Allowing other top level domains doesn't preclude ebay also owning ebay.ca.
"What about regional small businesses? Are they to be left out of this? " Why don't they buy smallbusinss.ca just like today? It doesn't go away just because more top levels are allowed. If.CA is genuinely equated as Canada by people then they will go the.ca. If not, then why force them under that domain?
"Try not to think about a DNS name as a name, but rather an address. " Sony is where on the planet? Tofu is where on the planet, not everything is related to geography, those limited set of rigit domains don't describe even the geography of the world.
"They are not names or identities, no matter how much you may want them to be."
So google.travel is not google? Clearly they are identities, Google.com is not a different identity to Google.biz since Google has a right under trademark law to everything on the Google name regardless of the extension.
"So cause there are no 3 letter ones left, they won't allow 4, 5, or 6 letter domain names anymore?"
No, of course you can.
Just as you can have soft.com and microsoft.com, you can have.soft and.microsoft. The only difference is, under a free choice root you have 5 and 10 letters, under a restricted root, you have 8 and 13 because you have to append some arbitrary root to it.
"and give a clear defintion of who is responsible for which subset of the tree."
You can have that with an unrestricted root, all you've got there is a Bonsai tree, where every multinational has to contort into millions of little sony.com, sony.fr, sony.net etc. domains. Restricting the number of top level domains simply makes for fewer branches, it doesn't remove the tree.
For example, a company might register.sex and resell domains on that, a competitor may register.xxx and resell domains on that one, yet another may register.sexy and so on. Why should you restrict what top level domains there are? Why force the tree to be a Bonsai?
"Imagine that all your internal hosts have the prefix "internal" and another site pops up called "internal", "
Imagine your internal network is called "travel" and ICANN creates a domain.travel....
As opposed to little Micks chocolate store registering chocolates.com? How is it different?
Why should Microsoft not be able to register.microsoft for all thing Microsoft? If any small store does it, MS can sue for trademark infringement. Why should DNS be diferent?
Under the current system you can register my.com my.us Under a free root system you can register all of the above and many million more. So I don't see your point, since a free root offers all of the same separation possibilities and a lot more besides.
Look at the article, it mentions Schiphol has registered the Schiphol domain, at the moment they would have to buy Schiphol.com Schiphol.net Schiphol.org Schiphol.nl Schiphol.es Schiphol.fr and a few thousand others with a few thousand agencies worldwide just to get the nearest they can to top level status.
Under an unrestricted rootless system they can register.Schiphol which given that they are an airport with World coverage is more appropriate! Why should you have.travel for all things related to travel, but not.Schiphol for all things related to Schiphol?
"The reason for the extentions is to organize websites into their respective topics,"
JonN.Troll? JonN.Programmer?
A website can be about more than one thing, a website can be about something other than Commerce, Network, Organisation, or geographically related, it can change it purpose over time.
Look at it this way, if assigning a rigid set of arbitrary classifications is such a great idea why not do it in other areas? Nobody forced you to choose JonN.SysAdmin or some other arbitrary identifier, why should the same be true in DNS?
They are adding a domain name.Travel for travel related things, why not.Tofu for tofu related things? Or.Trains? for Train related things?
"Thinking about eBay, it is much more useful for me to go to eBay.ca then it is for me to go to eBay.com" What about ca.eBay, or LosAngeles.US.Ebay? Wouldn't that make more sense?
" the only left ones will be 20 characters minimum" I don't see why. It's already a 7 letter minimum because all the 3 letter combinations are registered ???.com ???.net etc.
You're freeing up the allocation of the last 4 letters making them more flexible, instead of being from a restricted set (.com.net etc.), so why would it be any worse than it is today?
"Some division and grouping SHOULD exist." Why? Why not.France and.Tofu and.Canon and.SwimmingPoolsInMexico-are-us?
They don't apply restrictions on choices of trademarks unless they already exist in the same field. Why shouldn't the same rule apply to domain names? The stores aren't called ToyRUs.Commerce or Walmart.Shopping afterall. They don't force you to choose your trademark based on an arbitrary rule.
Why should a self appointed committee decide whether my domain name.Tofu is acceptable or not?
Those examples you quoted aren't examples of dumping. Dumping is selling below cost to attack competitors. A $6 razor costs what to make? 20 cents?! Cheap ink jets are the same, cheap to make, there's not a lot in an inkjet, mobile phones you sign up to pay in installements effectively. So none of those are product dumping. Taking a 4 billion hit on a games console is dumping big time (if it's true, it may not be).
What I'd like to see is video game companies forced to open up the games markets on the consoles, so that any software companies can make games for them without license or fee. That would prevent dumping, but also the games are getting so damn repetitive, it would open the market.
I'm giving this round of consoles a miss. The same games with more polygons doesn't do it for me.
Look, I've been pushing the following idea on Zdnet comments a few times. The idea is that its not necessary to create a new disk format to go to HDTV because the compression is 5x better now, the pixel count is 5x more, you only need to change the compression format. So you could, for example put a regular DVD on one side and a hi-compress DVD on the other without requiring a new production line and it work work on PC's.
I still believe the above paragraph is true. So even if Sony don't do it, that they are making a 9GB DVD disk on a standard production line, and that it is cheaper, confirms pretty much, my assumptions in paragraph one.
Whether this is it doesn't really matter because if it's possible and cheaper then SOMEONE will do it. Look at VCD's & the Chinese, VCDs were huge in the Asian market.
"No amount of firmware will upgrade an old Sigma or MediaTek chip to decode HD H.264. "
Fair point but...
1. Those decoders can decode DIVX, so even if they can't handle HD resolutions whats to stop them setting aside 800k of that 9GB for a regular resolution DIVX version. Maybe not Sony, but if Sony can specify such a disk then the Chinese can also do it and if the market wants it, they will do it.
2. My understanding (limited) of these formats is they are progressive, you don't need to decode down to the nth term if you're only going to throw away the resolution. (Is this correct?), so they wouldn't need to decode full 264 they only need to decode a lower quality extract from it.
"A licensed Blu-ray player must play every Blu-ray disc, even the blue-laser ones." If there is a market, and its possible, then either Sony will license or we'll end up with an SVCD style spec. Where the Chinese spotted the gap and filled it.
""it will only play back in Blu-ray Disc players and recorders"?"
They say it's encoded in a modern codec, so that doesn't mean it *can't* play back in PCs, it may simply mean the DVD firmware needs tweaked or this 'modern codec' may be the hurdle to overcome.
"The number of people that enjoy watching DVDs on their computer is only slightly larger than the number of people with HTPCs"
If its basically a DVD compatible thing that PCs can play with a codec/firmware tweak, then it is only a matter of time before the dirt cheap $50 DIVX/MPEG4/DVD players add support as a firmware change. That market is huge, just look in an electrical store and they stack those buggers on pallets for volume sale.
That's what I'm thinking there, that this disk could become the volume market item, playing on computers and slightly more modern DVD(+mpeg4+divx) players together with PCs, and if you then go out and buy a HD TV, you get the high definition version too without upgrading your DVD's which would be another plus.
"The resulting disc will be encoded with a high-definition video codec, and though it will be a red-laser disc (not a blue-laser disc as used by the other formats within the Blu-ray Disc specifications), it will only play back in Blu-ray Disc players and recorders. Even though vendors will be able to manufacture the disc on existing DVD production lines, it is clearly not the same as an HD-DVD. (One of HD-DVD's strengths is its purported ability to be produced at a low cost on existing, albeit modified, DVD production lines)."
If it's existing DVD production, is it readable by *existing* DVD players like those in a computer. In other words can I get a codec and play it in a PC, (even if I need to update the DVD firmware to do it)? Sure the codec means it won't immediately be playable on the DivX/MPEG4/DVD boxes, but can it play on a PC?
If they can do that, that would be a HD-DVD killer.
"Without the patent system, you would basically have a wild west business climate where the only way to protect your inventions is to hire your own thugs to deal with people who infringe on your monopoly."
You have no natural exclusive claim to an idea just because you had it. I can open a chocolate shop in Alphabet street and just because I'm the first person to have the idea of doing that, doesn't mean I can stop other people opening a chocolate shop on alphabet street. Many people can have the same idea independantly, each has the same moral claim to the idea. THERE'S NO REASON A PERSON HAS AN EXCLUSIVE ON AN IDEA JUST BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY ARE THE FIRST TO HAVE IT!
Patents were to cover a very special case: The case where to develop the idea to a working invention would cost a lot of money, but the cost to copy it was low and so there would be no way to recoup the development costs. For example, you invest in a drug, spend 10 years getting it approved then release it only to have it copied within a year. You've borne 10 years worth of development and testing costs, and the copiers haven't and you only had 1 year of sales to try to recover that cost. It that situation wasn't corrected, then nobody would develop new drugs because there would be a net loss of each development no matter how clever they were.
But now they're issuing patents to anyone with nothing but an idea, and they're no even doing a search to see if they just read it off the internet, or got it in a suggestions email. The idea cost them nothing, they have no cost to recover.
Isn't that just a symptom of bad project division? I think they put way too many people on projects these days and it means everyone trips everyone else up, -> endless meetings to resolve the problems.
"2) Trying to be a friend, or head tech, rather than manager."
Put it another way, the "no straight talking" problem. I've always appreciated it when I've put an analysis to a manager and he's come back with a counter analysis, rather than "I'm the project leader and therefore I'm right", or "lets compromise on a solution" (X= FALSE, Y = TRUE, lets compromise on half true?)
"Also you need to be willing to drop the hammer on bad employees" thats a +5 insightful. One bad programmer can sink a project because one line of bad code can crash a program.
I know it's hard, either the CEO is part of the solution or he's the problem. There are several tricks you can use to better manage your CEO:
1. Learn his language. If you can explain your goals in words he is familiar with he will self organise himself to better deliver the support you need. To achieve this, engage him in dialog and take notes on the words he uses. Don't "leverage joint synergies" if he "maximizes differentials" for example. "Maximize those differerntials" right along with him!
2. The best judges of CEO's are secretaries. Talk to his secretary, does he prioritize "eating lunch undisturbed" over say, "saving drowing New Orlean's people"? If he does, drown a few New Orleans people aswell, to break the ice.
3. Look for the natural leader of your CEO. Does he always downsize right after IBM downsizes? Does he diversify when Kodak diversifies? Then IBM is his leader or Kodak is his leader. It's important to determine leadership so you can be forwarned about upcoming wild management swings.
4. Be prepared when the CEO hits the fan. He won't be there forever, keep links with Bob the CFO and Carly the insane Amazon in marketing, you never know when they will become the CEO.
5. Too much management spoils the broth. CEO's don't talk to the customer, they don't talk to the technical people or even read the spec, or have any idea what the product is. So don't let them get too involved with the decisions. Think of them as the team mascot.
"It's about whether or not it's coming from a brand that gives a crap about quality. "
You're thinking in terms of "brand Geox", I'm thinking in terms of "Brand Italy". Brand Italy gives a crap about quality of product, brand China doesn't.
"In the end, it doesn't matter the nationality of the brand or its craftsmen- it's just about the quality of the product, and where in the world it is made has no bearing on that."
What I want to see is the labeling directive resurrected, so that makers of goods have to state (up to a max of 5) the places (by order of value) the goods were sourced from. If what you say is true and there is no difference, and the consumer doesn't care, then it makes no difference to manufacturers.
However I think it does matter, I think French cheese is better than American cheese and Swiss watches are better than Chinese watches, and it bothers me that there are false brands that pretend to be Swiss watch makers, when they simply assemble nearly finished watches and stamp "made is Switzerland" on them and because of that I can't trust "made in Switzerland" brand or "made in Italy" brand.
"It's not like stitching made by Italian hands are any better than those made by Chinese hands- they're all made by machines anyway."
Except Italy didn't make crap budget shoes and China does. So if you buy expensive shoes made in China you can't be as sure they are good quality as if you bought expensive shoes from Italy. So there is a difference: the risk of poor quality.
This is what the brands are trying to cash in on (from the first article I quoted):
Eros Scattolin, international public relations executive, faces this situation at Geox, a shoe brand headquartered in the Italian province of Treviso. Founded in 1995, the company now sells to 51 countries and boasts a turnover of 181 million (US$211M). Although Geox considers itself an Italian brand, it depends heavily on outside countries to make its shoes. For instance the company owns a plant in the Romanian city of Timisoara, which employs 2,000 locals to work under the direct supervision of 50 Italian masters.
Says Scattolin, "From our point of view, it doesn't matter where you produce, but how you do it. We could keep on producing our shoes in Italy but they should cost much more." Instead, while a small segment of Geox's production is in fact still in Italy, the company works in "Romania, Slovakia, Mexico and China as well."
" Do you honestly think that the majority of consumers care about where their products are made? "
Oh yes, I think they do. That's why I think these brands link themselves to American products/ US Atheletes etc. to give the impression of being a US product (Or Swiss or Italian or whatever).
"What most people care about is getting stuff, and artificial intelligence and the internet (which is really what this article is about, not Google per se) is making this cheaper by stimulating competition."
I say this again and again, price isn't everything, value for money is. If you can't tell if an Italian Luxury handbag is really an Italian Luxury Handbag and not just a Chinese bag with some finishing done in Italy to qualify for the "Made in Italy" label, then how can you determine value for money? Any search you get from Froogle doesn't help with that.
Plus how much can you save? Is it worth the extra drive and extra time? I really don't think Walmart has much to fear there.
I doubt its Walmart that should be afraid, more likely brands like Nike, Reebok and Gucci and not only that they should be afraid of the information thats out there not the search engines that find it.
Let me explain:
A quick quiz: Gucci is an Italian Fashion product maker right? Tick tock tick tock..... times up. Wrong! Gucci are an Amsterdam company that buy in practically all of their products that makes *brands* (Boucheron, Balenciaga...) they say they buy shoes from Italy, according to this guy, the Italian high-fashion shoe industry get most of the shoe from Romania and China now and as a result Italy is Europe's biggest shoe importer: http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?id =179
Quiz: Nike are a high quality manufactured brand, Reebok are a high quality manufactured brand, Pan Shoes Bangkok are some crappy Asian brand? Right or wrong, tick tock tick tock... Wrong. Bangkok Rubber company make Reeboks for Reebok, Nike's for Nike and Pan Shoes for Pan Group (which owns Bangkok Rubber Company). http://www.pan-group.com/
CAT Footware (From Caterpillar): http://www.catfootwear.com/Main.aspx Cat Footware are American made and 'Authentic since **1904***' (from their website)? Correct or not? Tick tock tick tock... Wrong.
So where are CAT brand shoes made? Read the 2004 Report, page 29. Risk factors: "reliance on foreign sourcing and concentration of production in China; the availability and price of power, labor and resources in key foreign sourcing countries, including China;"
Made in China.
It's not the search engines, its the information they should fear. Look at the CAT thing, I simply clicked on their financial details and did a search for 'China' to locate the information. Nothing to do with Google or Yahoo.
Slashdot Mirror
"ebay.ca explicitly reads eBay Canada"
.CA is genuinely equated as Canada by people then they will go the .ca. If not, then why force them under that domain?
Allowing other top level domains doesn't preclude ebay also owning ebay.ca.
"What about regional small businesses? Are they to be left out of this? "
Why don't they buy smallbusinss.ca just like today? It doesn't go away just because more top levels are allowed. If
"Try not to think about a DNS name as a name, but rather an address. "
Sony is where on the planet? Tofu is where on the planet, not everything is related to geography, those limited set of rigit domains don't describe even the geography of the world.
"They are not names or identities, no matter how much you may want them to be."
So google.travel is not google? Clearly they are identities, Google.com is not a different identity to Google.biz since Google has a right under trademark law to everything on the Google name regardless of the extension.
"So cause there are no 3 letter ones left, they won't allow 4, 5, or 6 letter domain names anymore?"
.soft and .microsoft.
No, of course you can.
Just as you can have soft.com and microsoft.com, you can have
The only difference is, under a free choice root you have 5 and 10 letters, under a restricted root, you have 8 and 13 because you have to append some arbitrary root to it.
"and give a clear defintion of who is responsible for which subset of the tree."
.sex and resell domains on that, a competitor may register .xxx and resell domains on that one, yet another may register .sexy and so on. Why should you restrict what top level domains there are? Why force the tree to be a Bonsai?
.travel....
You can have that with an unrestricted root, all you've got there is a Bonsai tree, where every multinational has to contort into millions of little sony.com, sony.fr, sony.net etc. domains. Restricting the number of top level domains simply makes for fewer branches, it doesn't remove the tree.
For example, a company might register
"Imagine that all your internal hosts have the prefix "internal" and another site pops up called "internal", "
Imagine your internal network is called "travel" and ICANN creates a domain
"local stores registering global domain names."
.microsoft for all thing Microsoft? If any small store does it, MS can sue for trademark infringement. Why should DNS be diferent?
As opposed to little Micks chocolate store registering chocolates.com? How is it different?
Why should Microsoft not be able to register
"committee decide on ALL domain names?"
You mean ICANN? This company isn't deciding on all domain names, its just offering them for sale.
Under the current system you can register my.com my.us
.Schiphol which given that they are an airport with World coverage is more appropriate! Why should you have .travel for all things related to travel, but not .Schiphol for all things related to Schiphol?
Under a free root system you can register all of the above and many million more. So I don't see your point, since a free root offers all of the same separation possibilities and a lot more besides.
Look at the article, it mentions Schiphol has registered the Schiphol domain, at the moment they would have to buy Schiphol.com Schiphol.net Schiphol.org Schiphol.nl Schiphol.es Schiphol.fr and a few thousand others with a few thousand agencies worldwide just to get the nearest they can to top level status.
Under an unrestricted rootless system they can register
"The reason for the extentions is to organize websites into their respective topics,"
.Travel for travel related things, why not .Tofu for tofu related things? .Trains? for Train related things?
JonN.Troll?
JonN.Programmer?
A website can be about more than one thing, a website can be about something other than Commerce, Network, Organisation, or geographically related, it can change it purpose over time.
Look at it this way, if assigning a rigid set of arbitrary classifications is such a great idea why not do it in other areas? Nobody forced you to choose JonN.SysAdmin or some other arbitrary identifier, why should the same be true in DNS?
They are adding a domain name
Or
"Thinking about eBay, it is much more useful for me to go to eBay.ca then it is for me to go to eBay.com"
What about ca.eBay, or LosAngeles.US.Ebay? Wouldn't that make more sense?
" the only left ones will be 20 characters minimum"
.net etc.), so why would it be any worse than it is today?
.France and .Tofu and .Canon and .SwimmingPoolsInMexico-are-us?
.Tofu is acceptable or not?
I don't see why.
It's already a 7 letter minimum because all the 3 letter combinations are registered
???.com ???.net etc.
You're freeing up the allocation of the last 4 letters making them more flexible, instead of being from a restricted set (.com
"Some division and grouping SHOULD exist."
Why? Why not
They don't apply restrictions on choices of trademarks unless they already exist in the same field. Why shouldn't the same rule apply to domain names? The stores aren't called ToyRUs.Commerce or Walmart.Shopping afterall. They don't force you to choose your trademark based on an arbitrary rule.
Why should a self appointed committee decide whether my domain name
So why not team with Nintendo and make their phones play Ninento games?
Those examples you quoted aren't examples of dumping. Dumping is selling below cost to attack competitors. A $6 razor costs what to make? 20 cents?! Cheap ink jets are the same, cheap to make, there's not a lot in an inkjet, mobile phones you sign up to pay in installements effectively.
So none of those are product dumping. Taking a 4 billion hit on a games console is dumping big time (if it's true, it may not be).
What I'd like to see is video game companies forced to open up the games markets on the consoles, so that any software companies can make games for them without license or fee. That would prevent dumping, but also the games are getting so damn repetitive, it would open the market.
I'm giving this round of consoles a miss. The same games with more polygons doesn't do it for me.
Cheap-Viagra-Gets-You-Hot.com domains don't count, they're registered in the USA because they target the USA!
Look, I've been pushing the following idea on Zdnet comments a few times. The idea is that its not necessary to create a new disk format to go to HDTV because the compression is 5x better now, the pixel count is 5x more, you only need to change the compression format. So you could, for example put a regular DVD on one side and a hi-compress DVD on the other without requiring a new production line and it work work on PC's.
I still believe the above paragraph is true. So even if Sony don't do it, that they are making a 9GB DVD disk on a standard production line, and that it is cheaper, confirms pretty much, my assumptions in paragraph one.
Whether this is it doesn't really matter because if it's possible and cheaper then SOMEONE will do it. Look at VCD's & the Chinese, VCDs were huge in the Asian market.
"No amount of firmware will upgrade an old Sigma or MediaTek chip to decode HD H.264. "
Fair point but...
1. Those decoders can decode DIVX, so even if they can't handle HD resolutions whats to stop them setting aside 800k of that 9GB for a regular resolution DIVX version. Maybe not Sony, but if Sony can specify such a disk then the Chinese can also do it and if the market wants it, they will do it.
2. My understanding (limited) of these formats is they are progressive, you don't need to decode down to the nth term if you're only going to throw away the resolution. (Is this correct?), so they wouldn't need to decode full 264 they only need to decode a lower quality extract from it.
"A licensed Blu-ray player must play every Blu-ray disc, even the blue-laser ones."
If there is a market, and its possible, then either Sony will license or we'll end up with an SVCD style spec. Where the Chinese spotted the gap and filled it.
" Oh duh.. I feel stupid now.."
Why? You may be right, I may be wrong. Just because I sound authoritative doesn't mean I am!
""it will only play back in Blu-ray Disc players and recorders"?"
They say it's encoded in a modern codec, so that doesn't mean it *can't* play back in PCs, it may simply mean the DVD firmware needs tweaked or this 'modern codec' may be the hurdle to overcome.
"The number of people that enjoy watching DVDs on their computer is only slightly larger than the number of people with HTPCs"
If its basically a DVD compatible thing that PCs can play with a codec/firmware tweak, then it is only a matter of time before the dirt cheap $50 DIVX/MPEG4/DVD players add support as a firmware change.
That market is huge, just look in an electrical store and they stack those buggers on pallets for volume sale.
That's what I'm thinking there, that this disk could become the volume market item, playing on computers and slightly more modern DVD(+mpeg4+divx) players together with PCs, and if you then go out and buy a HD TV, you get the high definition version too without upgrading your DVD's which would be another plus.
Isn't it just a 2 layer DVD (or even a double side single layer DVD!)?
They say it can be made in standard plants, so it must be damn similar to a standard format presumably?
"The resulting disc will be encoded with a high-definition video codec, and though it will be a red-laser disc (not a blue-laser disc as used by the other formats within the Blu-ray Disc specifications), it will only play back in Blu-ray Disc players and recorders. Even though vendors will be able to manufacture the disc on existing DVD production lines, it is clearly not the same as an HD-DVD. (One of HD-DVD's strengths is its purported ability to be produced at a low cost on existing, albeit modified, DVD production lines)."
If it's existing DVD production, is it readable by *existing* DVD players like those in a computer. In other words can I get a codec and play it in a PC, (even if I need to update the DVD firmware to do it)?
Sure the codec means it won't immediately be playable on the DivX/MPEG4/DVD boxes, but can it play on a PC?
If they can do that, that would be a HD-DVD killer.
"Without the patent system, you would basically have a wild west business climate where the only way to protect your inventions is to hire your own thugs to deal with people who infringe on your monopoly."
You have no natural exclusive claim to an idea just because you had it.
I can open a chocolate shop in Alphabet street and just because I'm the first person to have the idea of doing that, doesn't mean I can stop other people opening a chocolate shop on alphabet street. Many people can have the same idea independantly, each has the same moral claim to the idea.
THERE'S NO REASON A PERSON HAS AN EXCLUSIVE ON AN IDEA JUST BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY ARE THE FIRST TO HAVE IT!
Patents were to cover a very special case:
The case where to develop the idea to a working invention would cost a lot of money, but the cost to copy it was low and so there would be no way to recoup the development costs. For example, you invest in a drug, spend 10 years getting it approved then release it only to have it copied within a year. You've borne 10 years worth of development and testing costs, and the copiers haven't and you only had 1 year of sales to try to recover that cost.
It that situation wasn't corrected, then nobody would develop new drugs because there would be a net loss of each development no matter how clever they were.
But now they're issuing patents to anyone with nothing but an idea, and they're no even doing a search to see if they just read it off the internet, or got it in a suggestions email.
The idea cost them nothing, they have no cost to recover.
"1) Too many meetings."
Isn't that just a symptom of bad project division? I think they put way too many people on projects these days and it means everyone trips everyone else up, -> endless meetings to resolve the problems.
"2) Trying to be a friend, or head tech, rather than manager."
Put it another way, the "no straight talking" problem. I've always appreciated it when I've put an analysis to a manager and he's come back with a counter analysis, rather than "I'm the project leader and therefore I'm right", or "lets compromise on a solution" (X= FALSE, Y = TRUE, lets compromise on half true?)
"Also you need to be willing to drop the hammer on bad employees" thats a +5 insightful. One bad programmer can sink a project because one line of bad code can crash a program.
I know it's hard, either the CEO is part of the solution or he's the problem. There are several tricks you can use to better manage your CEO:
1. Learn his language. If you can explain your goals in words he is familiar with he will self organise himself to better deliver the support you need. To achieve this, engage him in dialog and take notes on the words he uses. Don't "leverage joint synergies" if he "maximizes differentials" for example. "Maximize those differerntials" right along with him!
2. The best judges of CEO's are secretaries. Talk to his secretary, does he prioritize "eating lunch undisturbed" over say, "saving drowing New Orlean's people"? If he does, drown a few New Orleans people aswell, to break the ice.
3. Look for the natural leader of your CEO. Does he always downsize right after IBM downsizes? Does he diversify when Kodak diversifies? Then IBM is his leader or Kodak is his leader. It's important to determine leadership so you can be forwarned about upcoming wild management swings.
4. Be prepared when the CEO hits the fan. He won't be there forever, keep links with Bob the CFO and Carly the insane Amazon in marketing, you never know when they will become the CEO.
5. Too much management spoils the broth. CEO's don't talk to the customer, they don't talk to the technical people or even read the spec, or have any idea what the product is. So don't let them get too involved with the decisions. Think of them as the team mascot.
"It's about whether or not it's coming from a brand that gives a crap about quality. "
You're thinking in terms of "brand Geox", I'm thinking in terms of "Brand Italy". Brand Italy gives a crap about quality of product, brand China doesn't.
"In the end, it doesn't matter the nationality of the brand or its craftsmen- it's just about the quality of the product, and where in the world it is made has no bearing on that."
What I want to see is the labeling directive resurrected, so that makers of goods have to state (up to a max of 5) the places (by order of value) the goods were sourced from. If what you say is true and there is no difference, and the consumer doesn't care, then it makes no difference to manufacturers.
However I think it does matter, I think French cheese is better than American cheese and Swiss watches are better than Chinese watches, and it bothers me that there are false brands that pretend to be Swiss watch makers, when they simply assemble nearly finished watches and stamp "made is Switzerland" on them and because of that I can't trust "made in Switzerland" brand or "made in Italy" brand.
"It's not like stitching made by Italian hands are any better than those made by Chinese hands- they're all made by machines anyway."
Except Italy didn't make crap budget shoes and China does. So if you buy expensive shoes made in China you can't be as sure they are good quality as if you bought expensive shoes from Italy. So there is a difference: the risk of poor quality.
This is what the brands are trying to cash in on (from the first article I quoted):
Eros Scattolin, international public relations executive, faces this situation at Geox, a shoe brand headquartered in the Italian province of Treviso. Founded in 1995, the company now sells to 51 countries and boasts a turnover of 181 million (US$211M). Although Geox considers itself an Italian brand, it depends heavily on outside countries to make its shoes. For instance the company owns a plant in the Romanian city of Timisoara, which employs 2,000 locals to work under the direct supervision of 50 Italian masters.
Says Scattolin, "From our point of view, it doesn't matter where you produce, but how you do it. We could keep on producing our shoes in Italy but they should cost much more." Instead, while a small segment of Geox's production is in fact still in Italy, the company works in "Romania, Slovakia, Mexico and China as well."
" Do you honestly think that the majority of consumers care about where their products are made? "
Oh yes, I think they do. That's why I think these brands link themselves to American products/ US Atheletes etc. to give the impression of being a US product (Or Swiss or Italian or whatever).
"What most people care about is getting stuff, and artificial intelligence and the internet (which is really what this article is about, not Google per se) is making this cheaper by stimulating competition."
I say this again and again, price isn't everything, value for money is. If you can't tell if an Italian Luxury handbag is really an Italian Luxury Handbag and not just a Chinese bag with some finishing done in Italy to qualify for the "Made in Italy" label, then how can you determine value for money? Any search you get from Froogle doesn't help with that.
Plus how much can you save? Is it worth the extra drive and extra time? I really don't think Walmart has much to fear there.
I doubt its Walmart that should be afraid, more likely brands like Nike, Reebok and Gucci and not only that they should be afraid of the information thats out there not the search engines that find it.
..... times up.d =179
t s.asp
Let me explain:
A quick quiz:
Gucci is an Italian Fashion product maker right? Tick tock tick tock
Wrong! Gucci are an Amsterdam company that buy in practically all of their products that makes *brands* (Boucheron, Balenciaga...) they say they buy shoes from Italy, according to this guy, the Italian high-fashion shoe industry get most of the shoe from Romania and China now and as a result Italy is Europe's biggest shoe importer:
http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?i
Quiz:
Nike are a high quality manufactured brand, Reebok are a high quality manufactured brand, Pan Shoes Bangkok are some crappy Asian brand? Right or wrong, tick tock tick tock... Wrong. Bangkok Rubber company make Reeboks for Reebok, Nike's for Nike and Pan Shoes for Pan Group (which owns Bangkok Rubber Company).
http://www.pan-group.com/
CAT Footware (From Caterpillar):
http://www.catfootwear.com/Main.aspx
Cat Footware are American made and 'Authentic since **1904***' (from their website)? Correct or not?
Tick tock tick tock... Wrong.
Cat brand products are made by Wolverine World Wide.
Here is the information saying they signed up the CAT brand in ***1994***, not 1904:
http://www.wolverineworldwide.com/brands_cat.asp
Here's their annual report:
http://www.wolverineworldwide.com/investors_repor
So where are CAT brand shoes made? Read the 2004 Report, page 29.
Risk factors:
"reliance on foreign sourcing and concentration of production in China; the availability and price of power, labor and resources in key foreign sourcing countries, including China;"
Made in China.
It's not the search engines, its the information they should fear. Look at the CAT thing, I simply clicked on their financial details and did a search for 'China' to locate the information. Nothing to do with Google or Yahoo.