Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Bread
INDEPENDENT:
a (1) : not subject to control by others : self-governing (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit <an independent bookstore>
Does that help? No one owns BMW, aside from investors and the Quandts. And yes, the companies you listed (except Subie) are indeed independent.
Just for reference, some that aren't and have been consumed by others include Rolls, Porsche, Mini (part of what was formerly Rover), Land Rover (also part of Rover, but no longer part of BMW), Aston Martin, Jaguar, etc.
In other words, no one in Japan, or the US, or France, calls the shots for BMW. I hardly think a single sports car platform being shared with Toyota will have much of impact on BMW's decisions, but perhaps it is the first chip in the wall, we'll see.
What I think you've mistaken for independent is solitary, or singular manufacturing. Lexus, Scion and soon Prius being brands of Toyota does not mean to anyone besides you and maybe some of your incorrectly informed friends that Toyota is in anyway something other than independent. |
I was clear, the discussion is around the definition of independent when it viewed in the context of automotive companies and platform sharing among Brands of the same corporation. That is the context of what BMW tries to convey in its TV and print ads when it clamed it was free of the compromises of platform sharing. The ad campaign was squarely aimed at VW, who basically produces near 40 vehicles from one platform.
Also, using your definition in the context of automobile corporations, then well over a majority of companies are "independent", which then I ask what makes BMW unique? You wrote "The i cars are a huge financial burden and a huge risk, but if the gamble pays off, it extends their time as one
of very few independent car manufacturers." So now I am confused about your previous statement, what exactly did you mean?