account for a rental car, but not so much when it comes to owning a car for its lifetime.

He generally owns luxury cars or sports cars that are out of reach for most people, and I'm sure he has spent a lot of money on them (although it may be worth it if they appreciate in value). He has a different need in cars than I, and probably than most people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Who knew EVs would be more than a niche/compliance car market?!" \-- the people running BMW's i-division.

I'm sure years from now Tesla will get _no credit_ for dragging incumbent carmakers _kicking and screaming_ into the EV market, but they really should get the lion's share of the credit for this. Because I'm certain that without Tesla, BMW and other carmakers wouldn't even have started making "EV platforms" or EVs from scratch until 2030+.

<comment><USER27> If memory serves me correct Toyota Prius was really the first to push the Hybrid/EV concept mainstream. That isn't to say that Tesla didn't have an impact but there were EV initiatives underway well before them.

<comment><USER28> Even though this is true, I actually think I agree with the premise that Tesla was a big deal here. For all that is wrong with Tesla, they made electric cars really cool, even to car people. I think that step was an important but incredibly difficult step.

The Prius is fine. Practical vehicles. Probably still a more reasonable choice for many. But, Tesla made electric cars look like the future, even to the average person.

I must add that I am not really a Tesla zealot. I drive a Civic, Teslas seem too expensive (not necessarily over priced, just too expensive for me) and have their fair share of issues. But what they did for the perception of EVs is different than what anyone else has done imo.

<comment><USER12> The Tesla broke usual electric car strategy by making something hot not utterly lame and stodgy[1]. Which is what all electric cars were until then. The economics of that actually worked.

The Prius at least fit into Toyota's market segment.

[1] This is not totally true. There were some once off electric cars in the 1990's that were sporty. Friend dated a women that owned one. It only had a range of about 40-50 miles but it was FAST.

<comment><USER29> > The Tesla broke usual electric car strategy by making something hot not > utterly lame and stodgy[1]. Which is what all electric cars were until then. > The economics of that actually worked.

Tesla did a great job at making EV cool, there's no question about it.

BUT, economics of that are still TBD. They still fail to achieve any sustainable profit as a business, few years after their mass market vehicle debuted, and have to keep on raising money, on very unfavorable terms.

<comment><USER30> Tesla cracked the problem of making people buy electric cars in significant numbers. Everything else is a supply-chain and manufacturing optimization problem. Extremely challenging, obviously, and maybe Tesla won't be the winner. But those problems are fundamentally irrelevant until the you've cracked the problem of mass sales.

<comment><USER29> Making people want a product isn't enough to get economics to work.

They struggle to produce it cheaply enough, at least as of right now. Manufacturing, at scale and within costs is really really hard. Tesla's initial math for cracking the economy was based on full automation of the production, that failed spectacularly. As a result they have a lot of human labor costs they didn't plan for, so problem of optimizing it got even harder.

Did Tesla made desirable product? Yes, of course. Can they crack the economy of it? We'll see.

<comment><USER30> Tesla didn't make people want the product. That's meaningless. What they did that matters is that they _made people pay for the product_ , at a price point that competes favorably with BMW's low-end luxury cars.

You're correct that Tesla's future and costs are uncertain, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that the production cost of a Model 3-type EV will never be as high as it was in 2018. It will never be as high as it is in 2019. Even without miraculous supply chain improvements, the cost of lithium batteries and electric drivetrains is on a relentless downward path. If Tesla can make one now at $10 in profit (obviously they make more than that), then whichever company is doing so in 5-8 years will be earning thousands in profit. And if the manufacturer is not BMW, it will be the end of that company as a viable competitor.

<comment><USER12> Tesla was able to sell electric cars for more than the marginal cost per unit in a large enough volume to be viable. Full stop. After that Tesla's profitability or not is just accounting shenanigans. How bad/good a deal was this for the investors. And is this company viable and make money. Are two separate things.

Investors can lose their shirt on a viable company. Just as they can make bank on a company that's a flash in the pan. Investors can often make money on companies that are actually failing and going to fail. There is probably an correlation between how hardball the company plays it's investors and the companies ultimate viability.

<comment><USER30> As I said above, it really doesn't matter whether Tesla survives long term. Just as it doesn't matter to the cellphone industry whether Nokia survives, or to the PC industry whether IBM, Apple and Commodore survived. Tesla built the product that proved the consumer demand existed today. BMW (and other manufucturers') strategy was predicated on the idea that large-scale consumer demand was years away. Tesla made that strategy obsolete.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I found the BMW i3 "teardown" by a reverse engineering company Munro & Associates very interesting. The BMW EV i3 is described by them as "without a question of a doubt the most advanced vehicle on the planet ... as revolutionary as the Model-T when it came out". See [1]

[1] [https://youtu.be/rqiBWfsDTAA](https://youtu.be/rqiBWfsDTAA)

<comment><USER18> Did you see any of the latest videos where he compares i3, m3 and bolt

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'd prefer they quit prior to gutting the M division and turning their motorsport legacy into mass market trash. Even the M2 is overweight, overpriced, and underwhelming, though its the "best" M branded car made in the past ~10 years.

<comment><USER22> Their new M8 "performance grand tourer" weights almost as much as a Ford F-150 Truck.... not kidding

<comment><USER33> You've said that repeatedly in the thread so I looked it up, and like everything it just depends. Dry weight for some F-150 configs is actually sightly less than an M8, but some configs (like the Raptor) weigh significantly more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> How did they not see this coming though?

Nobody wants an i3 because it's a stupid looking car with no market edge over I.e. a Tesla

And nobody can afford an i8

So they may as well threw their market lead for nothing. They failed to make a practical vehicle, like the electric 3-series sedan that probably everyone wished they made.

</comment><comment><USER35> I am in the target market for a BMW i3.

However, I was turned off by the bizarre appearance of the car. I am pretty thick skinned, but would still be thinking that other motorists were laughing their heads off, while I was driving it.

Why do manufacturers feel obliged to make new technology cars looks like cheap and nasty toys ?

</comment><comment><USER36> Honestly BMW lost its way long before electrics. The BMW pedigree was always about the drivability. They were never as "luxurious" as their competitors but they were so much more fun to drive. Somewhere along the way they lost that and became just another luxury car brand.

</comment><comment><USER37> VW CEO stepped down after the emissions scandal :- [https://www.evo.co.uk/volkswagen/16715/martin-winterkorn- ste...](https://www.evo.co.uk/volkswagen/16715/martin-winterkorn-steps-down- as-volkswagen-ceo-in-wake-of-emissions-scandal)

BMW also got fined and caught up in doing the same emissions scandal :- [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/car- emission...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/car-emissions- scandal-bmw-volkswagen-daimler-charge-eu-a8856806.html)

Yet it took this for the BMW CEO to step aside!

<comment><USER38> Stepping aside is the finest display of lack of skin in the game. Something fails, you can just leave, while not returning any of the bonuses you "earned" for your "finest" work.

<comment><USER37> Maybe and the point about bonuses is so sadly true, but then they are never negative when things fail, maybe they need to swing both ways in such positions and install a truer sense of accountability.

Perhaps another way of implementing that would be that bonuses are held in escrow for a number of years, the employee is allowed to get interest free loans against those escrow bonuses up to a point perhaps, yet those bonuses will equally be open to adjusting for bad years.

Which reminds me of the reinsurance industry and names, those who invest. Even when they leave, they are still liable for future claims for a number of years, a notice period. That's fair and works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Meanwhile, the Porsche CEO recently wrote an opinion piece for USA Today where he writes "Porsche thinks you'll want your next car to be electric"

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/06/17/porsche- pr...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/06/17/porsche-predicts- american-consumers-adopt-electric-cars-column/1287505001/)

And they've been making a lot of noise about their plan to shift their lineup to full electric (not watered down hybrids) for some time now.

</comment><comment><USER40> The corrosive effect of misallocated inherited wealth. For context, BMW's biggest shareholders are the Quandt/Klatten family.

Through the entire supply chain, hundreds of thousands of jobs and massive impact on the wider economy, electrification, competitive effects in the energy market, and climate change, all depending on a handful of people.

People who (in this particular context) have no particular motivation for..really anything, with virtually infinite inherited wealth. Especially not to rock the boat or drive any vision forward.

That, in a nutshell, is why Germany's car industry is dying long-term. VW ownership same thing via Porsche SE.

I find this incredibly interesting, how entire economies ultimately lag and long-term may fail on the bottleneck of a few randomly selected people. Interestingly, there seems to be no good way out because disowning individuals for the collective good is a path that historically does not tend to work well for innovation either.

<comment><USER41> When you say "disowning individuals" can I assume you're referring to something like setting very high rates for inheritance tax? Why do you think high inheritance tax 'historically does not tend to work well for innovation'?

<comment><USER40> I should clarify, I think there are a lot of good reasons for high inheritance taxes if reasonably structured. I meant disowning people who are still alive in a communist sense (do not want to start a discussion on socialism/communism though), i.e. the government literally deciding someone is not fit to own such a big piece of the means of production and taking it from them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Perhaps the internal combustion engine is the last dying gasp of analog propulsion. Internal fire will be left to rockets.

</comment><comment><USER43> Remember the first sign in 2016: [https://electrek.co/2016/03/07/bmw-ceo- tesla-interview-model...](https://electrek.co/2016/03/07/bmw-ceo-tesla- interview-model-x-hit-head/)

</comment><comment><USER44> there's too much talk of tesla.

BMW's main benchmark is Daimler and BMW lost the ICE race to them and also the EV lead. Tesla didn't make enough cars to be a threat in the last 4 years.

all in all a very incompetent CEO. the only one in BMW history not to have an 8 year mandate.

</comment><comment><USER45> The EV is the new iphone and everyone is struggling to create the next android.

<comment><USER46> This is a very interesting analogy, with Musk:Jobs and Tesla:Apple

Back in the mid 00s, everyone thought the next big think looked like a smaller PC (analogy: EV cars) or a souped up phone (analogy: EV bikes/scooters). The iPhone changed the game (with Android quickly cementing that change).

What happens when it's more convenient to charge or have an EV-as-service than gas-up or get a cab/uber? The automobile industry is due for a massive shakeup and the more efficient batteries and more widespread chargers get, the more likely that the future cuts out the petroleum economy.

<comment><USER47> > The iPhone changed the game

I never understand blanket statements like these about the iPhone being a game changer; the iPhone wasn't half as capable as a windows mobile phone for quite awhile; if the makers of windows mobile phones hadn't stagnated for so long I doubt Apple would have been anymore of a blip than Palm was; moreover, I'm not sure the iPhone changed the game much at all, they really just iterated on their competitors' innovations.

To me, Apple used their inertia from their innovative iPods to have a great marketing success.

<comment><USER48> > I never understand blanket statements like these about the iPhone being a > game changer; the iPhone wasn't half as capable as a windows mobile phone > for quite awhile

The second part of your sentence answers the first part of your sentence.

It's shockingly obvious why the iPhone was a game changer if you're doing anything other than looking at capabilities and checking off lists of features.

> To me, Apple used their inertia from their innovative iPods to have a great > marketing success.

But on the other hand you think the iPod was innovative. When the iPod was released everyone said the same thing as you're saying about the iPhone ("Less space than a nomad. Lame."). In a comparison test with other MP3 players it didn't come out on top, either.

Slick hardware and good UX is _way_ more important than people in tech give it credit for. I used Windows Mobile before the iPhone came out and it was complete trash, regardless of how many features it technically had.

<comment><USER47> > It's shockingly obvious why the iPhone was a game changer if you're doing > anything other than looking at capabilities and checking off lists of > features.

It lacked MMS; it wasnt even really a phone, much less a capable smartphone. You're grossly over simplifying if you call things like that a list of features.

I used windows mobile phones for years before the iPhone. The iPhone was complete trash to me because I couldn't do the basic things I was able to do on a windows phone or even my flip phones before that.

> When the iPod was released everyone said the same thing as you're saying > about the iPhone

I said precisely nothing about the iPod release. What I implied was that the iPod was viewed as innovative by the time the iPhone was released (hence my usage of the word inertia; inertia of iPod innovation counts for precisely nothing at the release of the iPod).

> Slick hardware and good UX is way more important than people in tech give it > credit for.

The iPhone wasnt even in the same league as WebOs phones as far as UX; why didn't Palm make it very far? (Because UX counts for a lot less than you think) The modern Apple is a marketing titan and the fact that anyone thinks they're largely innovative is a testament to their marketing prowess.

<comment><USER49> Eh, no. Windows phone was not good. Horrible UX for the average person. Companies don't make phones for computer science graduates. The modern touch- based UI was entirely an Apple creation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> BMW used to make amazing sports sedans, too. They still have a few compelling products, but largely they've lost their edge.

Hopefully this will shake things up.

<comment><USER39> Have you even seen the M2 Competition?

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> "Hello" from Tesla.

</comment><comment><USER52> They should hire Elon.

<comment><USER53> The way Apple hired Jobs by buying NeXT?

I don't think BMW (privately held) can raise the cash to buy Tesla, unless the stock really tanks. It was more expensive than Ford a while ago.

P.S. And then the "culture fit" would be more fun than a barrel of monkeys - probably break the internet a few times ...

<comment><USER54> > The way Apple hired Jobs by buying NeXT?

Not really a good comparison, since Jobs founded Apple, then left, then went back (can't recall if they begged for him back, or if he just barrelled in).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Karma. One has to see that they recently launched their new X5 that was WAY bigger than the predecessor and they seemed to be quite proud of it. They even launched without a hybrid option (just as they do not offer hybrid with their brand new X2). So building new, fuel guzzling SUVs was their idea to please the shareholders instead of making cars smarter.

<comment><USER56> Vehicles getting bigger is a trend in general across all manufacturers and all vehicle categories, from the Toyota Corolla to the Lincoln Navigator. I think the only car I can think of which hasn't gotten bigger and heavier over the years is the Mazda Miata.</comment></comment>


Where To Find Startup Job Openings - <AUTHOR> http://www.collegemogul.com/content/5-resources-find-startup-job-openings

<comment><USER2> Another good one: If your university is in a town with lots of startups, go to the university's jobs/careers help service and see the positions they're advertising for the local community.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's always <http://news.ycombinator.com/jobs>

<comment><USER4> If I were taking a _job_ , a YC startup wouldn't be my first choice, mainly, because it would pay so very little and demand so much. Compare that to any other startup in a well healed industry, say, telecom, pharmaceuticals or finance; you put in allot of effort, sure, but the company is awash with money and you will be paid well.

<comment><USER5> Any good startup should demand a lot. Far more than established companies. In return, they give equity that can, potentially, be worth nice chunk of money. Which is something established companies won't do.

If you want money and cushy job, go to big company. If you want to work your butt off, create something interesting, with the potential of a big payoff, go to a startup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Found mine on <http://snaptalent.com>

</comment><comment><USER7> don't forget <http://jobs.rubynow.com></comment>


Accessible Charts & Graphs from Table Elements using HTML 5 Canvas - <AUTHOR> http://www.filamentgroup.com/lab/jquery_visualize_plugin_accessible_charts_graphs_from_tables_html5_canvas/

<comment><USER2> Very nice. Now they just need to add the ability to sort the table by clicking on the column heads (and have that reflected in the charts).</comment>


Why podcast fans will always reject a "Netflix for podcasts" - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90315635/why-podcast-fans-will-always-reject-a-netflix-for-podcasts <comment><USER2> I am a pretty heavy podcast listener, but I have no interest in anything like a "Netflix for podcasts". I also have no interest in "podcasts" that require a proprietary application to listen to them.

The beauty of podcasts is that they're platform independent and that there is no curation. I would not personally listen to any that were.</comment>


Cogs, know when to fall off your wheels - <AUTHOR> http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2012/11/09/wrong/

<comment><USER2> It is so sad and so true. Some people work just to get a place to talk, a warm meal, and a place to seat during the day (and the salary of course).

They could not care less about what they are doing or why.

As the author said, _"they were there to turn the crank on whatever you put in front of them, and flavor A vs. flavor B didn't change things either way."_

They could be plowing fields - it wouldn't be any different for them I guess.

They are just waiting for death, because they are already dead inside.

No passion, no nothing - an empty mask, barely held together by the things they still manage to get some meaning from (tv, sport, family...)

They have no purpose in life.

If you find a team like this, run for your life.

(for any lost soul, the fallen cogs usually meet in a Galt Gulch - I'm sure there is one near where you live. There you will find great people working on great things - and more like you and I)

</comment><comment><USER3> And where do the fall off cogs go ? Where are the places where people who care get a job ?

<comment><USER4> Hopefully, they find each other and go off and do something amazing. That's the best possible outcome from starting something new, right?

<comment><USER3> You are by the bay, which I guess means close to the Silicon Valley. Being the type of guy who cares, I find it very hard to find a company, especially a company who cares about people who cares.

I guess startups would care, maybe not all of them. What about other companies. Why it is so hard to find a good match ?

<comment><USER5> I've searched for that for a long while, and the only thing I've found that really worked was starting my own shop (mostly making my own stuff and selling it online and occasionally contracting for 5-10x my previous wage).

<comment><USER3> Excellent idea.

What about making easier to employer to find employee who cares and to employee to find employers who care about employee who care.

Also what about making it easier to test each other ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The more you let build up on an uneven foundation, the harder it will come tumbling down.</comment>


Covid-19 Coagulopathy in Caucasian Patients - <AUTHOR> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32330308/ <comment><USER2> It kill/wounds preferably African-Americans, then Caucasians and lastly Chinese:

"Critically however, ethnicity has major effects on thrombotic risk, with a 3-4 fold lower risk in Chinese compared to Caucasians and a significantly higher risk in African-Americans."

Sound like an effective ethnic bioweapon. And, since most Chinese American citizens are Republicans and most African-Americans are Democrats, there may be just enough lethality to change the outcome of a USA Presidential election.

P.S. Curiously Africa shows low numbers of Covid-19 ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23010276](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23010276)), the above article seems to indicate that African-Americans do less well than Caucasians or Chinese, so isn't this another part of the puzzle?</comment>


Ask HN: $40k on physical hardware? or use the cloud? - <AUTHOR>

Our company is at a technical cross roads.  Upgrade current hardware to latest IBM Xseries running VMWare and a nice SAN disk array ($40k) OR start looking at Amazon EC2 ala cloud hosting?  This will be a production system so no down time!
Can cloud hosting be reliable? Thanks! <comment><USER2> I'd like to help but you need to explain a bit more about what your system does. I've helped build and manage racks and cloud installs. Some general stuff:

Downtime happens. It often happens when you move hardware around (say, you need another SAN or replace you switches. Cloud servers are very ver flexible; you can set up a parallel system and _test_ it for a week. You can't do that with your own hardware without spending serious cash. The first time I rearranged my entire server set up, while sitting in a cafe, was pretty damned cool.

It also happens when hardware fails. With owned systems you have to drive to the colo in the middle of the night.

I suggest you build a minimal parallel system in a cloud and try it out. Try several providers.

<comment><AUTHOR> The Software is a web based PHP5 App running both Mysql and Oracle on top of SLES9. It collects performance information (KPIs) and sends out formatted reports (PDF/XLS) to clients & customers. It's been running on IBM Xseries 336 servers since 2005 (eek!) and really needs an upgrade. Our technical provider came up with the spec but am interested to see if cloud hosting has moved on; I understand it was a bit shakey to start with.

<comment><USER2> Zynga runs largely on EC2, something like 10,000 nodes. I don't know how to define "shaky", but that company bets hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue on EC2.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't know that. I guess it scales extremely well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> FWIW, I worked at an online advertising company that ran a whole division on EC2 machines - at the peak, nearly 100 instances. This was never a problem for us because we were judicious in our use of the machines (minify your content!) and we were disciplined in our deployments and management. If you go that route, just be sure the learn and follow best practices - you'll save yourself quite a lot of time.

</comment><comment><USER4> Do both. You would be nuts to depend on a single cloud provider, as the model for clouds allows for adjusting "the dial" on performance to increase revenues.

Spend $30K on physical equipment and network, and $10K on cloud deployment.

Then, over the course of a year or two, as you expand and learn how the cloud "really works", you can adjust as needed.

</comment><comment><USER5> It very much depends on the nature of the usage, storage and bandwidth are the big killers for some cloud applications.

For me (live video) the cloud doesn't even get close to being competitive with leased hardware.

1GBit flat rate with 20T of storage goes for about 1200 euros / months, including a quad (or even eight) core machine.

</comment><comment><USER6> Well ... isn't the question more "Will $40K of IBM and VMWare kit in our hands be (significantly) more reliable than Amazon's services?"

For your purposes, including scheduled downtime.

Also factor into the cost of the time it will take your people to learn how to make your systems on EC2 reliable enough.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that's an interesting point. However, I do have to consider running sensitive performance data running on equipment we don't control or host. So, is it wise to run customers data on kit we don't own or host?</comment></comment>


Company Naming is Hard, Let's Go Shopping - <AUTHOR> http://blog.splenvid.com/2013/01/company-naming-is-hard/

<comment><USER2> In case people are interested in the name searching code that we referred to in the article, I will try and put something into github in the next couple weeks. The code isn't very complex, but it is a good start if you are facing the same problem we were. It would be great if folks add to the code because who knows, we might need another name soon.</comment>


Trello limits teams on free tier to 10 boards, rolls out Enterprise features - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2019/03/19/trello-limits-free-users-to-10-boards-rolls-out-enterprise-automations-and-admin-controls/ <comment><AUTHOR> Just a quick glance at this, and from the feedback in my local Slack channel, this looks like it might be a bad move. At least for free/open source use. Atlassian is trying to make their investment back by force. Oh well, another good product bites the dust.</comment>


Ballmer pushes partners to retrain for the cloud  - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20078521-75/ballmer-pushes-partners-to-retrain-for-the-cloud/?tag=topStories3 <comment><USER2> Be careful! Remember what happened to "partners" when Microsoft pushed them to develop for a non-Microsoft platform. Need I remind anyone of what developing for OS/2 did to Lotus?

<comment><USER3> Heck, even developing for a Microsoft platform can be hazardous. _See_ JoS re: the "MSDN Magazine Camp" (<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html>) (and Joel actually likes MS!)</comment></comment>


Why to startup? Why not? - <AUTHOR>

To startup or not to startup? Why? <comment><USER2> I think there should be an option to down-vote stuff like this.

</comment><comment><USER3> Asking others for reasons/motivation to pursue a startup won't do you any good if you can't find those same things from within.

Reasons for me: The experience and thrill. Knowing that you can create something of your own from scratch, nurture it, and watch it grow, possibly yielding huge results.

I'm not sure if you're looking for any 'secrets' or what have you. The benefits/disadvantages seem pretty obvious.

</comment><comment><USER4> read this and then decide for yourself.

[http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Work-Stories-Startups- Early/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Work-Stories-Startups- Early/dp/1590597141)

</comment><comment><USER5> Because it is fun.

</comment><comment><USER5> rokhayakebe: Why would or wouldn't you?</comment>


Mulle-objc: A New Objective-C Compiler and Runtime - <AUTHOR> https://mulle-objc.github.io <comment><USER2> The biggest change so far seems to be a new memory management style called AAM, "Always Autorelease Mode". It's described on the compiler's Github page:

[https://github.com/Codeon-GmbH/mulle-clang](https://github.com/Codeon- GmbH/mulle-clang)

 _" The transformed methods will return objects that are autoreleased. Hence the name of the mode. The net effect is, that you have a mode that is ARC- like, yet understandable and much simpler."_

This is like a halfway house between traditional Objective-C's "semi-manual" memory management, and the modern ARC (Automatic Reference Counting). Autorelease pools were a cornerstone of the traditional model: autoreleased objects will typically stick around until the end of the event loop cycle, which was a reasonable way to do garbage collection in mostly UI-centric Obj-C apps.

ARC replaced this model with static reference tracking in the compiler: instances are freed when the compiler knows that the last reference has gone out of scope. This is obviously more memory-efficient than the autorelease pool, and that was probably a big factor in Apple's decision to go with ARC (as the primary focus of Obj-C had shifted to iOS).

In summary, the Mulle compiler tries to combine the programmer ease-of-use of ARC with the simpler compiler/runtime implementation of traditional Obj-C memory management. The tradeoff is memory usage and incompatibility with some modern code that assumes an ARC compiler.

Here's a list of language features that the compiler will support:

[https://www.mulle- kybernetik.com/weblog/2015/mulle_objc_pres...](https://www.mulle- kybernetik.com/weblog/2015/mulle_objc_present_and_absent.html)

Personally I agree with the author's positions in principle, but not entirely in practice. In particular, not supporting the property dot syntax will make it unnecessarily difficult to compile most Obj-C code written since about 2009. Same goes for blocks -- they're very integrated in Obj-C APIs by now, even though it does add substantial runtime complication.

<comment><USER3> > autoreleased objects will typically stick

> around until the end of the event loop cycle

They stick around until their reference count drops to zero. The -autorelease is turned into a -release when the containing autorelease pool is released, so you have full control over when that happens.

       @autoreleasepool {
          [[[NSObject alloc] init] autorelease];
       }

The object is freed at the end of that block.

Yes, there is a default autorelease pool for the event loop.

<comment><USER2> I know. That's why I wrote "typically".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The best thing of this was the link about "Spirit of C", which shows that even ANSI agrees thrusting the programmer is no longer a good idea.

"12\. Trust the programmer, as a goal, is outdated in respect to the security and safety programming communities. While it should not be totally disregarded as a facet of the spirit of C, the C11 version of the C Standard should take into account that programmers need the ability to check their work."

<comment><USER5> In practical terms its not very dramatic. C11 allows you to check and set exact alignment with alignof alignas. There are also bounds checking (_s) functions that set errno messages on overflow. Also _Generic can give automatic type deduction in certain cases.

All of these things simply help you 'check your work'. Bounds checking has been standard good practice for years now so its not a surprise they put that in the standard library. There is still no magic and its the programmer who has to put forward the effort to check for errors.

<comment><USER4> > Bounds checking has been standard good practice for years now so its not a > surprise they put that in the standard library.

Not really, It has been removed from the standard library and made an optional Annex. A C11 compliant compiler is not required to provide them.

For me those "secure" functions are just as insecure as their cousins, because they still require C developers to track pointers and bounds separately.

The only thing they improve in regards to security is not forcing us to manually place a null character at the very end, in case the destinations are filled up. But the danger of passing the wrong length, origin or destination is still there.

<comment><USER5> I think threads, atomics and bounds checking were all TR proposals up until C11. Then they added the conditional (optional) features. Threads and atomics are mandatory and bounds checking and 'analyzability' are conditional.

If you have to deal with strings in C more then likely you have written a string interface with bounds checking. Its not clear if it needs to be standard so its good that its optional. Icc, gcc and clang support it so I would not hesitate to use it.

My point was that 'safety' in C is still more or less a process of training the programmer rather then a language feature. And that was and still is a design goal. But at least now you can point to the bounds checking functions and other new features as an example of how to get there.

I'm not going to argue whether C is safe. Or whether XYZ is safer then C. Thats way of topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wasn't aware that there was something wrong with the old compilers. Reading the page, I'm still not aware of the motivations behind this.

What does this compiler do better/different than clang or gcc?

<comment><USER7> Apple's objective C runtime is not portable. There's a lot of assembly code and platform specific code. This is trying to fix that.

<comment><USER8> Doesn't at least objc_msgSend have to be assembly?

<comment><USER9> No. Why? What's magic about assembly code that means you couldn't do the same thing in C?

<comment><USER10> the objc_msgSend function doesn't know what it's return type is or how many arguments it has. It needs to lookup the actual function then jump to it without modifying the stack or any of the parameter registers. It simply doesn't follow the calling conventions and C can't handle it.

<comment><USER9> Right, true. I guess I'm used to working on languages where you can stick everything into a uint64, but that isn't the case with something like returned structs. if you controlled the calling convention you could do it in C.

<comment><USER11> It appears that controlling the calling convention is exactly what Mulle-objc is doing. It's layering a new convention on top of C calling conventions, where objc_msgSend() is given a pointer to a struct containing the arguments. This way the compiler can synthesize the struct for you, and objc_msgSend() itself can be written in vanilla C.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Apple used to be the sponsor of Objective C for a long time. Was Apple's focus on Swift prompting this? From his documentation page:

> About mulle-objc

> When I wrote the Optimizing Objective-C Article Series, Objective-C had > pretty much weathered its first hostile obsolesence attempt by Java. Now a > decade later, it looks like the time has come, that I have to save > Objective-C - at least for myself.

<comment><USER4> Apple is pretty open that they plan to use Swift to replace C and Objective-C on their stack.

[https://developer.apple.com/swift/](https://developer.apple.com/swift/)

"Swift is a successor to both the C and Objective-C languages."

Of course this is something that will not happen overnight and the language is still has some corners to fine tune.

Objective-C improved a lot since the NeXT days, but the C part is still there, regardless of the safety improvements it got on top.

Also since Swift has been announced, the only language improvements Objective-C got were related to improving the interoperability between both languages.

So I imagine some devs that are passionate about Objective-C might not like the day Objective-C joins Carbon and MPW.

I surely did not like when that hapenned to Object Pascal, Mac Common Lisp or Dylan.

<comment><USER13> > I surely did not like when that hapenned to Object Pascal, Mac Common Lisp > or Dylan.

The difference here being that Objective-C is unsafe, and its relatively low level of abstraction in comparison to the aforementioned languages, make it less than ideal as an applications language, especially compared to those languages. As you say, "the C part is still there".

I'm with you. I want to be using safer languages, both because there is inherent value in safety, and because safety tends to come with more and better tools for building abstractions.

While I lament the loss of Obj-Pas, MCL, and Dylan, I whole-heartedly welcome the arrival of Swift. Even if it means nothing to me directly anymore as an apostate of the Apple platform, I hope that it will fuel a push for better, safer languages across the board. In many ways, I think technologies like MCL and Dylan were victims of being ahead of their time.

These are exciting times to live in as a programming language geek/snob, as the lessons of the past are finally rediscovered, absorbed, and made practical, popular, and cool :)

<comment><USER4> Fully agree with you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> While I find this an interesting experiment, after nearly 18 years of Objective-C dating back to NeXT I have no desire to go back after switching to Swift. The future (at least some part of it) belongs to modern languages like Swift, Rust, Clojure, etc.

</comment><comment><USER15> Why?

</comment><comment><USER16> "Let's make Objective-C great again"</comment>


Show HN: Apilist.fun a Collective List of APIs. Build Something - <AUTHOR> http://apilist.fun/ <comment><AUTHOR> I am trying to create a directory of free information about apis, let me know what features would you like to see , I am planning on adding links to the different libraries for the specific apis and apps that used the specific apis.</comment>


The IIT Entrance Exam - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/the-iit-entrance-exam/ <comment><USER3> As I was watching the Google I/O webcast last month, the one thing that struck me was how some of the most important products and services from arguably the most influential tech company of our times, were headed by IIT graduates:

Amit Singhal, a Google fellow, who heads their search team and essentially rewrote the critical ranking algorithm in 2001, and a graduate of IIT Roorkee [1];

Sundar Pichai, who heads Android, Chrome/Chrome OS, and Google Apps [2] - <USER2> graduate of IIT Kharagpur;

Vic Gundotra - who heads Google+ and social and is a graduate of IIT Bombay [3];

Nikesh Arora, who is Google's Chief Business Officer, a graduate of IIT Varanasi [4];

Sridhar Ramasway - SVP for Ads & Commerce - a graduate of IIT Madras [5], plus dozens of other key people.

(The latter two are listed on Google's management team page at : [http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/](http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/) )

Not to make too fine a point about it - but IMHO Google is one example of the influence and impact of IITians on the world.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Singhal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Singhal)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai)

[3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Gundotra](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Gundotra)

[4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikesh_Arora](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikesh_Arora)

[5] [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sridhar- ramaswamy/2/220/972](http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sridhar-ramaswamy/2/220/972)

Edit: Formatting

<comment><USER4> Clearly these men are all very capable but would they have been able to have the same impact had they stayed in India?

Given that they all did post-graduate study in the US and currently live in the US and work for an American company, I think their accomplishments say less about the quality of IIT graduates and more about the fact that a huge amount of human potential is being wasted in India.

<comment><USER5> >huge amount of human potential is being wasted in India.

Just a counterpoint : IITs are state funded, i.e most of the student fees are paid for by the government. Once they complete their education, do they not have a duty to give back to the people ? Remember, brain drain is a serious problem for countries like India.

<comment><USER6> Though my own taxes help fund the IITs, and I never was hard-working enough to get through the JEE, I'm happy that we have the IITs setting at least some kind of an example for the rest of India. I am disappointed by the idiots filling teaching positions in most other colleges.

> do they not have a duty to give back to the people ?

I hate this attitude, not just in India, but anywhere in the world. Like Kennedy's "ask not what your country has done for you...". To start with, their own parents paid taxes to support the IITs too. Do we have a way of making a balance sheet for how my taxes were utilized? How much have I lost to supporting corruption? How much have I lost to supporting undeserving candidates who got in through reservation?

In case of IITs, you are, of course, neglecting all the private funding it gets.

> brain drain is a serious problem for countries like India.

Many Indians who have left have gone on to accomplish great things. Do you think they would have accomplished even 1% of that, had they stayed in India? Brain drain is not India's problem; it is an avenue for opportunity for many Indians. India's problem is corruption and unfettered democracy.

<comment><USER7> About the brain drain problem, I think yes. They would have accomplished more if they stayed in India. Just have a look at Narayan Murthy, founder of Infosys. Just imagine if people like Sundar Pichai, Vic Gundotra etc stayed in India, they might have done something even bigger than what they had done at Google. Android or something similar would have been created in India or India would have a social network like Google Plus! Who knows!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If these numbers are true, I think it points to an academic rip off far larger than the US student loan problem. If the coaching industry is $3.4B annually, and there are only 10,000 slots at the IITs, that's $340,000 per spot. It effectively costs more to attend the nominally state-funded IIT than an Ivy League school.

Of course, most of that cost is not paid by those who get in. If we assume that every one of those half million test takers spent $6800 for coaching, they're being severely ripped off. You'd have to assume that the average IIT entrant spends over 50x as much as the average unsuccessful test-taker before that comes down to even half -- and at that point, the IIT entrants are paying $175k.

Either the article is leaving off the some important details -- perhaps the number quoted for the coaching industry does not just include the IITs -- or this is an economic disaster that no one has yet noticed.

<comment> alok-g This is a great observation! While I cannot testify for the numbers quoted in the article, which are suspect as other comments have noted, I'll share my understanding from about 15 years back when I was one of those students. Note that I barely have any data in support of this.

Many of the students who are able to make it through the IIT-JEE examinations actually do not have to spend as much on the coaching. There are people who are in the top 2% in terms of their brains, irrespective of the exam, which have a high likelihood of being in the top 2% in the examinations too. They of course still have to work hard (1) to acquire the needed knowledge, and (2) to gain speed which is also critical via practice.

There would be people in the first 2% who do not fall in the second 2% and vice versa. All the students on the boundary need to work hard to boost their chances as much as they can. But then there are top 1% (number is made up), for whom chances of slipping outside of 2% would be relatively smaller. Reality gets more complex of course since it is not just one threshold "in-or- out", but also about being able to choose the field of one's interest after getting in.

A whole next class of people are those who believe in themselves a bit more than their real capabilities, because they do not know it just yet. These are the ones I believe who end up paying the most. They would gradually see that there are falling through the cracks while still having the desire to get in. A friend of mine took a bold step, surprising everybody around, by backing out on a timely basis.

Finally there are people who would be interested in getting in, but know they do not stand a chance with IIT-JEE. These better save both time and money and focus on something else, that may include other colleges or other fields of study.

Given the reputation of the college, there are coaching institutes which downright abuse the situation. I have heard of famous coaching centers promising money-back guarantees of making it through, which have their own entrance examination to select students that already have a very high chance of getting through! I have also heard of similarly reputed centers who would secretly promise a country-wide rank in the top 10 to as many as 50 students (!), again with a money back guarantee.

Serving as a single data-point would be my own case. I did not go to the IIT but to another reputed engineering college [1], but yet the idea is valid. My total expense for the coaching was about $150 [2], and my four years of undergrad, being subsidized by the government, was about $100 + books [3]. Yes, this is all four years of college, and this applied to ALL students in my college. Yet, some of my own cousins paid $5,000 to go to a local college of no reputation for a nominally similar degree that ultimately did not get them anywhere.

To summarize, the distribution of spending amongst prospective students is somewhat more involved, probably hurting those people the most whose idea of self-worth is not commensurate with reality.

[1] That's a separate story in itself.

[2] None of the numbers here are inflation-adjusted to today from ~15 years back.

[3] Books too were generally cheaper Indian editions, so not as costly.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Stories about rigorous tests and top-notch universities in other nations make me realize that prestige is myopic.

For example, I recently introduced two friends: One was an American who had gone to Princeton; the other was an Indian who had attended the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.

Both colleges have fancy names and star standing in their own nations, but neither person fully understood the cachet of the other's education. I'm sure that employers wouldn't entirely understand it, either.

That's ironic when you consider how much we judge ourselves according to prestige ... you move to another nation and suddenly your clout evaporates.

<comment><USER9> I feel that very deeply as a french student attending one France's top engineering school (École Centrale Paris), and currently living in the US.

No one I meet here has ever heard of my school, and I kind of feel like I have to prove myself again outside of school, if I want to have a chance of being noticed by the big companies here.

The whole effect is also increased by the fact that the size of french universities is at least ten times smaller than US universities on average (my school has 500 students per year), and virtually invisible in global ranking that are based on the number of published papers...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just an FYI, IITs are not the only Institutes of National Importance (INIs) in India. 30 campuses of National Institutes of Technology (NITs) are also in that bracket. NITs also have more than 10,000 alumni in Silicon Valley alone. Though IITs, justifiably, hog all the limelight and we don't like it one bit. :-)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutes_of_National_Importan...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutes_of_National_Importance)

</comment><comment><USER11> From the article: "Only two percent of students will be rewarded for their hard work. In 2012, Harvard accepted 5.9% of applicants. Top engineering schools MIT and Stanford had acceptance rates of 8.9% and 6.63%. The acceptance rate at the IITs, as represented by the pass rate in the JEE, was 2%. Every year, when the results are announced and the media swarms the accepted students, 490,000 students receive disappointing news."

I am NOT saying that the IIT admission process is easy, but I will say that this is the wrong way to show that the process is hard. Not all smart students vie to attend Harvard, MIT, and Stanford in quite the same way that many, many, many smart students vie to attend IIT. The base of applications is broader, by far, for IIT, partly because of the especially steep drop-off in quality and in prestige from the IIT echelon of universities in India to other universities. If we compared Harvard's number of admitted students in the most recent reported year, 2,029,

[http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/03/college- admits...](http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/03/college- admits-2029-5-8-percent-of-applicants/)

to the number of students who took the SAT college entrance test in the relevant high school graduation class, 1,664,479 students,

[http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/T...](http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/TotalGroup-2012.pdf)

we could calculate that 0.12 percent of all high school seniors in the United States who took a college entrance test were admitted to Harvard, quite a low base admission rate. The key, of course, is that many American students self- select out of applying to Harvard, and indeed don't self-select to submit an application to any "prestige" university.

That said, direct examination of the IIT examination item content

[http://www.askiitians.com/iit-papers/iit-jee- papers.aspx](http://www.askiitians.com/iit-papers/iit-jee-papers.aspx)

may suggest what level of performance on specific item content is necessary to be part of the small subset of the large number of IIT joint entrance examination test-takers who gain admission to an IIT campus. On that basis, I agree with the statement that the IIT undergraduate programs are highly selective and likely to collect on one campus many very smart young people who provide a good peer group to one another so that everyone on campus picks up habits of aiming high intellectually, as the IIT alumni I know here in Minnesota all seem to do.

<comment><USER12> Agree with you. There are around 12 IITs while Harvard is a single institute(?). The article omitted JEE mains phase. 12.5 lakh students appear for mains, in 2013. 75,000 qualified for JEE advanced.

<comment><USER13> 1.25 million, for those (like me) forgot how much a lakh is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have been collaborating with 2 IIT grads, one Mumbai, one Calcutta. Holy cow, these guys are mot-ti-vated! They may not always be the inherent smartest guys, but man they can pack in the hours. I know that working smart is better than working hard but they sure as snot can work hard. Here in the US, I think we have an ok balance of the work and sports and school aspects. There in India, if your name gets published in the local newspaper next to your score, you can bet things look a bit different.

Not much to say, other than that those kids are gunning hard for a middle class life and legacy.

<comment><USER15> I think that's the case with most Indians and our education system is to blame for that. The entire schooling system is very competitive. If you're not aiming to be an engineer or a doctor, then you're wasting your life. Slogging day-in day-out becomes a part of our life. The result is a bunch of people who may not be very smart (not much practical knowledge) but can more than make it up with hard work. While this is a sure way to success, you lose a lot along the way. There is absolutely no work-life balance. Sports is seen as a recreational activity, not a profession. India is pretty much missing on the Olympics or any global sports chart because of that [except where Cricket is involved. We take that seriously:)].

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just to clear some of the myths surrounding the exams - I studied for only a week (and only one subject - physics) before the exams in 1997 (the year the paper leaked and the exams were re-administered). I cleared the exams with a rank of ~1500. In the two years prior to the exams I was busy making money assembling computers. Did not take any coaching either.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the exams are not as hard as they are made out to be, and the students, at least some students, are not as studiously dumb as they might seem in retrospect. I know that most of us who cleared the exams with decent ranks were just luckier that those who didn't.

Oh, by the way, I almost didn't join IIT because that year the tution fees were hiked by 10x (from $30 to $300 per semester).

</comment><comment><USER17> To me it's somewhat disappointing to see how quickly HN jumps on an article like this. With all due respect to the obviously enormous hard work these people put into getting in to an IIT, and their obvious intelligence, isn't this kind of discussion about some test to determine whether or not you're 'smarter' than other people something of a pissing match?

No doubt intelligence to a certain degree is a pre-requisite, but beyond that privilege and wealth contribute a huge amount (emphasised in the article when discussing tutors.)

When I attended university I saw how important it was to strategise in exams, the actual technique of exam taking itself is clearly something you can work on, regardless of intelligence. Any test like this can be, and inevitable is, gamed by its candidates; the exams become more a matter of how good you are at guessing what will come up and being good at the art of answering exam questions rather than what the exams ostensibly examine.

I raise this because I find the whole 'elite universities, passed difficult tests = wonderfully smart people who should be given every opportunity in the world to shine' as suspect, biased towards the privileged, and false beyond a a certain base level which is probably not the 'cream of the crop' levels of intelligence people ascribe to those attending this institutions. It smacks of pomposity and self-serving arrogance.

I say this as somebody who went to an 'elite' or at least well regarded university here in the UK (Imperial College.)

Full Disclaimer: I myself may be somewhat biased as I under-performed at university because of quite horrific family issues which inevitably results in an emotional reaction to this kind of thing, however I don't think that invalidates what I'm saying.

</comment><comment><USER18> Let's say that someone sat for the JEE and ranked quite poorly. Who would know this person's actual ranking? Presumably, given the existence of the secret code for checking one's score, not all rankings are made public. Does the test taker himself even know below a certain level of mediocrity?

I ask these questions because they seem relevant in understanding the motivations of many taking the exam. Does it reflect poorly on an Indian family if a child (especially a son, I presume) does not sit for the JEE? If so, it might be socially rational for an academically mediocre child to go through the motions of test preparation. This incentive is heightened if no one would have to find out just how badly the child did on the test. Is it a source of pride or honor for a family that a child is preparing for the JEE?

If these social motivations are present, perhaps a talented student's actual chances at getting into IIT are much higher than the overall numbers suggest. I argue that admissions percentages at top-tier US schools are similarly affected. Little Sally, even after spending hours with a private SAT tutor, got only a mediocre score. Yet, her high-achieving parents demanded that she apply to Harvard, Princeton, etc. This way, they could signal to others that they deemed their child of high calibre and (the real incentive here) themselves parents so good that they want only the best for their child. Because the acceptance rates are so incredibly low, it will not be a mark against either Sally or her parents when she is rejected from all her "first choices" and ends up at a mediocre university somewhere -- her "safety school". Sally's parents might also be rational to avoid mentioning that she applied to and was rejected from a couple schools only slightly more selective than BeerCanU as these rejections would be seen by others as a legitimate measurement of their daughter's mediocrity.

<comment><USER19> JEE rankings are public knowledge, in the sense that unranked == failure. (You don't get a rank if you don't get one of the top 10,000 spots). If you do get a rank, and choose to hide it, it can be pretty easily inferred by what you are studying (CS at IIT Bombay == top 100 or lower. Mechanical at Guwahati == over 1000).

It is definitely a source of pride/honor, and so NOT taking the JEE is definitely seen as somewhat shameful. For example, I grew up in India, and went to the US to study at Williams College. My parents were a little sad about me not writing the JEE, and it was seen as somewhat of a cop out. (I decided at the end of 10th grade that I was going out of the country for college so I didn't write it.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What a lot people may not know is that these universities release many of their lectures online on youtube. I have watched some in the past to catch up with missing notes and it was helpful. Edit -- Link - [http://www.youtube.com/iit](http://www.youtube.com/iit)

<comment><USER21> Could you provide a link?

<comment><USER3> [http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/](http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/)

<comment><USER22> Wow, this is great!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are a system of technical > universities in India comparable in prestige and rigor to the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology or the California Institute of Technology.

Far from it. IITs are not even in the top 20 in Asia[1].

[1] [http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian- uni...](http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university- rankings/2012)

<comment><USER24> Look at some of the criteria for those rakings. They are heavily weighted towards how many international students and faculty they attract, research done by the faculty and grad students, the number of papers they publish and how often those papers are sited. IIT on the other hand is heavily focused on producing high quality under graduate education for Indian students.

Their goals simply don't line up with the metrics being measures by those rankings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm unreasonably pleased that I was able to answer both the example questions.

<comment><USER26> First one's simple enough, but second one I couldn't figure out if there's a clever trick. Or are students expected to apply the quadratic formula and do a bunch of symbolic manipulation?

<comment><USER27> No factoring or quadratic formulas necessary. I'm going to write c_n instead of a_n and a,b instead of alpha,beta.

Since a and b satisfy that equation, you know that

a^2 = 6a+ 2, b^2 = 6b+ 2

and hence

c_10 - 2 * c_8 = a^8 * (6a + 2) - b^8 * (6b + 2) + 2b^8 - 2a^8 = 6c_9.

Dividing by 2c_9 gives 3.

Edit: asafira beat me to it!

<comment> alok-g Using the same convention as yours, I tried to break c_10 in terms of c_9 as follows:

(a^10-b^10) = (e a + f b) * (a^9-b^9)

Multiplying out the RHS, e = f = 1 are the best choices, but there remained a residual. At a second glance though, this residual was proportional to (a^8-b^8). Problem solved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> As an undergrad product of one of the IITs, and among one of the last ones to write a main exam back in 2005, this was a nice article to read and a bit too self aggrandizing. One of the most amazing things about being on IIT campus was the collaborative culture, and the drive to initiate collaboration. There was no sense of competitiveness on the campus, that was once prevalent while giving JEE. Being among bright kids, all in their developmental stage, seeing their personalities form, seeing them follow career paths after graduating is so temporally connecting. One of the best memories remain the usage of campus centric lingo [1]. I am in contact with every single of my classmate without use of any social network. The bonds formed on campuses are incredibly strong. The support of our seniors deserves prominent mention, be it in school years or after passing out...that worldwide meshed network. Unparalleled.

[1] - [http://www.qucosa.de/fileadmin/data/qucosa/documents/5134/da...](http://www.qucosa.de/fileadmin/data/qucosa/documents/5134/data/MAthesis_EvelynRichter.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER29> It's so strange to be considered a "peer" to people who have spent years working harder than I can imagine at the same career path.

<comment><USER30> I can completely empathise with this viewpoint. People jump through increasingly complicated hoops because everyone else is doing it, without stopping to think whether the end result they're after can be achieved in a simpler way. Then again, there are definitely benefits to competition encouraging a strong work ethic, even if what you finally end up doing doesn't require such efforts.

(Anecdotal case in point; I wanted to do Mechatronic engineering at university, requiring me to place in the upper 0.75% of university applicants. This requirement was purely because of the popularity of that course. I noticed that a combined BE/BSc degree was less popular, requiring only a top 20% score - and yet the combined degree let you study exactly the same courses, and you could drop out of the BSc part if you wanted! Lazy ol' me took that option...)

<comment><USER31> That's the right choice - work harder or work smarter ? It's true that getting into a top school like the IIT will open some doors, but that's really important if you don't know about the doors you want to open and head down.

When someone already knows what they want, there's often a simpler way to get it. Unfortunately, that's not expected of 17/18 year olds and in fact, parents in India will say "Oh you want X now, but what if you want Y later ? Better go to an IIT so that your options are open".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Think of the lost potential of the people who may still be the cream of the crop but just outside the 2%.

The logical part of me says that they should be building more of these academies (if they can without sacrificing quality).

<comment><USER33> They are building more as well as converting some of the existing non-IIT engineering schools to IIT status. More than 20 years ago when I took the IIT, the total number of students admitted was much lower (~ 2000) than the article states for today (~10000). That would seem like a 5 fold increase in number of seats in about 20 years. Definitely much faster rate of growth than the rate of population growth in India.

Also, people who are _just_ outside that 2% mostly do fine. There are a number of other highly competitive (and pretty good) schools of sciences and engineering that are not IIT's and most of the people you are talking about (smart, motivated students who had a bad day at the test or such), do end up with good careers regardless.

<comment><USER32> The problem I see is not to do with the education but the whole "I went to an IIT" leg-up that people get (Like ivy-leagers).

Just seems extremely unfair that the _social_ outcome for getting into an IIT is so different for people of almost identical intellectual capability.

<comment><USER34> Given today's scenario the quality of engineers is dipping.So does the gap and thus even a decently meritorious engineer looks much better than the rest of the crowd.An old study [http://careers.learnhub.com/news/544-90-percent- graduates-an...](http://careers.learnhub.com/news/544-90-percent-graduates- and-75-percent-engineers-are-unemployable-nasscom) shows how poor the rest of the colleges are.That said the socioeconomic gap keeps widening and thus opinions.Opinions are hard to break lest someone disprove.Vast majority of indian IT companies still run aptitude test to figure out who squares out a big number faster and cracks the tell-tale puzzle quicker rather who can understand the system and engineer better.So are their parent's prioties:education is BIG investment and they only want returns not knowledge.Well then these IT companies pay for a 12 hour code/test/typo job!And these companies are PRESTIGIOUS in india!!

<comment><USER33> I'm finding it hard to decipher the point you're trying to make other than the fact that you're dissatisfied with... uhh... things in India. No argument there. I am too.

The discussion at hand was about the small set of people who perhaps have the capability to get into IIT's but for various reasons don't manage to get in the top 2% in that particular test. I asserted that such people end up in other decent colleges (and there are plenty of good ones outside of the IIT system and they still form only a fraction of the sum total of Engineering education in India) and generally tend to end up in good to great careers. Any opinions on _that_ discussion ?

<comment><USER34> Sorry my frustration overrode clarity!! the gap across good quality colleges and others is getting bigger and bigger by the day .Unless something is done,these off-center-2% might as well get mixed up and lost.i wanted to mention the sociology-economic gap outside of IIT scheme of things.Its usually expensive if it isn't IIT and when it gets to that it creates all the more gap.Priorities change from educating oneself to undoing ones debts quickly and these very same priories can take one in a very different course.This will only widen the socioeconomic gap and lessen the opportunity for bright minds to come out naturally in times to come.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Surprised there wasn't greater discussion of the reservation quota, which it is widely agreed could single handedly fell the prestige/quality of the IITs.

</comment><comment><USER36> I was one of the 1.3 million JEE aspirants this year. But I didn't join coaching classes. I believe that we study for acquiring knowledge rather than creating strategies for cracking exams which involves cramming thousands of formulas and shortcuts.These coaching institutes provide the poorest of study materials and low quality education.I prefer to study from internet.Most of the students waste there 2 years in preparing for JEE. I don't know why government encourage coaching institutes by asking questions that we are not taught at schools.Moreover, many of the IIT grads prefer to teach in coaching institute rather than going in industry and research.

I am immensely interested in computer science. I studied it a fair bit throughout the two years. I made an image editor as my project. But this backfired me as I couldn't devote my time to JEE preparations.I couldn't crack JEE Advanced.

JEE arises in students a feeling of competitiveness which prevails in them even when they are in colleges. Do you still think that this trade of coaching institutes is fair and that students should participate in this rat race?

</comment><comment><USER30> For all the shit Quora gets on HN, it's probably the leading authority on the IIT system due to the enormous number of Indian members. See [https://www.quora.com/Indian-Institutes-of- Technology/best_q...](https://www.quora.com/Indian-Institutes-of- Technology/best_questions) for some of the more interesting questions and answers.

<comment><USER37> Most of the questions and answers are quite narrow in their perspective probably because the community they are targeting to comprises largely of other IITians and people who are closely related to them. If you are looking at it from an outsiders view, I would rather suggest that you talk to an IITian personally. Nearly all of them are quite open to discussion about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Nice article. But there are bigger questions to be answered,

1\. Did the person who made it in the top 4000 of the JEE actually want to pursue engineering at all ? I have numerous friends in IITs who join the bandwagon for nothing but the brand. They are clear in their minds to pursue a MBA right after their undergrad (IIT+IIM makes parents, family, girls droool). Then there are people who get into it because of family pressure. Its not a very healthy environment at home for two years at any engineering aspirant's home. Trust me.

2\. What about those people who didn't get in ? That feeling of not getting into an IIT can be heart-breaking. Those two years of getting up early and sleeping late, numerous hours spent on mind-numbing problems. Missing family functions and gathering for the sake of your coaching exams. That peer pressure of making it into the next FIITJEE All-India list. Everything in vain ? We live a very black and white life in India. You are either an engineer from an IIT or you are from any-other-college. What about the person who didn't get in ? Does this mean that he just isn't good enough ? Wait, let me re-emphasis does a 6 hour test get to decide that i am good enough for my dream ? This is unfair. One exam cannot definitely be the make it or break it. Anyone can have a bad day.

3\. Boards or JEE ? For people who may not be aware, the other exam results which are 'supposed' to be critical in your making it big in life are the class 12th boards. Deciding in classes 11-12th on what to study for is a major dilemma since the level of the courses are somewhat different. It isn't easy going into this thing. The horrendous pattern change in 2013 actually shows how the education ministry is actually using kids for experiments of their own.

All said and done. The JEE does a great job bringing like minds together and IITs automatically becomes the hub of the brightest minds the country has to offer. Delighted to see this on HN.

<comment><USER39> I have seen Indian non-IITians who are way better than their IIT counterparts at similar tasks. I also feel that good non-IITians are easier to work with and get the job done because they don't come with the baggage of some sort of entitlement.

But having said that, I do observe that an undergrad degree from an IIT serves as a reasonably reliable indicator of Engineering strength.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> "Students pay subsidized tuition at a fraction of the real cost of their education. The Indian government subsidizes over 80% of the costs of the IIT, with alumni donations only accounting for under 3% of the system's budget. "While the total government funding to most other engineering colleges is around $2-4 million per year," a critical article writes, "the amount varies between $18-26 million per year for each IIT.""

I dont get why the Indian government will spend millions on subsidizing and educating its students and then allowing them to migrate to USA - if that occurred in the USA there would be an uproar on why the government is using the tax-payers money to fund another country's workforce. Something the Indian tax-payer needs to think about, eh?

<comment><USER41> The Indian govt is surely stupid in subsidizing higher education in place of primary education. However, there is a flip side. Even though the people are allowed to migrate, it is the same people who have brought the IT industry to Indian shores. According to a study commission admittedly by IITians, there is a positive economic benefit to funding IITs.

[http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-11-25/india...](http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-11-25/india/27888912_1_paniit- iitians-iit-kharagpur)

<comment><USER40> More than stupid, the Indian government is clueless and careless about how it spends its earnings from the 2-3% of Indians that actually pay income tax. That coupled with rampant corruption and politicians only interested in saving their vote-banks adds to the woeful state of affairs.

If the Indian citizens started being more demanding about how their money was being spent, on whom and the ROI per rupee of tax collected, the government and the politicians would be forced to change. See, [http://openspending.org/](http://openspending.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I am studying/working through the summer in what I guess would be a program with "elite" students from my field. There are people from the top colleges around the world including but not limited to MIT, Dartmouth, Harvard, Columbia as well as some of the top Canadian, Chinese and European schools. My only colleague that comes off as genius level smart and has a huge breadth of knowledge is from IIT Mumbai. I know it is only one data point but he is also a fairly normal guy. Really nice, thoughtful, loves to hang out and go out for drinks. If every student from IIT is like him I could see a bright future for India

</comment><comment><USER43> "six grueling hours of chemistry, physics, and math"

Otherwise known as three two-hour papers - hardly the stuff of legend! I'm not suggesting the papers are easy, just that by any measure, at this level the length is nothing remarkable.

<comment><USER28> It is remarkable. It is a game of chess. You have to be in upper 4000 ranks to land a good engg. stream. And the ranks often have incredibly minor mark differences between them, which makes for harsher penalties in form of being denied good streams in good IITs. The mind games played in JEE is a game of chess. You only know the syllabus, and that's it. In my times, physics paper was easy and people scored a lot. It was Maths exam that made the difference. This is what makes the exam remarkable. And these iterations are there in every exam. I have given 3 hour exams in IIT in morning and evening...those were not grueling....but JEE was.

<comment><USER44> Is there an equivalent of this? [http://web.mit.edu/ir/pop/awards/nobel.html](http://web.mit.edu/ir/pop/awards/nobel.html) Closest would be University of Madras not IIT.

Its just a numbers game, the universities are not even smart enough to increase seats in a country of 1.2 billion.

<comment><USER37> IITs have been increasing seats at a rate that is often unsustainable. During my stay at IITB from 2007-2012, I saw the number of undergraduate freshmen increase from about 500 to about 900. I think the largest issue has been scaling infrastructure and faculty.

And no, IITs don't have any nobel laureate to boast about, largely because of the lack of core sciences and graduate/post-graduate programs when compared to MIT/Stanford etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> India should try to broad base its technical education and infuse quality among the large number of technical institutes which have sprung up across the country. Giving autonomy and aid to good institutions can be a beginning. IITs are good, but not the first or foremost requirement for the transformation of engineering education in the country.

</comment><comment><USER46> I don't know fuck-all about chemistry or physics (I dropped out of the 10th grade), but could someone confirm for me that the correct answer to that multiple choice aluminum-hit-with-an-alpha-particle question about 20% in to the article is (a)?

<comment> alok-g Yes

<comment><USER46> Much obliged. :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> As it says in the article that the people that get into computer science in IIT are the best of the best in this test. I wonder how the quality of graduate compares with those coming out of mid/top US universities.

</comment><comment><USER48> fascinating subject - but the article was blaringly badly written!

<comment><USER49> Maybe you should help 'em out?

[http://priceonomics.com/jobs/](http://priceonomics.com/jobs/)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Review my startup, PageViral.com - <AUTHOR>

I'm particularly looking for feedback about it's core features, layout and flow of information on the platform. What do you think? The url is www.pageviral.com <comment><AUTHOR> Look forward to all feedback. You can access the live demo account at <http://www.pageviral.com/demo.php></comment>