So A123 is who are the suppliers of Fisker-Karma and Smith Electric are supposed to have a better strategy than AESC, the main supplier to Nissan Renault who are looking to build hundreds of thousands of electric cars?

It is pretty clear that Pike will find some rationale to declare whoever sponsers them to be in a 'leading position'.

Absolute rubbish.

"rates them on 10 criteria for strategy and execution, including vision; go-to-market strategy; partners; product strategy and roadmap; geographic reach; market share; sales and marketing; product quality; and reliability, product portfolio, and staying power."

Obvious some of the criteria are more than a bit subjective.

Partners, market share, sales, quality and reliability are quantifiable and objective. Vision, strategy, marketing, and staying power are less quantifiable and more subjective.

@John Gartner:
You say that 'this report' was not sponsored by any company.
So what about the network of relationships by Pike Research?

You turn out reports costing hundreds of dollars to buy, which consequently have a limited clientele but remain entirely uninfluenced by they corporate and political entities which are the only buyers of such reports?

That is downright heroic.

Of course, the real value of these reports is that companies or institutions who like the conclusions can quote them, so that they can claim that 'authorititative sources' say that the market for blah blah will increase by x percent by 2020.

However critics are not given enough information to be able to provide a reasoned critique but must lay out $1,000 perhaps in order to find out that the conclusions are likely to be as abitrarity drawn as the ludicrous and subjective block diagram at the top.

Where is the added value? Where the intellectual rigor or subjection of the case you wish to make to your peers?

There is absolutely nothing in these reports which could not be gleaned from the work of universities, government sources and information etc.

What you provide is spin, and your living is from its being spin that powerful interests want to see.

It may be journalism, or more correctly advertising, but is no part of proper academic or reasoned debate.

Teh insolence of people who want to make large claims of some sort of worth in their views, but refuse to properly argue their case and demand money before they will be prepared to present their arguments is unbounded.

You, sir, are a purveyor of clap trap and a snake oil salesman.

John,

Thanks for contributing, some of us get a bit cranky and cynical at times :)

This is Andy Chu, VP of Marketing & Communications at A123. In response to Davemart's question on how A123 could have a better strategy than AESC, I would humbly submit that A123's diversified approach to vehicle electrification mitigates risk. A123 supplies batteries to a variety of customers, both OEMs and integrators. These customers include both passenger vehicle manufacturers, as well as commercial vehicle (bus, truck, off-road vehicle) manufacturers. A123 also supplies batteries for the full range of applications from battery electric vehicles, plug-ins, full and mild hybrids, and micro or start-stop hybrids. Of course, A123 is also a leader in grid energy storage, and although this was not a factor in Pike Research rankings, it is not unreasonable to believe that (all other things being equal) a battery supplier that has significant market share in grid applications has an advantage over one that does not.