Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 4 / 6   >   >>
GPBobby
User Rank
Rookie
re: Top 10 tech blunders of 2012
GPBobby   12/23/2012 4:25:25 PM
NO RATINGS
Why are we comparing a portable telephone with a desktop computer in the first place? I own an iPhone and a Mac. They're not interchangeable. If I could only have one, it would be the desktop. I've lived w/o a phone for years, and now credit them mostly with making payphones collectors' items. I rarely get anyone who uses one to answer - they're probably shuffling photo's between "friends," which I'm sure they "like," or keeping track of their morning Pilates which they may not. Long live the pc.

GPBobby
User Rank
Rookie
re: Top 10 tech blunders of 2012
GPBobby   12/23/2012 4:25:25 PM
NO RATINGS
Why are we comparing a portable telephone with a desktop computer in the first place? I own an iPhone and a Mac. They're not interchangeable. If I could only have one, it would be the desktop. I've lived w/o a phone for years, and now credit them mostly with making payphones collectors' items. I rarely get anyone who uses one to answer - they're probably shuffling photo's between "friends," which I'm sure they "like," or keeping track of their morning Pilates which they may not. Long live the pc.

DMcCunney
User Rank
CEO
re: Top 10 tech blunders of 2012
DMcCunney   12/23/2012 3:55:54 AM
NO RATINGS
Hear, hear! And one question to ask is "Why did Apple do it?" The courts have simply become one more playing field in which companies compete, and attempting to throw legal spanners into others works is common practice. But you can argue Apple didn't really *need* to do this. The iPhone and iPad are fantastically successful, and are a major reason why Apple is in the position it is, with revenues and profits on its lines other device makers would kill for. And why Samsung is mounting an actual competitive challenge, Apple is in no imminent danger from them. It doesn't have to compete in the courtroom because it's doing so well in the marketplace. It made me think about personalities, ego, and the stamp CEOs put on their companies. Steve Jobs was exceptionally competitive, and took any challenges personally. Any company who seemed to be doing anything like what Apple was doing in a line Apple was in was seen by him as copying Apple, and the result was outrage and fury, and a determination to get the copier. Steve's vision and attitudes permeated Apple. I saw the lawsuit as an outgrowth of that. Steve would have been outraged and furious that Samsung was doing something like Apple when competing with them, and his reflex would have been to go for the kill. Apple is molded in Steve's likeness, so that's what it did. You can probably make a business case that it was ultimately time and effort that would have been better spent on other things, but corporate egos tend to be unbounded in cases like this, and the lawsuit was offended ego.

DMcCunney
User Rank
CEO
re: Top 10 tech blunders of 2012
DMcCunney   12/23/2012 3:55:54 AM
NO RATINGS
Hear, hear! And one question to ask is "Why did Apple do it?" The courts have simply become one more playing field in which companies compete, and attempting to throw legal spanners into others works is common practice. But you can argue Apple didn't really *need* to do this. The iPhone and iPad are fantastically successful, and are a major reason why Apple is in the position it is, with revenues and profits on its lines other device makers would kill for. And why Samsung is mounting an actual competitive challenge, Apple is in no imminent danger from them. It doesn't have to compete in the courtroom because it's doing so well in the marketplace. It made me think about personalities, ego, and the stamp CEOs put on their companies. Steve Jobs was exceptionally competitive, and took any challenges personally. Any company who seemed to be doing anything like what Apple was doing in a line Apple was in was seen by him as copying Apple, and the result was outrage and fury, and a determination to get the copier. Steve's vision and attitudes permeated Apple. I saw the lawsuit as an outgrowth of that. Steve would have been outraged and furious that Samsung was doing something like Apple when competing with them, and his reflex would have been to go for the kill. Apple is molded in Steve's likeness, so that's what it did. You can probably make a business case that it was ultimately time and effort that would have been better spent on other things, but corporate egos tend to be unbounded in cases like this, and the lawsuit was offended ego.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
re: Top 10 tech blunders of 2012
Bert22306   12/22/2012 11:36:47 PM
NO RATINGS
I would suggest that one "tech-related blunder" not mentioned in the article might be the 2012 lawsuit of Apple vs Samsung. I think that Apple came away looking like a schoolyard bully, that the jury came out looking like they had been poorly coached, with a foreman who appeared to have his own baggage-axe to grind, and that ultimately this caused courts elesewhere in the world to retaliate. The long-lasting effects might not be obvious yet, or who knows, there might be none, but I think it was definitely a blunder.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
re: Top 10 tech blunders of 2012
Bert22306   12/22/2012 11:36:47 PM
NO RATINGS
I would suggest that one "tech-related blunder" not mentioned in the article might be the 2012 lawsuit of Apple vs Samsung. I think that Apple came away looking like a schoolyard bully, that the jury came out looking like they had been poorly coached, with a foreman who appeared to have his own baggage-axe to grind, and that ultimately this caused courts elesewhere in the world to retaliate. The long-lasting effects might not be obvious yet, or who knows, there might be none, but I think it was definitely a blunder.

JimJarvis
User Rank
Rookie
re: Top 10 tech blunders of 2012
JimJarvis   12/22/2012 4:17:35 PM
NO RATINGS
Hardly a tech blunder. What 'considering outsiders' means is that there is more than one internal candidate. It'll be interesting to see what Otellini and the board come up with, and who leaves as a result.

JimJarvis
User Rank
Rookie
re: Top 10 tech blunders of 2012
JimJarvis   12/22/2012 4:17:35 PM
NO RATINGS
Hardly a tech blunder. What 'considering outsiders' means is that there is more than one internal candidate. It'll be interesting to see what Otellini and the board come up with, and who leaves as a result.

Duane Benson
User Rank
Blogger
re: Top 10 tech blunders of 2012
Duane Benson   12/22/2012 8:07:16 AM
NO RATINGS
Is a CEO issue a tech blunder or just a management problem?

Duane Benson
User Rank
Blogger
re: Top 10 tech blunders of 2012
Duane Benson   12/22/2012 8:07:16 AM
NO RATINGS
Is a CEO issue a tech blunder or just a management problem?

<<   <   Page 4 / 6   >   >>


Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Want to Present a Paper at ESC Boston 2015?
Max Maxfield
8 comments
I tell you, I need more hours in each day. If I was having any more fun, there would have to be two of me to handle it all. For example, I just heard that I'm going to be both a speaker ...

Martin Rowe

No 2014 Punkin Chunkin, What Will You Do?
Martin Rowe
Post a comment
American Thanksgiving is next week, and while some people watch (American) football all day, the real competition on TV has become Punkin Chunkin. But there will be no Punkin Chunkin on TV ...

Rich Quinnell

Making the Grade in Industrial Design
Rich Quinnell
12 comments
As every developer knows, there are the paper specifications for a product design, and then there are the real requirements. The paper specs are dry, bland, and rigidly numeric, making ...

Martin Rowe

Book Review: Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design, Third Edition, by Michel Mardiguian. Contributions by Donald L. Sweeney and Roger Swanberg. List price: $89.99 (e-book), $119 (hardcover).