Microsoft's problem is explained in Clayton Christensen's The Innovator's Dilemma with some possible ways out of the dilemma with last fall's The Innovator's Solution by Christensen and Raynor.
Microsoft's biggest problem is that it has paid attention to its customers for the past 20 years. This has propelled its products into solutions that are far too complex, too expensive, and way more than what the only new customers need.
They try to attack new customers but they keep dragging all the Windows baggage along, because _they_listen_to_their_customers_ but the people they need to pay attention to are not their customers.
Talk to a Windows customer and say "what do you want in a cell phone so can make money selling software for cell phones". It is no surprise that the answer will be "Windows".
But ask the cell phone developer and his answer is "easy to integrate, really cheap royalty, etc." Gee, why can't Microsoft win any cell phone design-ins;-)
Microsoft tried to go up against Sony, an established player in the game box market with a windows platform. Talking with their customers, this had to be a winning solution. Hmmm, it wasn't a winner.... Why was that? Hmmm, it turns out that 99.999% of the people buying game boxes didn't care that it ran windows.
In fact, the biggest problem that Microsoft has is the people who want the xbox to run Linux. Hmmm, why don't they listen to those customers??? Has the day of losing billions to gain market share really gone?
I understand that the vector into my system was for yet another useless service that Microsoft built into Windows. What amazes me is that after applying a huge number of critical patches, manually turing off a bunch of service that are useless, after enabling the firewall, there are still useless services enabled that I don't know about.
And the rate of security patches for a release that is close to three years old is still high or increasing.
I really have to wonder if Microsoft is part of the al Quaeda network...
Detouring a bit on the sort point, about 20 years ago I joined an engineering group and hear of a new backup utility written by a high mucky mucky CS type software engineer. Then for the next five years I kept hearing about the problems with it and on occasion had to use it. It was developed and enhanced by a couple of CS grads for a couple of years and then serially maintained by a couple of other engineers. On going problem reports. Then one of them asked me about it because he was being pressured to really fix it. There was some problem related to the "sort stack".
Ok, "tell me what the problem is, show me the code", and 15 minutes later I'm realizing that I'm looking at a incorrectly coded quicksort with a stack of 200 elements. I found 5 coding errors as I recall, with the worst one going back to the original mucky mucky - I think he was a consulting engineer, a job title about two levels above me - was the stack size related problem.
I'm sure that you immediately recognized the sort code was developed by an idiot simply from the stack size. For other CS majors, that stack size is large enough to sort all the atoms in the solar system.
Anyway, today I picked up an article I started and put down a week or two ago in the CACM by Peter J. Denning in his "The Profession of IT" column titled "The Field of Programmers Myth". July 2004.
I don't completely agree with his prescription for the CS curriculum, but he is certainly is on point about CS NOT being about programming.
[[[ I am a bit intrigued about the field which integrates a physic, math, EE, computers and relies heavily on custom sorts. My first reaction was robotics, but that is because that's what I'm interested in and that is absurd since sorting implies a central control algorithm in non-real-time. So, I'm guessing particle physics of some sort with extensive post processing of data. It has to be commercial or well funded, so I'm guessing something along the lines of MRI, CAT, or similar processes.
I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have seen anything about these jobs because I was focusing on a quick return to what I had been doing in Southern NH and then turned my attention to figuring out how to do what I really want to do. And the last thing I wanted to do was drive RT3 toward Boston as it got ripped up.
What you are suggesting is the kind of interesting work that involved computers that I and a lot of my friends might be interested in, as long as it isn't related to blowing up the world or killing people. But unless I'm really getting a distorted view of the world, I can't imagine there being a market for the 60,000 (?? or some other absurdly large figure) CS grads that Gates and others say there are needed. ]]]
This weekend we've seen a new flurry of releases and discussion of links between Saddam and Osama et al. These links are said to prove that they were working together to terrorize the planet.
On the other hand, we have also seen a lot of statements that Moore's supposed connections between Bush and all sort of other things are not proof of any connection or cooperation.
Hmmm, Saddam and Osama and representative meet or exchange messages and that proves that they were working together.
Bush meets with and exchanges messages with Saudis and other parties but that is absolutely not proof their is any cooperation.
Cheney has links between Haliburton, et al, but that is absolutely not proof of any cooperation.
The Republicans, neocons, Fox, et al, can't have it both ways and meet the basic logic test.
In fact, if Clinton were in office and everything else were the same, the same people claiming no link between Bush and the Saudis and Cheney and Haliburton would be arguing that Clinton conspired with the Saudis on 911 and was personally profiting from the Haliburton contracts.
After gaining a bit of comfort for Opera, I disabled Internet Exploder. I disabled all features, everyone, ActiveXploiter, Java, Javascript, etc., and then set the proxy for all protocols to 127.0.0.1 port 7777 which means it can't access anything.
I also do almost everything from an account (WinXP lite) without admin privs which means some apps don't work because they can't access the registry.
Yesterday while browsing the net, the system really slowed down and I found from a netstat that there were hundreds of connections to all sorts of IP addresses to Microsoft-DS (445). Although I had recently updated the patches, I discovered after fighting to kill off the processes generating these connections that there were seven more "critical updates". I'm normally looking at all sorts of websites doing research on a dozen different, but social policy related topics, so I had a lot of web pages active and I have no idea which of a dozen or more might have been the source of the infection.
Bottom line: -Microsoft sucks -I don't know how and don't have the info to figure it out, but even with IE disabled and using Opera, its still possible to get infected -Microsoft sucks
I wouldn't have any problems with those questions.
My response would start by challenging the basis of your questions. For example, "why do you want a sort? sorting is evil and can almost always be avoided." And if you pressed on, I would then respond "Ok, where's your Knuth, I'll go through the TOC and give you my rundown on the changes in assessment each requires based on the changes in systems since the time he wrote the book."
My reaction the other questions are similar. My style of response has been drawn from and honed by my many coworkers, too many of whom are unemployed or employed in jobs they hate. Bascially, when asked to deliver a solution, we ask what the problem is.
If Microsoft were to open a research and design center in New England they would be flooded with great candidates, perhaps few that would really want to work for that company, but that need the job and would hope for the chance to work on something interesting.
Intel does have facilities in New England and I don't believe Intel has any trouble finding a long list of qualified candidates (compilers, chip design) for the rare position they open (currently there are 4 openings in NH and MA posted).
Who knows how many HP is going to be shedding in the next year.
I can't think of any job posting in the past three years, or anyone getting a job, that required any knowledge of code generation, sort algorithms, interrupt service routines, etc., but I know of lots of people without CS degrees that can deal with those issues because they have dealt with them.
On the other hand, I know experienced computer engineers that are studying in areas like genetics so they can figure out how to apply computer technology. Or studying how biologic systems, muscles, nervous systems, etc., work so robotic motion systems can be built. Computer systems are just components like nuts, bolts, springs, bearings, although computers are clearly more flexible.
I'm not arguing that there is no need for people with CS degrees, just that CS degrees are needed for about as many jobs are physics degrees are needed. There is a need for CS people who can explore certain complex problems, just as there is a need for physicists who can explore the problem of making room temperature super conductors. Ideally there would be one million people working on each problem, but the reality is that there are jobs for only a few each year.
In other words, why aren't people going around pitching students to go into physics, astrophysics, archeology, etc. I don't think anyone has made a case for there being a greater need for CS grads that any of the others. The demand for good computer people with good theoretical backgrounds over the past five decades is not sufficient to justify any real demand over the next decade.
"When, exactly, did all these nameless companies tell people that if they got CS degrees they would get jobs?"
I find it interesting that Bill Gates has been going around trying to talk up getting a CS degree, basically saying that the US faces a serious shortage of CS grads.
After 35 years in the computer field working on most parts of a computer system in one capacity or another, starting before there was agreement that there was enough "stuff" to justify a CS degree (instead of EE or math), I spent the last four years unemployed studying what is basically manufacturing technology becasue it has a better future.
The most directly computer related area that I think has real potential is robotics, but a CS degree is of limited value. What is more important is good solid mechanical, biology, or physics plus some EE. The computer stuff is useful but that's easy to pick up.
Other than the small number of computer scientists that the small number of companies who feel they can afford research department, I'm not sure who needs CS majors.
Its not like it was 20 years ago with a new language being developed and adopted by a large number of users every month. When was the last time you had a real debate about the pros and cons of a language?
It turned out that 39.37 was an approximation
on
Our Friend, The Meter
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The 39.37 conversion factor was based on comparing the measurements of two yard standards with meter standards. What they discovered was that the two meter standards disagreed. One worked out to slightly under 2.54 cm per inch and the other slightly more.
They eliminated the two yard standards and redefined the "English" system based on the metric system.
In other words, there is only one system of standards, the metric system.
The conventional units might be in meters, kilograms, feet, pounds, yards, etc., but for the industrial world, all are based on the metric system BY DEFINITION.
Adti has examined the pyramids in Egypt and has not found anyone in Egypt, or in fact anywhere in the world that can provide a clear explanation of how a society without power tools and machinery could build the pyramids.
Further study has shown an uncanny parallel between those pyramids in Egypt and various modern structures whose designs and construction techniques are clearly documented. These pyramids all required the used of computers and the best power tools and machinery modern society has to offer.
To quote adti's Brown, "Clearly these copies in Eygpt are illegal copies of these modern builder, obviously produced by time traveling extraterrestrials. While many people dismiss our conconclusions, we have talked extensively to many people who have been abducted by aliens or have seen so called UFOs."
Brown continues, "Yes, many have argued that the reports have more mundane explanations, but we will not limit our reports to those who insist that scientific methods provide no support for our conclusions. But to dismiss extraterrestrials would seriously limit the opportunity for profit to just the Earth."
HP in the computer system business has decided to just stick its name on the innovations of others.
DELL has innovated by delivering computers to customers in a more efficient fashion without "leaving money on the table".
The argument that HP uses for getting out of the hardware and software business is that they can't afford the investment to compete against massive market shares of Intel and Microsoft which allows them to innovate, possibly far less efficiently.
DELL just embraced the situation of having Intel and Microsoft do the work and focused on other areas where it could innovate. And what DELL discovered was that it could sell directly to millions of customers without the middlemen who take a cut of the profit and demand that you provide the capital investment to fund the inventory. And then it discovered that it could sell the same computers at different prices to different market segments, something that HP and CompUSA do very inefficiently (you know, all those mail-in rebates).
Innovation is about doing business better than it has been done previously.
Invention is about a new or improved method or machine for a specific purpose. Inventions were intended to be patented so that the inventor would have the opportunity to innovate in the face of an established innovator (someone who takes existing and new products and delivers them to market better and faster than anyone else). Inventions were limited to spur innovation - if you can't deliver the invention to market, then you lose the exclusive right and others are given the opportunity to innovate where you can't.
HP is the leader in printers because they constantly invent and deliver to market ink jet technology and then leverage their strength and experience in ink jet printers in innovatively delivering the inventions and innovations of its laser printer competitors.
HP using the motto "HP Invents" is to me rather ironic when you consider the number of "inventors" that have been put out of the invention business in the process of building HP.
Are today's computers improving at the same rate they were when HP's computer architectures, Apollo's architecture, DEC's Alpha architecture were all competing for a piece of the market?
Is the best invention and innovation in the CPU market coming from AMD, (build on inventions bought from DEC?)???
Anyway, there is absolutely no question that DELL, Wal-Mart, Target, Amazon are great innovators.
When Amazon applied for the 1-click patent, I'm sure that they didn't want to prevent others from doing the same, what they wanted was some insurance that they would be prevented from innovating by someone who didn't care to innovate demanding payment for some equally stupid patent.
All of these companies depend on rapidly implementing business strategies and they have no time nor need for the slow and cumbersome patent system.
Based on the website and this statement "These engine are for entertainment purposes only. They are not certified to be airworthy or for use on aircraft." I'm guessing that this is an American venture.
Doesn't look like they've done any research at all. Not only are Europeans making real jet engines, they also have figured out how to certify them so that a hobbist can build and fly them with insurance coverage by joining GTBA.
I'm coming to the conclusion that with "technology" being defined as anything having to do with software and with the most advanced software projects being hacking viruses and worm, combined with mechanical engineering, machine tool technology, and manufacturing processes as being menial work best left to third world countries, that America is doomed to becoming a third world country.
"Competitive price and recognized brand are a proven combination for success."
Not true.
An economic profit is a profit that is more than the fair rate of return on investment, etc. A successful business or corporation will earn a business profit without any brand name recognition.
For example, you think that Compaq is a well known brand, but not when Compaq started.
Compaq successfully dominated the PC market without brand recognition against IBM which was a brand known to all.
It did so with a product and price that we far better than anything that IBM offered or was able to offer.
Once Compaq became an established brand and dominated the industry, sort of, Michael Dell successfully challanged Compaq and all the other established brands and now Dell is the most successful PC vendor.
Still the "brand" that holds the largest market share is "white box". It seemed to me that a great business opportunity would be to setup whitebox.com to sell generic PCs. There is a genericpc.com, as I recall.
The value of a well establish brand is always to charge a price higher than the cost to build and deliver the product or service. What companies fail to understand is that you can't stop reducing the costs just because you are successfully making a profit.
Many companies end up making no business profit, but believing they are making a profit because of the economic profit they gain from there brand. Many companies end with a negative business profit, concealed by an brand generated economic profit, and then when they take a hit to their brand name, they suddenly find themselves losing money. This happened to Compaq twice; the first time Compaq recovered, but the second time it found that it couldn't compete and joined forces with another company that has a negative business profit and a positive economic profit.
Dell is making both a business profit and an economic profit and is hammering HP. But there are at least two companies without the brand recognition of Dell that are able to beat or match Dell's costs and are willing to settle for less economic profit.
Obviously Clemens posted his letter on the net to obtain validation. However, I do not provide free validation. Until he pays me for validation, I will not validate his position.
As he says: "How much is that worth? Nothing? Think again."
Actually, I think I should get $1000.
Without his putting his money where is mouth is, I consider his ideas to be worthless.
Elementary economics says that economy of scale has to be appropriate to be seen as cheaper from the customer stand point.
For example, if bigger and/or central were always better, then there would be a single HUGE McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts per state. Of that's absurd. Basically, the cost reduction would be a nickel on the food and hours of travel time for most customers.
From a computes and storage capacity standpoint, PCs were more expensive, but from the standpoint of the PC user, being able to throw some data into a spreadsheet and get the answer after five hours of tedious work was more convenient amd cheaper than spending 20 hours in meetings over six months to get the IS department to write the program to give you the data in a year.
Just as it was cheaper to buy PCs, its cheaper to buy more "mainframes" and do the timesharing locally rather than farm it out. Because that's what everyone is trying to reinvent: timesharing where you "pay to use".
Why would you buy a computer that sits idle most of the time? Simple, its cheaper. Making a computer is so simple that thousands or millions of companies do it. So, the margins are razor thin. Timesharing requires so much integration that the number of competitors will be limited to a handful of companies, and they will require high overhead costs and profit margins. The costs and profits will exceed the cost of having lots of computers sit idle.
Its the same principle as cars. Why does almost everyone have a car when buses would do the job.
IBM, HP, Microsoft, Oracle, etc. are all trying to figure out how to grow their revenue while increasing profits.
Intel is trying to take over mainframe computers and turn mainframe computer sales into the same kind of market as PCs. What do you think the chances are of selling 50 million mainframes per year? Pretty low as long as AMD is around - AMD has demonstrated that they will settle for profit margins in the single digits while Intel is failing if its margins drop below 50%.
HP, Dell, and Gateway have figured out that the next big computer growth market is digital TVs, but none of these companies own anything more the brand, so they won't see much in the way of profits. And the companies that actually make the TVs have decided to develop their own brands. So,back to moving "up market".
The candidates for the "next big thing" aren't considered "technology". Non-fossil hydrocarbon energy production could grow in revenue by orders of magnitude for a decade with a few more advances in electronics and mechanical design. Cars could double in efficiency by switching from mechanical transmissions to computer controlled electric motors driven by high efficiency generators. Why aren't they considered "technology"? I think its because they require mechanical engineers and actual manufacturing. "Technology" has been redefined as that which requires only copying software to make money.
"Nope. Plastic blocks cannot cost much more than a few cents. It's simple injection molding, the same way they make CDs. Not much material in each block. The only reason lego charges such outrageous prices for them is because they can."
As others have noted, plastic injection molding is a difficult process to do well.
American business leaders don't appear to understand the close tie between all the stages of delivering a product, so step by step the manufacturing process has been transferred overseas, mostly to Asia.
Few plastic products are made in Asia from molds made or designed in the US because the companies that did that found it necessary to move the mold and design work to Asia to be close to the manufacturing. In the area of notebook and handheld computers, all the work on the cases is done in Asia because no one in the US knows how to do it.
While you can point to many low quality products from China, that was the situation 40 years ago for products from Japan, and 20 years ago for products from Korea and Taiwan, but today the majority of high volume precision parts and components come from those countries. It won't be long before China is beating them in price and matching them in quality.
While the article doesn't actually say that mindstorms are being killed off, it does seem like Lego isn't going to invest in a better followup product. But that's probably a lesson they learned from Americans: assume that fewer people will lead to higher profits and that will lead to increased sales.
Ya know, what is this X Windows thing? Is it like an old or discarded version of Windows, like "XYL" or "my X".
At least Lindows and X Windows are legitimate trademarks.
And yes, I've been around long enough to know that X Windows descends from W developed for a DEC prototype graphics system that Gordon Bell insisted get shipped in its very not ready for primetime state.
And I know that the Xerox Star is the REAL THING which Microsoft copied, along with everyone else with any sense. (If you disagree, I assume you have square wheels on your car???)
Microsoft has been buying companies and technologies, but those acquisitions haven't improved Microsoft's profits or moved Microsoft into new exponential growth markets. Only by tightening the noose on its customers has Microsoft sustained its profits.
Microsoft did enter the handheld market in a way that prevents a competitor, like Palm, from becoming a gorilla able to move up market and gain the clout needed to challange Microsoft. But on the other hand, Microsoft has entered the market at the high end and has shown no interest in driving its technology down the price curve so that it can dominate the handheld market. The reason is quite clear: it would lose its high profits on the high end as customers substituted the cheaper products for the existing high profit products.
Maybe Gates and Balmer own stock in Lindows.com and are cleverly giving it greater visibility by suing it. But I doubt this is the case.
If Bill Gates were starting out today, I don't have any doubt that he would figure out a way to make a lot of money from Linux, but a lot of money is relative.
He would make a lot of money compared to all the others who have tried, and failed, to make money.
He would make very little money compared to winning the lotto with Microsoft.
In other words, Bill Gates is one of the best business managers around, and replacing him at Microsoft would be as successful as replacing Steve Jobs at Apple.
The benefit for Gates would be that he could return to the helm of Microsoft five years later and double or triple the price of Microsoft stock, from $5 to $15.
The Amiga A1000/A500 developed a huge following, but unfortunately many developers dug into the internals of the coprocessors and exploited them producing really great games.
But a new, faster, more powerful system was needed to compete with other computers of the time, and the fateful decision to maintain compatibility was made. That meant being constrained by all the undocumented warts of the A500 chipsets in the designs of the new chips sets.
In hindsight its easy to see that the mistakes was to fail to cut to a completely new system architecture and forget binary compatibility. Apple made the switch from the Apple II to the Lisa and then Mac with a complete break. The Apple II lived on much longer than it would have if Apple hadn't done the disasterous Lisa.
What amazed me when I stumbled on the Amiga was how advanced the Amiga OS design was - it was better than most of the minicomputer and mainframes OSes and clearly the best on microcomputers.
Basically, the people who made the Amiga such a great machine, the game developers, and who supported it most enthusiastically, the game developers and gamers, killed off the Amiga.
Nuclear power plants are, on average, running at well over 90% of their rated capacity while gas fired plants are running universally at less than 50% and often at 30%. Coal plants generally run at 70-80%.
Basically, a nuclear power plant can't be used for peaking power and remain economically competitive because the fixed costs are significantly higher than the variable costs.
For gas plants, especially the tens of thousands of combined cycle plants installed in the past few years, the fixed costs are negligable while the variable costs are the dominate cost factor. These are used almost entirely for peaking.
There are a number of hidden costs with all power plants, but for nuclear and coal, the logistics pretty much mandate isolated and concentrated facilities. Seabrook is relatively isolated and concentrated, but the facility can't support the degree of concentration that would be required for nuclear to be the dominant source of power in the US. Currently there is a, what three mile, tunnel to bring in and discharge cooling water, and there is still questions as to whether the ocaen is warmed too much. Increase the power capacity at Seabrook by a factor of 5 and I'd guess that the plant would require 50 miles of tunnels beneath the ocean to disperse the heated water deep and far enough off shore to prevent a massive kill zone (caused by unnatural organism growth).
In France, the majority of the reactors were operated outside their designed operating limits because the cooling water intake was too hot and too limited. Of course, the same problem exists with coal plants which need to be large because of the need to handle large amounts of fuel. Gas power plants have less of an impact because they are generally widely distributed - they merely warm up cities and create fog and haze of a large metro area;-)
Solar, PV, and wind don't require cooling water in most cases. Solar: during the winter, keep the heat from flowing out of the building and during summer keep the heat from penetrating the building. PV: the energy absorbed from the radiation is reradiated when the electricity is used someplace close by. The heat from wind power use will create convention currents that will replenish the wind, just in a different place.
Not to lend support for building nuclear power plants, but facts matter.
"Recall that it was the fire, fueled by all that aviation kerosene, that brought down the WTC, not the physical impact."
The jet fuel only started the tons of paper burning, it was the burning paper that weakened the steel and brought down the twin towers. If computers had actually reduced the amount of paper as predicted, the twin towers would still be standing.
"He may be referring to hidden costs like having to learn the quirks of the way it works, i.e., the differences between it and MS Office."
In my experience it is MS Office that has the truely bizzaro "quirks". Such as when you try to change the style of a paragraph and the entire document is hosed. Everyone I've talked to about such problems agrees that Office is the king of unintended behavior.
"Also lurking nearby are giants like Microsoft, I.B.M. and Intel,.... American computer makers, adept at producing hardware on thin margins by building sophisticated global supply chains, could also develop competing products, turning television into just another function of the home computer."
"Microsoft can dominate in ways that Sony or Toshiba can't."
What American computer company can make today's PC? None! Today's biggest growth segment, notebooks, are all designed and manufactured outside the USA. All disk drives are designed and manufactured outside the USA. All flat panel displays are designed and manufactured outside the USA.
The only value add by American companies is market research leading to product requirements that are given to Asian companies so that the Asian companies can design and manufacture electronics with an American brand name.
Compaq and DELL products are as American as GE and RCA consumer products, products that have no relationship to any American company.
Microsoft has failed against Sony, and if it weren't for the dwindling $50B in cash that Microsoft has, Microsoft, the game box maker, would be less valuable than Pets.com
What's happening to Microsoft happened to the minicomputer companies and happened to the mainframe companies before them.
Who here has ever heard of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? The Dwarfs were General Electric, RCA, Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, Control Data and Honeywell.
Who remembers the Comdex when the buttons handed out included "Sew Long Singer" and "IBM means Cash Registers"?
How many minicomputer companies can you name?
Only one computer company has transcended the drive and vision of one man in the slightly more than half century of the computer industry.
While IBM was never considered to be a minicomputer company, IBM sold more minicomputers than even the most successful minicomputer company. IBM defined the personal computer: the IBM PC with "compatible" always present for the majority of the PC's existance.
The reason that IBM isn't considered to be the driving force in the computer industry is that IBM has not lead in the key aspects of innovation defined by Clayton Christensen:
- embracing an inferior product technology and betting the company on it
- settle for a lower profit margin than the competition
IBM has learned to adapt to the changing rules of the computer industry. IBM no longer insists on the 60% profit margins it commanded when mainframes were king, nor does IBM insist on the 30% margins when minicomputers were king.
But look at Microsoft and Intel. Both believe that they can maintain margins that are higher than the glory days of the early mainframe era.
At least Intel sees the need to diversify in some meaningful way and does see that it must accept different margins for different product lines. Still, even Intel refuses to invest in the true semiconductor growth markets because the margins are too low for Intel's liking.
Microsoft, on the other hand, refuses to accept that it has earned its huge profit margins only through chance and that the future requires they embrace markets where the profit margin is a small fraction.
What few remember is that Microsoft started out making very little profit on software at a time when many companies were seeing significant gains in software profits. Only by selling its software for a lower profit margin and hence lower price was IBM able to gain dominance in the market.
Today Microsoft is faced with the Innovator's Dilemma, lose control of its market or embrace significantly lower profit margins.
We do see that Microsoft is significantly cutting its profit margins, IN SOME MARKETS. Where governments have clearly indicated that they will not pay for more than the cost of distribution and support, Microsoft has met that price, but with many limitations and restrictions. Clearly Microsoft sees the threat of competitors willing to settle for low profit margins, but Microsoft has not, and can not, accept the need to drastically lower its profit margins.
Linux and open source developers are willing to settle for the "profit" of becoming an expert in the software they write, enhance, support, etc. which gives them better pay for their labor. Does the investment pay off for all devos? No, but no investment has an assured return on investment, but "no investment" always means "no return".
Microsoft is faced with millions of competitors who are willing to deliver software for far lower profit margins, profit margins approaching zero.
Microsoft could give its software away and make its money by supporting and tailoring and integrating it for customers for a profit. But the profit in such services is a small fraction of the profit Microsoft now earns. And not even Bill Gates would be able to convince the stockholders that giving away Windows and Office is the only path to the future - Bill Gates would be ousted in an instant by the stockholders if he made such a proposal.
Microsoft can never "go head to head with IBM" because Microsoft would be fighting for a declining market with the only company to have survived all the other changes in the computer market over the past half century.
Clayton Christensen was interested in technology innovation and adoption but was having a hard time figuring out how to study it. Then someone suggested that he study disk drives. He makes the case that disk drives are the fruit flies of technology.
In his book he examines why the drives smaller than 3.5" haven't revolutionized disk storage as 3.5", 5.25", 8", 12" did for previous generations.
HP developed a microdrive but the project/product failed because it was "too good" which meant it was too expensive.
The question for the Toshiba drive is whether it will enable new products which will find a new and exploding market.
Cell phones, PDAs, MP3 players are not likely to be that market.
Maybe 100 drive RAID arrays will be the market. (Think bare drives wave soldered to the board.) Then again, maybe not, because this idea was proposed in the mid-90s and went nowhere.
How about kids toys? A toy bear loaded with 1000 stories and rhymes, with the story selected based on randomness and keying off some crude voice recognition. "Tell me a story" starts it talking.
One advantage of the small drive is that it has far less mass and with less mass, less rigidity is required to shock proof the drive. Why can't ants be scaled up to man size? The greater mass of a man sized ant would require material strength beyond any natural or man made technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's problem is explained in Clayton Christensen's The Innovator's Dilemma with some possible ways out of the dilemma with last fall's The Innovator's Solution by Christensen and Raynor.
;-)
Microsoft's biggest problem is that it has paid attention to its customers for the past 20 years. This has propelled its products into solutions that are far too complex, too expensive, and way more than what the only new customers need.
They try to attack new customers but they keep dragging all the Windows baggage along, because _they_listen_to_their_customers_ but the people they need to pay attention to are not their customers.
Talk to a Windows customer and say "what do you want in a cell phone so can make money selling software for cell phones". It is no surprise that the answer will be "Windows".
But ask the cell phone developer and his answer is "easy to integrate, really cheap royalty, etc." Gee, why can't Microsoft win any cell phone design-ins
Microsoft tried to go up against Sony, an established player in the game box market with a windows platform. Talking with their customers, this had to be a winning solution. Hmmm, it wasn't a winner.... Why was that? Hmmm, it turns out that 99.999% of the people buying game boxes didn't care that it ran windows.
In fact, the biggest problem that Microsoft has is the people who want the xbox to run Linux. Hmmm, why don't they listen to those customers??? Has the day of losing billions to gain market share really gone?
I understand that the vector into my system was for yet another useless service that Microsoft built into Windows. What amazes me is that after applying a huge number of critical patches, manually turing off a bunch of service that are useless, after enabling the firewall, there are still useless services enabled that I don't know about.
And the rate of security patches for a release that is close to three years old is still high or increasing.
I really have to wonder if Microsoft is part of the al Quaeda network...
Detouring a bit on the sort point, about 20 years ago I joined an engineering group and hear of a new backup utility written by a high mucky mucky CS type software engineer. Then for the next five years I kept hearing about the problems with it and on occasion had to use it. It was developed and enhanced by a couple of CS grads for a couple of years and then serially maintained by a couple of other engineers. On going problem reports. Then one of them asked me about it because he was being pressured to really fix it. There was some problem related to the "sort stack".
Ok, "tell me what the problem is, show me the code", and 15 minutes later I'm realizing that I'm looking at a incorrectly coded quicksort with a stack of 200 elements. I found 5 coding errors as I recall, with the worst one going back to the original mucky mucky - I think he was a consulting engineer, a job title about two levels above me - was the stack size related problem.
I'm sure that you immediately recognized the sort code was developed by an idiot simply from the stack size. For other CS majors, that stack size is large enough to sort all the atoms in the solar system.
Anyway, today I picked up an article I started and put down a week or two ago in the CACM by Peter J. Denning in his "The Profession of IT" column titled "The Field of Programmers Myth". July 2004.
I don't completely agree with his prescription for the CS curriculum, but he is certainly is on point about CS NOT being about programming.
[[[ I am a bit intrigued about the field which integrates a physic, math, EE, computers and relies heavily on custom sorts. My first reaction was robotics, but that is because that's what I'm interested in and that is absurd since sorting implies a central control algorithm in non-real-time. So, I'm guessing particle physics of some sort with extensive post processing of data. It has to be commercial or well funded, so I'm guessing something along the lines of MRI, CAT, or similar processes.
I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have seen anything about these jobs because I was focusing on a quick return to what I had been doing in Southern NH and then turned my attention to figuring out how to do what I really want to do. And the last thing I wanted to do was drive RT3 toward Boston as it got ripped up.
What you are suggesting is the kind of interesting work that involved computers that I and a lot of my friends might be interested in, as long as it isn't related to blowing up the world or killing people. But unless I'm really getting a distorted view of the world, I can't imagine there being a market for the 60,000 (?? or some other absurdly large figure) CS grads that Gates and others say there are needed. ]]]
This weekend we've seen a new flurry of releases and discussion of links between Saddam and Osama et al. These links are said to prove that they were working together to terrorize the planet.
On the other hand, we have also seen a lot of statements that Moore's supposed connections between Bush and all sort of other things are not proof of any connection or cooperation.
Hmmm, Saddam and Osama and representative meet or exchange messages and that proves that they were working together.
Bush meets with and exchanges messages with Saudis and other parties but that is absolutely not proof their is any cooperation.
Cheney has links between Haliburton, et al, but that is absolutely not proof of any cooperation.
The Republicans, neocons, Fox, et al, can't have it both ways and meet the basic logic test.
In fact, if Clinton were in office and everything else were the same, the same people claiming no link between Bush and the Saudis and Cheney and Haliburton would be arguing that Clinton conspired with the Saudis on 911 and was personally profiting from the Haliburton contracts.
I have been using Opera for a couple of years.
After gaining a bit of comfort for Opera, I disabled Internet Exploder. I disabled all features, everyone, ActiveXploiter, Java, Javascript, etc., and then set the proxy for all protocols to 127.0.0.1 port 7777 which means it can't access anything.
I also do almost everything from an account (WinXP lite) without admin privs which means some apps don't work because they can't access the registry.
Yesterday while browsing the net, the system really slowed down and I found from a netstat that there were hundreds of connections to all sorts of IP addresses to Microsoft-DS (445). Although I had recently updated the patches, I discovered after fighting to kill off the processes generating these connections that there were seven more "critical updates". I'm normally looking at all sorts of websites doing research on a dozen different, but social policy related topics, so I had a lot of web pages active and I have no idea which of a dozen or more might have been the source of the infection.
Bottom line:
-Microsoft sucks
-I don't know how and don't have the info to figure it out, but even with IE disabled and using Opera, its still possible to get infected
-Microsoft sucks
I wouldn't have any problems with those questions.
My response would start by challenging the basis of your questions. For example, "why do you want a sort? sorting is evil and can almost always be avoided." And if you pressed on, I would then respond "Ok, where's your Knuth, I'll go through the TOC and give you my rundown on the changes in assessment each requires based on the changes in systems since the time he wrote the book."
My reaction the other questions are similar. My style of response has been drawn from and honed by my many coworkers, too many of whom are unemployed or employed in jobs they hate. Bascially, when asked to deliver a solution, we ask what the problem is.
If Microsoft were to open a research and design center in New England they would be flooded with great candidates, perhaps few that would really want to work for that company, but that need the job and would hope for the chance to work on something interesting.
Intel does have facilities in New England and I don't believe Intel has any trouble finding a long list of qualified candidates (compilers, chip design) for the rare position they open (currently there are 4 openings in NH and MA posted).
Who knows how many HP is going to be shedding in the next year.
I can't think of any job posting in the past three years, or anyone getting a job, that required any knowledge of code generation, sort algorithms, interrupt service routines, etc., but I know of lots of people without CS degrees that can deal with those issues because they have dealt with them.
On the other hand, I know experienced computer engineers that are studying in areas like genetics so they can figure out how to apply computer technology. Or studying how biologic systems, muscles, nervous systems, etc., work so robotic motion systems can be built. Computer systems are just components like nuts, bolts, springs, bearings, although computers are clearly more flexible.
I'm not arguing that there is no need for people with CS degrees, just that CS degrees are needed for about as many jobs are physics degrees are needed. There is a need for CS people who can explore certain complex problems, just as there is a need for physicists who can explore the problem of making room temperature super conductors. Ideally there would be one million people working on each problem, but the reality is that there are jobs for only a few each year.
In other words, why aren't people going around pitching students to go into physics, astrophysics, archeology, etc. I don't think anyone has made a case for there being a greater need for CS grads that any of the others. The demand for good computer people with good theoretical backgrounds over the past five decades is not sufficient to justify any real demand over the next decade.
"When, exactly, did all these nameless companies tell people that if they got CS degrees they would get jobs?"
I find it interesting that Bill Gates has been going around trying to talk up getting a CS degree, basically saying that the US faces a serious shortage of CS grads.
After 35 years in the computer field working on most parts of a computer system in one capacity or another, starting before there was agreement that there was enough "stuff" to justify a CS degree (instead of EE or math), I spent the last four years unemployed studying what is basically manufacturing technology becasue it has a better future.
The most directly computer related area that I think has real potential is robotics, but a CS degree is of limited value. What is more important is good solid mechanical, biology, or physics plus some EE. The computer stuff is useful but that's easy to pick up.
Other than the small number of computer scientists that the small number of companies who feel they can afford research department, I'm not sure who needs CS majors.
Its not like it was 20 years ago with a new language being developed and adopted by a large number of users every month. When was the last time you had a real debate about the pros and cons of a language?
The 39.37 conversion factor was based on comparing the measurements of two yard standards with meter standards. What they discovered was that the two meter standards disagreed. One worked out to slightly under 2.54 cm per inch and the other slightly more.
They eliminated the two yard standards and redefined the "English" system based on the metric system.
In other words, there is only one system of standards, the metric system.
The conventional units might be in meters, kilograms, feet, pounds, yards, etc., but for the industrial world, all are based on the metric system BY DEFINITION.
Adti has examined the pyramids in Egypt and has not found anyone in Egypt, or in fact anywhere in the world that can provide a clear explanation of how a society without power tools and machinery could build the pyramids.
Further study has shown an uncanny parallel between those pyramids in Egypt and various modern structures whose designs and construction techniques are clearly documented. These pyramids all required the used of computers and the best power tools and machinery modern society has to offer.
To quote adti's Brown, "Clearly these copies in Eygpt are illegal copies of these modern builder, obviously produced by time traveling extraterrestrials. While many people dismiss our conconclusions, we have talked extensively to many people who have been abducted by aliens or have seen so called UFOs."
Brown continues, "Yes, many have argued that the reports have more mundane explanations, but we will not limit our reports to those who insist that scientific methods provide no support for our conclusions. But to dismiss extraterrestrials would seriously limit the opportunity for profit to just the Earth."
...and vice versa.
HP in the computer system business has decided to just stick its name on the innovations of others.
DELL has innovated by delivering computers to customers in a more efficient fashion without "leaving money on the table".
The argument that HP uses for getting out of the hardware and software business is that they can't afford the investment to compete against massive market shares of Intel and Microsoft which allows them to innovate, possibly far less efficiently.
DELL just embraced the situation of having Intel and Microsoft do the work and focused on other areas where it could innovate. And what DELL discovered was that it could sell directly to millions of customers without the middlemen who take a cut of the profit and demand that you provide the capital investment to fund the inventory. And then it discovered that it could sell the same computers at different prices to different market segments, something that HP and CompUSA do very inefficiently (you know, all those mail-in rebates).
Innovation is about doing business better than it has been done previously.
Invention is about a new or improved method or machine for a specific purpose. Inventions were intended to be patented so that the inventor would have the opportunity to innovate in the face of an established innovator (someone who takes existing and new products and delivers them to market better and faster than anyone else). Inventions were limited to spur innovation - if you can't deliver the invention to market, then you lose the exclusive right and others are given the opportunity to innovate where you can't.
HP is the leader in printers because they constantly invent and deliver to market ink jet technology and then leverage their strength and experience in ink jet printers in innovatively delivering the inventions and innovations of its laser printer competitors.
HP using the motto "HP Invents" is to me rather ironic when you consider the number of "inventors" that have been put out of the invention business in the process of building HP.
Are today's computers improving at the same rate they were when HP's computer architectures, Apollo's architecture, DEC's Alpha architecture were all competing for a piece of the market?
Is the best invention and innovation in the CPU market coming from AMD, (build on inventions bought from DEC?)???
Anyway, there is absolutely no question that DELL, Wal-Mart, Target, Amazon are great innovators.
When Amazon applied for the 1-click patent, I'm sure that they didn't want to prevent others from doing the same, what they wanted was some insurance that they would be prevented from innovating by someone who didn't care to innovate demanding payment for some equally stupid patent.
All of these companies depend on rapidly implementing business strategies and they have no time nor need for the slow and cumbersome patent system.
Based on the website and this statement "These engine are for entertainment purposes only. They are not certified to be airworthy or for use on aircraft." I'm guessing that this is an American venture.
Doesn't look like they've done any research at all. Not only are Europeans making real jet engines, they also have figured out how to certify them so that a hobbist can build and fly them with insurance coverage by joining GTBA.
I'm coming to the conclusion that with "technology" being defined as anything having to do with software and with the most advanced software projects being hacking viruses and worm, combined with mechanical engineering, machine tool technology, and manufacturing processes as being menial work best left to third world countries, that America is doomed to becoming a third world country.
"Competitive price and recognized brand are a proven combination for success."
Not true.
An economic profit is a profit that is more than the fair rate of return on investment, etc. A successful business or corporation will earn a business profit without any brand name recognition.
For example, you think that Compaq is a well known brand, but not when Compaq started.
Compaq successfully dominated the PC market without brand recognition against IBM which was a brand known to all.
It did so with a product and price that we far better than anything that IBM offered or was able to offer.
Once Compaq became an established brand and dominated the industry, sort of, Michael Dell successfully challanged Compaq and all the other established brands and now Dell is the most successful PC vendor.
Still the "brand" that holds the largest market share is "white box". It seemed to me that a great business opportunity would be to setup whitebox.com to sell generic PCs. There is a genericpc.com, as I recall.
The value of a well establish brand is always to charge a price higher than the cost to build and deliver the product or service. What companies fail to understand is that you can't stop reducing the costs just because you are successfully making a profit.
Many companies end up making no business profit, but believing they are making a profit because of the economic profit they gain from there brand. Many companies end with a negative business profit, concealed by an brand generated economic profit, and then when they take a hit to their brand name, they suddenly find themselves losing money. This happened to Compaq twice; the first time Compaq recovered, but the second time it found that it couldn't compete and joined forces with another company that has a negative business profit and a positive economic profit.
Dell is making both a business profit and an economic profit and is hammering HP. But there are at least two companies without the brand recognition of Dell that are able to beat or match Dell's costs and are willing to settle for less economic profit.
Obviously Clemens posted his letter on the net to obtain validation. However, I do not provide free validation. Until he pays me for validation, I will not validate his position.
As he says:
"How much is that worth? Nothing? Think again."
Actually, I think I should get $1000.
Without his putting his money where is mouth is, I consider his ideas to be worthless.
Elementary economics says that economy of scale has to be appropriate to be seen as cheaper from the customer stand point.
For example, if bigger and/or central were always better, then there would be a single HUGE McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts per state. Of that's absurd. Basically, the cost reduction would be a nickel on the food and hours of travel time for most customers.
From a computes and storage capacity standpoint, PCs were more expensive, but from the standpoint of the PC user, being able to throw some data into a spreadsheet and get the answer after five hours of tedious work was more convenient amd cheaper than spending 20 hours in meetings over six months to get the IS department to write the program to give you the data in a year.
Just as it was cheaper to buy PCs, its cheaper to buy more "mainframes" and do the timesharing locally rather than farm it out. Because that's what everyone is trying to reinvent: timesharing where you "pay to use".
Why would you buy a computer that sits idle most of the time? Simple, its cheaper. Making a computer is so simple that thousands or millions of companies do it. So, the margins are razor thin. Timesharing requires so much integration that the number of competitors will be limited to a handful of companies, and they will require high overhead costs and profit margins. The costs and profits will exceed the cost of having lots of computers sit idle.
Its the same principle as cars. Why does almost everyone have a car when buses would do the job.
IBM, HP, Microsoft, Oracle, etc. are all trying to figure out how to grow their revenue while increasing profits.
Intel is trying to take over mainframe computers and turn mainframe computer sales into the same kind of market as PCs. What do you think the chances are of selling 50 million mainframes per year? Pretty low as long as AMD is around - AMD has demonstrated that they will settle for profit margins in the single digits while Intel is failing if its margins drop below 50%.
HP, Dell, and Gateway have figured out that the next big computer growth market is digital TVs, but none of these companies own anything more the brand, so they won't see much in the way of profits. And the companies that actually make the TVs have decided to develop their own brands. So,back to moving "up market".
The candidates for the "next big thing" aren't considered "technology". Non-fossil hydrocarbon energy production could grow in revenue by orders of magnitude for a decade with a few more advances in electronics and mechanical design. Cars could double in efficiency by switching from mechanical transmissions to computer controlled electric motors driven by high efficiency generators. Why aren't they considered "technology"? I think its because they require mechanical engineers and actual manufacturing. "Technology" has been redefined as that which requires only copying software to make money.
"Nope. Plastic blocks cannot cost much more than a few cents. It's simple injection molding, the same way they make CDs. Not much material in each block. The only reason lego charges such outrageous prices for them is because they can."
As others have noted, plastic injection molding is a difficult process to do well.
American business leaders don't appear to understand the close tie between all the stages of delivering a product, so step by step the manufacturing process has been transferred overseas, mostly to Asia.
Few plastic products are made in Asia from molds made or designed in the US because the companies that did that found it necessary to move the mold and design work to Asia to be close to the manufacturing. In the area of notebook and handheld computers, all the work on the cases is done in Asia because no one in the US knows how to do it.
While you can point to many low quality products from China, that was the situation 40 years ago for products from Japan, and 20 years ago for products from Korea and Taiwan, but today the majority of high volume precision parts and components come from those countries. It won't be long before China is beating them in price and matching them in quality.
While the article doesn't actually say that mindstorms are being killed off, it does seem like Lego isn't going to invest in a better followup product. But that's probably a lesson they learned from Americans: assume that fewer people will lead to higher profits and that will lead to increased sales.
Ya know, what is this X Windows thing? Is it like an old or discarded version of Windows, like "XYL" or "my X".
At least Lindows and X Windows are legitimate trademarks.
And yes, I've been around long enough to know that X Windows descends from W developed for a DEC prototype graphics system that Gordon Bell insisted get shipped in its very not ready for primetime state.
And I know that the Xerox Star is the REAL THING which Microsoft copied, along with everyone else with any sense. (If you disagree, I assume you have square wheels on your car???)
Microsoft has been buying companies and technologies, but those acquisitions haven't improved Microsoft's profits or moved Microsoft into new exponential growth markets. Only by tightening the noose on its customers has Microsoft sustained its profits.
Microsoft did enter the handheld market in a way that prevents a competitor, like Palm, from becoming a gorilla able to move up market and gain the clout needed to challange Microsoft. But on the other hand, Microsoft has entered the market at the high end and has shown no interest in driving its technology down the price curve so that it can dominate the handheld market. The reason is quite clear: it would lose its high profits on the high end as customers substituted the cheaper products for the existing high profit products.
Maybe Gates and Balmer own stock in Lindows.com and are cleverly giving it greater visibility by suing it. But I doubt this is the case.
If Bill Gates were starting out today, I don't have any doubt that he would figure out a way to make a lot of money from Linux, but a lot of money is relative.
He would make a lot of money compared to all the others who have tried, and failed, to make money.
He would make very little money compared to winning the lotto with Microsoft.
In other words, Bill Gates is one of the best business managers around, and replacing him at Microsoft would be as successful as replacing Steve Jobs at Apple.
The benefit for Gates would be that he could return to the helm of Microsoft five years later and double or triple the price of Microsoft stock, from $5 to $15.
The Amiga A1000/A500 developed a huge following, but unfortunately many developers dug into the internals of the coprocessors and exploited them producing really great games.
But a new, faster, more powerful system was needed to compete with other computers of the time, and the fateful decision to maintain compatibility was made. That meant being constrained by all the undocumented warts of the A500 chipsets in the designs of the new chips sets.
In hindsight its easy to see that the mistakes was to fail to cut to a completely new system architecture and forget binary compatibility. Apple made the switch from the Apple II to the Lisa and then Mac with a complete break. The Apple II lived on much longer than it would have if Apple hadn't done the disasterous Lisa.
What amazed me when I stumbled on the Amiga was how advanced the Amiga OS design was - it was better than most of the minicomputer and mainframes OSes and clearly the best on microcomputers.
Basically, the people who made the Amiga such a great machine, the game developers, and who supported it most enthusiastically, the game developers and gamers, killed off the Amiga.
The French nuclear plants operated outside their design limits for extended periods of time because the water they need was too limited and too hot.
Nuclear power plants are, on average, running at well over 90% of their rated capacity while gas fired plants are running universally at less than 50% and often at 30%. Coal plants generally run at 70-80%.
;-)
Basically, a nuclear power plant can't be used for peaking power and remain economically competitive because the fixed costs are significantly higher than the variable costs.
For gas plants, especially the tens of thousands of combined cycle plants installed in the past few years, the fixed costs are negligable while the variable costs are the dominate cost factor. These are used almost entirely for peaking.
There are a number of hidden costs with all power plants, but for nuclear and coal, the logistics pretty much mandate isolated and concentrated facilities. Seabrook is relatively isolated and concentrated, but the facility can't support the degree of concentration that would be required for nuclear to be the dominant source of power in the US. Currently there is a, what three mile, tunnel to bring in and discharge cooling water, and there is still questions as to whether the ocaen is warmed too much. Increase the power capacity at Seabrook by a factor of 5 and I'd guess that the plant would require 50 miles of tunnels beneath the ocean to disperse the heated water deep and far enough off shore to prevent a massive kill zone (caused by unnatural organism growth).
In France, the majority of the reactors were operated outside their designed operating limits because the cooling water intake was too hot and too limited. Of course, the same problem exists with coal plants which need to be large because of the need to handle large amounts of fuel. Gas power plants have less of an impact because they are generally widely distributed - they merely warm up cities and create fog and haze of a large metro area
Solar, PV, and wind don't require cooling water in most cases. Solar: during the winter, keep the heat from flowing out of the building and during summer keep the heat from penetrating the building. PV: the energy absorbed from the radiation is reradiated when the electricity is used someplace close by. The heat from wind power use will create convention currents that will replenish the wind, just in a different place.
Not to lend support for building nuclear power plants, but facts matter.
"Recall that it was the fire, fueled by all that aviation kerosene, that brought down the WTC, not the physical impact."
The jet fuel only started the tons of paper burning, it was the burning paper that weakened the steel and brought down the twin towers. If computers had actually reduced the amount of paper as predicted, the twin towers would still be standing.
"He may be referring to hidden costs like having to learn the quirks of the way it works, i.e., the differences between it and MS Office."
In my experience it is MS Office that has the truely bizzaro "quirks". Such as when you try to change the style of a paragraph and the entire document is hosed. Everyone I've talked to about such problems agrees that Office is the king of unintended behavior.
Open Office is a far better behaving program.
"Also lurking nearby are giants like Microsoft, I.B.M. and Intel, .... American computer makers, adept at producing hardware on thin margins by building sophisticated global supply chains, could also develop competing products, turning television into just another function of the home computer."
"Microsoft can dominate in ways that Sony or Toshiba can't."
What American computer company can make today's PC? None! Today's biggest growth segment, notebooks, are all designed and manufactured outside the USA. All disk drives are designed and manufactured outside the USA. All flat panel displays are designed and manufactured outside the USA.
The only value add by American companies is market research leading to product requirements that are given to Asian companies so that the Asian companies can design and manufacture electronics with an American brand name.
Compaq and DELL products are as American as GE and RCA consumer products, products that have no relationship to any American company.
Microsoft has failed against Sony, and if it weren't for the dwindling $50B in cash that Microsoft has, Microsoft, the game box maker, would be less valuable than Pets.com
What's happening to Microsoft happened to the minicomputer companies and happened to the mainframe companies before them.
Who here has ever heard of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? The Dwarfs were General Electric, RCA, Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, Control Data and Honeywell.
Who remembers the Comdex when the buttons handed out included "Sew Long Singer" and "IBM means Cash Registers"?
How many minicomputer companies can you name?
Only one computer company has transcended the drive and vision of one man in the slightly more than half century of the computer industry.
While IBM was never considered to be a minicomputer company, IBM sold more minicomputers than even the most successful minicomputer company. IBM defined the personal computer: the IBM PC with "compatible" always present for the majority of the PC's existance.
The reason that IBM isn't considered to be the driving force in the computer industry is that IBM has not lead in the key aspects of innovation defined by Clayton Christensen:
- embracing an inferior product technology and betting the company on it
- settle for a lower profit margin than the competition
IBM has learned to adapt to the changing rules of the computer industry. IBM no longer insists on the 60% profit margins it commanded when mainframes were king, nor does IBM insist on the 30% margins when minicomputers were king.
But look at Microsoft and Intel. Both believe that they can maintain margins that are higher than the glory days of the early mainframe era.
At least Intel sees the need to diversify in some meaningful way and does see that it must accept different margins for different product lines. Still, even Intel refuses to invest in the true semiconductor growth markets because the margins are too low for Intel's liking.
Microsoft, on the other hand, refuses to accept that it has earned its huge profit margins only through chance and that the future requires they embrace markets where the profit margin is a small fraction.
What few remember is that Microsoft started out making very little profit on software at a time when many companies were seeing significant gains in software profits. Only by selling its software for a lower profit margin and hence lower price was IBM able to gain dominance in the market.
Today Microsoft is faced with the Innovator's Dilemma, lose control of its market or embrace significantly lower profit margins.
We do see that Microsoft is significantly cutting its profit margins, IN SOME MARKETS. Where governments have clearly indicated that they will not pay for more than the cost of distribution and support, Microsoft has met that price, but with many limitations and restrictions. Clearly Microsoft sees the threat of competitors willing to settle for low profit margins, but Microsoft has not, and can not, accept the need to drastically lower its profit margins.
Linux and open source developers are willing to settle for the "profit" of becoming an expert in the software they write, enhance, support, etc. which gives them better pay for their labor. Does the investment pay off for all devos? No, but no investment has an assured return on investment, but "no investment" always means "no return".
Microsoft is faced with millions of competitors who are willing to deliver software for far lower profit margins, profit margins approaching zero.
Microsoft could give its software away and make its money by supporting and tailoring and integrating it for customers for a profit. But the profit in such services is a small fraction of the profit Microsoft now earns. And not even Bill Gates would be able to convince the stockholders that giving away Windows and Office is the only path to the future - Bill Gates would be ousted in an instant by the stockholders if he made such a proposal.
Microsoft can never "go head to head with IBM" because Microsoft would be fighting for a declining market with the only company to have survived all the other changes in the computer market over the past half century.
Clayton Christensen was interested in technology innovation and adoption but was having a hard time figuring out how to study it. Then someone suggested that he study disk drives. He makes the case that disk drives are the fruit flies of technology.
In his book he examines why the drives smaller than 3.5" haven't revolutionized disk storage as 3.5", 5.25", 8", 12" did for previous generations.
HP developed a microdrive but the project/product failed because it was "too good" which meant it was too expensive.
The question for the Toshiba drive is whether it will enable new products which will find a new and exploding market.
Cell phones, PDAs, MP3 players are not likely to be that market.
Maybe 100 drive RAID arrays will be the market. (Think bare drives wave soldered to the board.) Then again, maybe not, because this idea was proposed in the mid-90s and went nowhere.
How about kids toys? A toy bear loaded with 1000 stories and rhymes, with the story selected based on randomness and keying off some crude voice recognition. "Tell me a story" starts it talking.
One advantage of the small drive is that it has far less mass and with less mass, less rigidity is required to shock proof the drive. Why can't ants be scaled up to man size? The greater mass of a man sized ant would require material strength beyond any natural or man made technology.