Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

It is much easier for new companies to be created than for existing companies to transform themselves. Think of Kodak. Kodak actually invented the digital camera. But Kodak was, at bottom, a film company...

disagree. Kodak failed because the leadership was unwilling to accept the future, and by the time they tried, it was too late. Blockbuster Video failed for not adapting quick enough.

if you look at companies that re-invented themselves, you'd say 'they evolved' which is how any successful company will operate and continue to be successful as the world changes.

Apple, Amazon, Amex, IBM, Netflix, Marvel, Fujifilm, every restaurant in business. all of these companies evolved from their core business model to embrace the future.

  • Apple a computer company to a device company.
  • Amazon an online bookstore to an everything store to cloud hosting servers.
  • Amex from freight to money orders credit cards.
  • IBM hardware to services.
  • Netflix DVD to streaming.
  • Marvel comics to cinema.
  • Fujifilm film to digital and instant
  • every restaurant evolved to allow more online ordering capability in addition to in restaurant seating.

that's just off the top of my head. companies fail because they are unwilling, or too slow to change as the future progresses.

there will be energy companies that fail, no doubt about it, but many more will adapt, they are adapting now.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, samagon said:

disagree. Kodak failed because the leadership was unwilling to accept the future, and by the time they tried, it was too late. Blockbuster Video failed for not adapting quick enough.

if you look at companies that re-invented themselves, you'd say 'they evolved' which is how any successful company will operate and continue to be successful as the world changes.

Apple, Amazon, Amex, IBM, Netflix, Marvel, Fujifilm, every restaurant in business. all of these companies evolved from their core business model to embrace the future.

  • Apple a computer company to a device company.
  • Amazon an online bookstore to an everything store to cloud hosting servers.
  • Amex from freight to money orders credit cards.
  • IBM hardware to services.
  • Netflix DVD to streaming.
  • Marvel comics to cinema.
  • Fujifilm film to digital and instant
  • every restaurant evolved to allow more online ordering capability in addition to in restaurant seating.

that's just off the top of my head. companies fail because they are unwilling, or too slow to change as the future progresses.

there will be energy companies that fail, no doubt about it, but many more will adapt, they are adapting now.

I don't disagree, fair points, but some of the examples you mention aren't really paradigm shifts. So Apple went from devices to... different devices. Marvel found a cinema outlet for their comic creations. IBM got out of hardware but kept their services, which they had been developing all along. A parallel for oil and gas companies might be the shift from land-based oil exploration to deep sea in the 1970's-80's, to fracking in the 2000's-2010's. Pretty big shifts, but their core business was still getting fossil fuels out of the ground, refining them, and selling them to people. Asking them to "evolve" to a future without fossil fuels is a rather larger leap. It is much more likely that the big energy companies in a world without fossil fuels will be totally different companies.

But for the other reasons I mentioned, I think it is more likely that technological solutions will be found for the problems inherent in fossil fuels than that there will be a world without fossil fuels. Too much energy just sitting there.

 

 

 

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

I don't disagree, fair points, but some of the examples you mention aren't really paradigm shifts. So Apple went from devices to... different devices. Marvel found a cinema outlet for their comic creations. IBM got out of hardware but kept their services, which they had been developing all along. A parallel for oil and gas companies might be the shift from land-based oil exploration to deep sea in the 1970's-80's, to fracking in the 2000's-2010's. Pretty big shifts, but their core business was still getting fossil fuels out of the ground, refining them, and selling them to people. Asking them to "evolve" to a future without fossil fuels is a rather larger leap. It is much more likely that the big energy companies in a world without fossil fuels will be totally different companies.

But for the other reasons I mentioned, I think it is more likely that technological solutions will be found for the problems inherent in fossil fuels than that there will be a world without fossil fuels. Too much energy just sitting there.

 

 

 

What every one is missing here is that, even if we switched to nothing but clean energy tomorrow, oil would still still be the most important resource in the world, because nearly everything we have was made with oil. Anything with plastic or rubber in it? Oil. Paint? Oil. it would be easier to name the things not an ounce of oil went into than to name thing that have oil involved in its creation. Oil companies like ExxonMobil will be fine.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Big E said:

What every one is missing here is that, even if we switched to nothing but clean energy tomorrow, oil would still still be the most important resource in the world, because nearly everything we have was made with oil. Anything with plastic or rubber in it? Oil. Paint? Oil. it would be easier to name the things not an ounce of oil went into than to name thing that have oil involved in its creation. Oil companies like ExxonMobil will be fine.

Agree, except that switching to nothing but clean energy would have a large impact on all oil related companies.  I don't know the exact percentage that is burned for fuel rather than transformed into a product, but I'd guess it's not insignificant.  I think this is why the majors are all trying to get into alternate energy.  They can see a future where the world is much less dependent on oil and want to position themselves for that.  In that respect ExxonMobil will be fine as they have plenty of time to transition to new energy plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

It is much easier for new companies to be created than for existing companies to transform themselves. Think of Kodak. Kodak actually invented the digital camera. But Kodak was, at bottom, a film company. It was not going to be a leader in the digital age. A company represents the crystallization of an idea, the fleshing out of an idea into the realities of production, distribution, marketing, etc. Crystals are not flexible.

I think if oil and gas are doomed, Houston is going to suffer a pretty hard fall. We are going to have to fall back on our only other natural advantage, our port, but that will be a pretty big fall because, you know, there are a lot of ports.

But I'm not so sure oil and gas are doomed. They still hold more energy than any other substances (with the exception of nuclear energy). Gasoline holds about 100 times the energy of the same weight of lithium ion battery. And the energy is just sitting there in the ground, waiting to be used. It's not like film vs. digital where, at a certain point, the only advantage that film really has is nostalgia. The advantages of oil and gas are still very real. There's just this problem with emissions. But just as technology can improve renewables, technology can also help solve the emissions problem. 

Oil and gas are not going to go away. The uses outside of transportation and electricity generation are vital to everyday life, from the plastics used in vehicles to reduce weight and increase safety to the plastics used in medical care. I also don't see replacements for large agricultural tractors, the 300-900hp types that run 20 hours a day during certain seasons. There aren't big enough batteries to run those tractors, and you can't drag a large electrical cable over the crops. And, anyone who thinks we will all be driving electric cars in 10 years hasn't looked at the topic very thoroughly

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

I don't disagree, fair points, but some of the examples you mention aren't really paradigm shifts. So Apple went from devices to... different devices. Marvel found a cinema outlet for their comic creations. IBM got out of hardware but kept their services, which they had been developing all along. A parallel for oil and gas companies might be the shift from land-based oil exploration to deep sea in the 1970's-80's, to fracking in the 2000's-2010's. Pretty big shifts, but their core business was still getting fossil fuels out of the ground, refining them, and selling them to people. Asking them to "evolve" to a future without fossil fuels is a rather larger leap. It is much more likely that the big energy companies in a world without fossil fuels will be totally different companies.

But for the other reasons I mentioned, I think it is more likely that technological solutions will be found for the problems inherent in fossil fuels than that there will be a world without fossil fuels. Too much energy just sitting there.

 

 

 

it's all in how you look at it.

shifting from comic books to blockbuster movies is a paradigm shift. 

I'll grant the others (even though most would agree that Apple, IBM and others fully changed their core business), but comics to movies isn't a natural step.

energy companies shifting from oil gas to other forms of energy is also a paradigm shift, no doubt. some will fail to evolve, or not make the right evolution, and they will be the Kodak we look at and say "wasn't it obvious?"

oddly, my news feed popped up an article that the largest camera manufacturer in the world, is Fujifilm. how did Fuji get it so right and Kodak so wrong? I suppose in 20 years we may be looking at 2 large oil companies, one of which had succeeded in transitioning to other energy, and one that didn't and asking the same questions.

https://petapixel.com/2022/04/26/the-biggest-camera-manufacturer-in-the-world-is-fujifilm/

to your last point, agreed fully. California I think has committed to not allowing any more sales of ICE after 2035, which is a foolhardy thing to do (I guess it's great for greenwashing, and they can shake each other's hands and say they solved climate change), but whatever, let's presume that this actually happens, that means that for the next 13 years we're still able to buy (in CA) ICE cars, and then as the last one rolls out of the showroom floor, it's still going to have 10 or more years of service before going away.

pretty much every O&G company out there is spending more money on developing alternatives and synthetic fuels than they are on exploration. part by reading the room, but also because banks aren't giving as much money for exploration as they used to. banks figure that there are enough known reserves to satiate our O&G needs until we transition to whatever's actually next.

anyway, sorry, OT, and I think we're on the same page, I didn't intend for this to be this long.

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, samagon said:

it's all in how you look at it.

shifting from comic books to blockbuster movies is a paradigm shift. 

I'll grant the others (even though most would agree that Apple, IBM and others fully changed their core business), but comics to movies isn't a natural step.

energy companies shifting from oil gas to other forms of energy is also a paradigm shift, no doubt. some will fail to evolve, or not make the right evolution, and they will be the Kodak we look at and say "wasn't it obvious?"

oddly, my news feed popped up an article that the largest camera manufacturer in the world, is Fujifilm. how did Fuji get it so right and Kodak so wrong? I suppose in 20 years we may be looking at 2 large oil companies, one of which had succeeded in transitioning to other energy, and one that didn't and asking the same questions.

https://petapixel.com/2022/04/26/the-biggest-camera-manufacturer-in-the-world-is-fujifilm/

to your last point, agreed fully. California I think has committed to not allowing any more sales of ICE after 2035, which is a foolhardy thing to do (I guess it's great for greenwashing, and they can shake each other's hands and say they solved climate change), but whatever, let's presume that this actually happens, that means that for the next 13 years we're still able to buy (in CA) ICE cars, and then as the last one rolls out of the showroom floor, it's still going to have 10 or more years of service before going away.

pretty much every O&G company out there is spending more money on developing alternatives and synthetic fuels than they are on exploration. part by reading the room, but also because banks aren't giving as much money for exploration as they used to. banks figure that there are enough known reserves to satiate our O&G needs until we transition to whatever's actually next.

anyway, sorry, OT, and I think we're on the same page, I didn't intend for this to be this long.

Part of the difference with Fuji is likely that, in other countries, large companies like that have strong ties to government and the government makes sure that they don't fail. This is true of many familiar Japanese and German companies, which also get large regular infusions of research funding from their governments. Whereas in America, for the most part, we believe in "creative destruction" and the government takes a hands-off approach, with rare exceptions like GM and the airlines.

Good points all in all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Big E said:

What every one is missing here is that, even if we switched to nothing but clean energy tomorrow, oil would still still be the most important resource in the world, because nearly everything we have was made with oil. Anything with plastic or rubber in it? Oil. Paint? Oil. it would be easier to name the things not an ounce of oil went into than to name thing that have oil involved in its creation. Oil companies like ExxonMobil will be fine.

All true, the only thing though is that the main driver of crude oil consumption is the need for gasoline, and even if we went to only 80% of our current oil usage, the price would collapse and it would effectively kill the industry. Prices are set on the margins, they spike when demand exceeds supply just by a percentage point or two, and they drop sharply when supply exceeds demand. During the pandemic, global demand for oil fell from about 100 million barrels per day to around 82 million barrels per day, and this caused the price for oil to actually go negative, massive layoffs, and companies incurring billions of dollars in debt, which they are slowly paying off now with the huge profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hindesky said:

Stuff'd wings opening this Friday.

zAbYl8o.png

Are the wings actually stuffed somehow or is that just a name?

45 minutes ago, monarch said:

^^^ my goodness!  every now and then, i LOVE to have a good wing of two for dinner.  this place is definitely on the bucket list...

If you want some good Korean-style wings, try this place....

https://www.bbqchickenwestheimer.com/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, august948 said:

Are the wings actually stuffed somehow or is that just a name?

If you want some good Korean-style wings, try this place....

https://www.bbqchickenwestheimer.com/

^^^ not at all certain about their "STUFFED" process.  however, as long as i get one or two of the wings depicted in the illustration, then i shall become the angel that has certainly earned it's wings.  also, props for the heads up on the "korean-style wings" location.  YOU ROCK!

Edited by monarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2022 at 3:36 PM, august948 said:

It is as long as you stick to the first floor and basement.  Did that myself today for about an hour and a half.  Had just finished a large coffee from the Nook before going to the Ion so I didn't check out the coffee, but Common Bond is there and probably could serve up some caffeine.  The workspace component is a membership thing behind locked doors, but you can get a day pass for $25.  Among the perks is free coffee.  Noticed when I was browsing the membership details online that workspace company (Common Desk) has other locations here, in Austin and in DFW.  One of those options was POST Houston so I went over there after my stay at the Ion to check it out.  All are available to you if you have a membership.

My company is a Common Desk member working out of Ion, AMA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, august948 said:

How's the coffee?

There's a couple answers to that question. There's the drip coffee that's just out and available all the time. It's pretty standard, no complaints there. Then there's also the Common Desk info desk that will make espresso drinks to order. I've only had it one or two times, but it wasn't that great. And then there's Common Bond On-The-Go downstairs, which isn't as good as something made by the people working at the original CB in Montrose, but it's still better than the first two options.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what Houston needs is a place for computer nerds/geeks to hang out and congregate. That doesn't require a high cost. Like the spirit of HAUG or HAL-PC back in the day. Now those were incubators. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2022 at 8:51 AM, clutchcity94 said:

Are homeless people still a problem in the area? Compared to 3-4 years ago.

I mean it certainly hasn't been transformed overnight, but every year you see fewer and fewer homeless people in the area, I think. "Problem"? I don't think I can say it was ever really that disruptive to me, except for maybe trying to get donuts at that Shipley or something. But no, in the immediate vicinity of Ion it's not so much of an issue now.

On 4/30/2022 at 10:56 AM, freundb said:

The prototyping lab sounds cool. I wish I could come take the tour.

I just wandered in there a couple weeks ago and someone was happy to give me a tour, you may be able to do the same. It's on the first floor off the public area, so you shouldn't have any problem getting to it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Brooklyn173 said:

I saw a bunch of Ion logo construction fencing going around the parking lot between Stuff'd and the Wheeler Light Rail station. I didn't get a pic. Is anything close to happening there?

My guess is it's just similar fencing they've placed on their other owned lots for branding the district.  This site is slated for a much later phase with other blocks planned to be developed much sooner ie the lot across the outdoor plaza and the existing tenant parking lot.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Fortune said:

I am happy they are painting that yellow apartment building another color. 

Shall we guess?
Hmm... not just blue, it's not turquoise. It's not lapis.
Is it actually cerulean?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2022 at 2:07 PM, Fortune said:

I am happy they are painting that yellow apartment building another color. 

to call that building yellow is an insult to the color yellow.

it's a shabby mustard, at best.

and as far as reddit goes, r/whatcouldgowrong is really a great opportunity to watch people do stupid things to themselves and have a good laugh. I consider it the best that reddit has to offer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find it interesting how places start changing to look better only when something nicer comes along and calls them out aesthetically. It's pretty annoying and tells you the developer doesn't care until they have to. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I always find it interesting how places start changing to look better only when something nicer comes along and calls them out aesthetically. It's pretty annoying and tells you the developer doesn't care until they have to. 

to me, it says that they hired someone's brother's girlfriend who thinks she is an interior/exterior designer, but who has no sense of color.

I lived in an apartment building way out west that was all mustard yellow and coffee stain brown. It hurt the eyes.

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

to me, it says that they hired someone's brother's girlfriend who thinks she is an interior/exterior designer, but who has no sense of color.

I lived in an apartment building way out west that was all mustard yellow and coffee stain brown. It hurt the eyes.

Yep neutrals and earthy tones are way easier on the eyes, along with green. A dark forest green is always nice and versatile. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Yep neutrals and earthy tones are way easier on the eyes, along with green. A dark forest green is always nice and versatile. 

Same color palette they use in prisons and Catholic schools to help keep everyone calm.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

to me, it says that they hired someone's brother's girlfriend who thinks she is an interior/exterior designer, but who has no sense of color.

I lived in an apartment building way out west that was all mustard yellow and coffee stain brown. It hurt the eyes.

Not everyone forgetting how the "Under the Tuscan Sun" design plagued our communities. 1200 Post Oak, Uptown Park, Granduca, Montebello, The Dominion, Villa D'Este, The Mercer, The 610 Sheraton (to an extent), and of course, the Ventana.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, editor said:

Same color palette they use in prisons and Catholic schools to help keep everyone calm.

Strake Jesuit, St. Thomas, etc. don't seem like such bad places, esp. compared to the public schools around them. Clamor of families trying to get in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Montrose1100 said:

Not everyone forgetting how the "Under the Tuscan Sun" design plagued our communities. 1200 Post Oak, Uptown Park, Granduca, Montebello, The Dominion, Villa D'Este, The Mercer, The 610 Sheraton (to an extent), and of course, the Ventana.

At least Houston didn't end up with orange buildings, as happened in Irving, Texas, a few years back...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, almost looks like a completely different building. Impressive what a bit of paint can do.

So long as they never fix all those broken windows, it will remain the Ventana that I knew in my youth.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This doesn't even look like the same place! And I love that now you can actually see the bay windows without your eyes throwing up at the sight of that turd yellow. Beautiful. May the power of neutral colors compel you 

Edited by j_cuevas713
  • Like 5
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

This doesn't even look like the same place! And I love that now you can actually see the bay windows without your eyes throwing up at the sight of that turd yellow. Beautiful. May the power of neutral colors compel you 

This is one of the most drastic improvements brought about by covering a dingy yellow paint job since the University of Houston - Downtown (formerly the Merchants and Manufacturers) Building renovation a few years ago.

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...