Örn Hansen wrote:
söndag 21 november 2004 03:40 skrev Sid Boyce:
Then the business types infiltrated the decision making process, it was a waste of resources trying to be the BEST, so the strategy was set - JUST MAKE MORE MONEY! - simply by applying the best Marketing Skills. The strange result, we never again made the BEST computers and we MADE LESS MONEY, till eventually we faded from existence, remaining only as an insignificant rump in a PC Sales outfit. The point here is, marketeers will advise SuSE that you can put this sort of stuff out and if you can stage a few good reviews, the job is well done. They are right, sales boom, more headlines showing good figures, but not for long.
I don't think it's "just" the buisness types, at all. Remember, that Bill Gates is a buisness man ... he's not a guru, and even if computer literate, his sofware is acquired and not made by him. But he's a successful buisnessman, whose made a lot of money over a long period of time.
And then, every University teaches you (or ought to), that there's a threshold in development. You can continue developing indefinately, at some point you have to stop and say "that's it". It doesn't mean, that the software is good, nor that it's perfect. What needs to be done, at this point, is establish a work-line, where it's clear that if you follow a to b, the result will be c. This is why lots of software and hardware wendors, also provided educational courses to educate people, on how-to use the software or hardware they provided. It's this last part, that is lacking, in our current time-frame. And, yes, it's the buisness types that caused it ... it's those kind of buisness people, who enter a certain buisness, with an exit stragety the moment the came in. They're not in there, to accomplish anything ... just to make a buck, and they'll leave everything, the moment they see it's no longer profitable. I think, the computer industry has felt their presence more than any other field, but it's also the fault of the industry itself ... as the industry is also to blame for, not only selling to buisness adventurers, but also hiring less-than-average-developers. The computer industry is also full of "it's more profitable to sell lot's of services, than to sell a good product" ... so the "good" programmers, and the "guru" meditator are no longer valuable. It's all outsourced, to third world countries ... because it doesn't matter, as those companies will make the money on indefinite services, for indefinately buggy software. And this part, you can blame on the consumer ... who really isn't looking for "quality". Which is why such buisness-types, are in buisness in the first place. One of the "early" indicators of this, was the trend that instead of making "better" software, there was only faster hardware bought. At this moment in time, I'm using a 64bit machine, with 1 Gb of memory, for desktop use. When 20 years ago, a mainframe had 4 - 64 Megabytes of memory, and was servicing hundreds of users. Consumers, and companies decided to stick to Windows and get a "faster" PC to have the program work faster ... this was then countered by the "human" factor, which means that it doesn't make any sense to have a computer work faster when it in reality has to wait for a users input, which is limited by the users typing, viewing, thinking speed. So a clock was made, that would make sure the system would wait X seconds, for user input, instead of simply doing it as fast as it could handle the data. So, we're back at square one ... now I got a 64bit system, but I got a 32bit internal PCI bus. You get where I'm going ... and make note, that this will happen in all other fields as well... and you can see the trend, right now. Company A, is making X amounts of Euros/Dollars today. Next quarter, it makes X-n amount, which is n amounts less than last quarter. They call this a LOSS of n amount.
My 0,2€ worth.
I entirely agree, but some decisions are made that will take a company down, your customers smile with you and reassure you they are happy in satisfaction surveys, then your rivals' boxes start to appear. When our company was developing a new disk subsystem, our president asked them how long it would take to develop the firmware to achieve a workable system, they said 3 years, he said, do it in 18 months. The product delivered in 18 months was not what it should have been, when it was, that was at the 3 year mark, it was a fine product, but we couldn't give it away, I know, we tried and got polite "no thank you" replies. It would have been a fantastic and saleable product if the original timeline had been stuck with. Needless to say, the product died and made us no money. Mainframe customers are very savvy and exact penalty clauses in contracts if service levels are not met and in one case, over 2 weekends we ended up owing one customer a 1/4 million GB pounds because of outages suffered, these were offset against maintenance and services, but it meant revenue from that customer was at a standstill for quite a while. You make money if the product has containable deficiencies, minor discrepancies and slight performance problems can be tolerated whereas instabilities and disruptions cannot be tolerated. With a bad product, the inflow of cash declines, the company declines and the managers will rationalise this internally as market conditions unless some new blood is introduced to inject some reality. I know the formula for calculating a loss can be fictitious, but if it persists long enough, outgoings outstrip cashflow inwards, lay-offs and cost cutting exercises only stave off the fateful day. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer =====LINUX ONLY USED HERE=====