Kaiser Permanente is working with Veteran Affairs and DoD for their EHR exchange and below is a small portion of a list of EHR software producers and service providers:
Allscripts Waiting Room Solutions EaseMD Solutions McKesson Pure Safety Smooth Practice Solutions
IOS Health Systems Eclipsys Antek Healthware
SpectraSoft HealthPac Computer Systems EMR Experts Intivia Marshfield Clinic Bay View Soft ProtoMED Medical Management Clinix Medical Management Systems Scribe Healthcare Technologies LCD Solutions 6N Systems AbelMed Abraxas Medical Systems AcerMed Acrendo Software Addison Health Systems Allscripts American Medical Software Amstor Clinix Medical Information Systems
Whew... I'll leave it up to you to find the rest of the alphabetized list.
Mind saying who the other corporations doing what Google is that are so respectful?
What you actually think Google is the only data warehouse on this planet? There are plenty of HIPAA compliant medical transcription services that already handle patient records. You didn't realize hospital outsource transcription services? Not to mention, the insurance companies have a electronic clearing house too.
So how does the lack of me providing a list of competitors indemnify Google?
Or are you just content frothing about Obama and injustice?
What? I voted for him too, but probably won't make the same mistake twice.
Anyway, it's not mere frothing when Google's Eric Schmidt campaigned for Obama and was rewarded with a seat on Obama's "President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology". But don't let the facts get in your way...
And on what planet do you think Google can indemnify themselves from criminal liability?
From Google Health's terms of service:
4. Use of Your Information
If you create, transmit, or display health or other information while using Google Health, you may provide only information that you own or have the right to use. When you provide your information through Google Health, you give Google a license to use and distribute it in connection with Google Health and other Google services. However, Google may only use health information you provide as permitted by the Google Health Privacy Policy, your Sharing Authorization, and applicable law. Google is not a "covered entity" under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the regulations promulgated thereunder ("HIPAA"). As a result, HIPAA does not apply to the transmission of health information by Google to any third party.
Also:
6. Content and Services Accessed through Google Health
Google Health may include content that you find offensive, including health-related content that is sexually explicit.
Google may make third-party services available through Google Health. In order to use a specific service, you may choose to allow the third-party service provider to retrieve, provide, and/or modify health and other information in your account or otherwise share your information with the service provider. Once you enable a specific third-party service provider to access your account, the service provider may continue to access your account until you affirmatively disable access. Third-party service providers include both health care providers and other entities. It is your sole responsibility to review and approve each such third-party service before sharing your information through or otherwise accessing it.
Google may screen, modify, refuse, or remove certain content or third-party services, but is not responsible for and does not endorse any third-party content or services. Google further does not endorse any third-party service providers, other health care providers, products, services, opinions, or web sites accessed through Google Health.
USE OF THESE SERVICES AND RELIANCE ON THIS CONTENT IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. GOOGLE MAY NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO YOUR USE OF ANY THIRD-PARTY SERVICE OR CONTENT. Providers of these third-party services and/or content are Google's "Licensors"
And the final piece of evidence:
12. Limitation of Liability
NEITHER YOU NOR GOOGLE OR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR ANY DAMAGES OTHER THAN DIRECT DAMAGES, EVEN IF THE PARTY KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW THAT OTHER DAMAGES ARE POSSIBLE OR THAT DIRECT DAMAGES ARE NOT A SATISFACTORY REMEDY. THE LIMITATIONS IN THIS SECTION APPLY TO YOU ONLY TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE LAWFUL IN YOUR JURISDICTION.
NEITHER YOU NOR GOOGLE OR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR MORE THAN $1,000.
The limitations of liability in this Section do not apply to breaches of intellectual property provisions or indemnification obligations.
If Google isn't getting their money's worth from all that campaigning with Obama, why should I care?
There are other corporations that understand HIPAA, the value of privacy, and willing to enter an agreement that makes them risk liability and criminal penalties for accidental disclosure.
I can't understand the irrational willingness to give all data to Google. Of course, this is Slashdot so a lot of comments are from people predisposed to like and trust Google. This is despite comments from Google executives that say otherwise. I guess Google's position would be that if you have something embarrassingly wrong with you then don't go to the doctor...
the fastest service I can get is 50/5 for $99/month. It's nice and I do have it, but it's too expensive for the price compared to what's available in other countries.
Do you really need 50/5? You can get a slower plan that is still well within your data budget for less. Also $99/month doesn't seem unreasonable to me when compared to what I had to pay for business data services.
What other countries? I think people throw that around without actually researching it. I miss the internet connections that I have access to in the US. I can go to pretty much ANY city in the US and get free WiFi to check my email and such.
In Australia, I'm having to either pay between $4 to $6 and hour for WiFi, or wait until I get to work and use the Telsa connection that is much slower than I have at home and way more expensive.
If you want broadband data service, you need to move closer to a metropolitan area. Why should the government be in the business of subsidizing people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere, yet feel entitled to enjoy the same benefits of those who live in urban areas?
Diamond Systems aim mostly at the embedded market. So I don't really see this coming to the consumer side.
I use Diamond System products, and they always incorporate some sort of GPIO and ADC on their single board computers. This looks like a way for them introduce more expansion options that will be initially tied to their brand.
Almost all the industrial/scientific computing suppliers are pushing their own standard form of an expansion bus. CompactPCI and PC104+ are getting pretty old and some vendors are trying to be the first to come up with a viable replacement in order to gain an advantage and the ability to collect royalties from their competitors. I'm waiting to see what happens with StackableUSB...
I have to pick you up on one point there. Linux wasn't created to "stop Microsoft". Sure, people may use it because they dont like Microsoft, but thats nothing to do with the creator of linux, and therefore irrelevant to your argument. Linus created it as a personal project and for reasons that didn't even involve Microsoft.
I whole heartedly agree. I don't make drivers for my employer nor do I advocate the use of linux at work in order to "stop Microsoft" either.
However, the mantra of the more vocal linux advocates including the ones on Slashdot in years past have been to "stop Microsoft". While the kernel creator may have created it to learn operating systems and have a more affordable Unix derivative to experiment with, that doesn't mean that some distribution creators (particularly those who champion the "GNU/Linux" naming) don't have an agenda to generally make all software free and specifically "stop Microsoft".
"capitalism" only exists with the rule of law. You can either have anarchy where you have genuine robber barons (as opposed to the metaphorical kind) or you can have a nice orderly society with laws and rules and courts that will enforce your contracts. You really should not expect to get all of the benefits of civilized society without any expectation to act with consideration for others.
You are correct, and I was to general in my post.
I'm not talking about enforcing contracts.
"Capitalism" or probably more aptly "Free Market" cease to exist when a court can force company to enter into an agreement.
Quiet! Or you'll spill the beans on how the DOJ changed course and decided to go after Microsoft under the orders of the new Clinton administration that needed to appease the California software industry in order to guarantee enough electoral votes for re-election.
Next thing you know you'll bring up the fact that the Bush administration considered killing the case political suicide because it too needed the electoral votes for re-election, but instead decided to accept a very favorable (for Microsoft) settlement therefore ending the affair without sacrificing votes from California and Washington.
How are we suppose to keep the charade of an independent court system, when you point out that the plaintiffs and judges are political appointments?
I think it's more like the DOJ and EU asking Microsoft why they should be allow to merge with Yahoo and Microsoft answering that the merger would not constitute a monopoly since Google has an overwhelming share of the market.
1) Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice (EG, Verizon & Blackberry ordeal, many others.)
Google pays Mozilla and Canonical for making Google their default search engine choice.
2) Created expressly to "Stop Google", rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose. If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at, then I would consider it useful.
Hmm. Why was it okay to tolerate the poor desktop experience of past Linux distributions to "stop Microsoft" and yet it's not okay to make a search engine to "stop Google"? Competition is always good for the consumer.
3) Stinks heavily of yet another embrace and extend tactic, "now with 100% More FUD!"
Now you're being irrational. There is no standard API for web searches to embrace and extend.
As such, I refuse to use Bing, and I would think many other people would get tired of being bombarded with BING! every time they look for something on a M$ partnered site.
I see Google on almost every website I visit. Google is also the default search engine on both my Safari and Firefox browsers.
MS had partnered with the realestate brokerage to forbid closeup viewing of the property with highres sat images from Bing's mapping feature, without first greasing the pockets of the Realtor. I have experienced other forms of "Evil" from MS Bing, and am now firmly against ever supporting it.
Offering value added services is not evil. There is nothing wrong with charging for highres sat images (hence the reason Google's free sat images isn't much better). The realtor probably paid for the service with the intention of offering it to its paid customers. Seems reasonable to me, and it doesn't prevent anyone else from offering highres sat images.
I have experienced other forms of "Evil" from MS Bing, and am now firmly against ever supporting it.
I'm sure the fact that Google signs your paycheck, may make using Bing hard to use too...
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft. I also don't believe our interests are being served by giving Google a free pass either.
I had a similar experience when I was an active amateur radio operator. I constructed a 40 foot rohn tower in my backyard to support my 10 - 40 meter yagi antenna. My lawyer friend (who happens to be a ham too) recommended that I let the antenna sit on the tower for a couple of weeks before actually installing the cables.
The home owners' association filed a grievance against me complaining about TV interference and "head aches" (more like eye-sore). Anyway, I didn't have to use the boiler plate FCC part 15 defense. Instead, I let their representative with my lawyer inspect the tower. After they realized that the tower was not even functional, they ended their complaint. My lawyer reminded them that he will use the visit and the followup "inspection report" as evidence that the complaint is aesthetic related (which wasn't cover by my deed's covenant) and not safety related. I never had any more trouble from them, and operated the station until I moved into my new house.
Actually this IRS regulation has it good and bad points.
For a while there in the 80s, corporations were refusing to hire computer programmers as employees. They did this to get out of paying SSI and their portion of the employee taxes. It was pretty much ridiculous, and despite being "contract labor" with wages that weren't really that good considering the SE tax that was due, these corporations insisted on dictating working hours and other rules associated with being an employee.
Huh? MS actively tried to crush the competition using illegal means.
The plaintiffs in the case successfully argued that:
a) Microsoft held a large enough stake in the PC market to be considered a monopoly.
b) Microsoft leveraged their monopoly to cause harm to their competitors.
Careful the same can be said of Google and the online market.
Name the default search engine in almost every browser except maybe one....
A 16 year old who can't handle being in college is either retarded or was reared wrongly.
Sure because he should be man enough to be the youngest person there. Not being able to find a date, or being invited to the parties.
He can suck it up and persevere by going to class, study, and then go home for the night. While his high school friends go to the prom, ask out the new girl in class, and party with their social group. Your high school age buddies will invite you to their parties but you'll be the outsider and have nothing really in common to talk about. In about 2 years, you'll eventually find someone to date at college and get invited to parties, and etc.
Of course times have changed, but I do not have fond memories of being 16 and in college. After all your college experience is a package deal not just classes for high school graduates.
It doesn't matter because I thought the article was talking about "community college" which is a glorified high school...
Re:might turn out to have been smart
on
Two Scoops of Buzz
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
While a lot of people are using this fiasco as evidence that Google's a bunch of techies who don't understand users, I can't really believe that it was totally unforseen and accidental.
At best, I view this as more evidence that Google isn't mature enough to be the 800 Lb gorilla of the Internet.
At worse, I see this as evidence that Google can be just as much as a monopoly threat as Microsoft was on the PC.
I was a little unfair to Robert Nardelli. He did double Home Depot's earnings when Home Depot was expanding into new regions. However, he killed the corporate culture that existed under the former bosses and once Home Depot's expansion hit critical mass the revenue growth plateaued.
No I don't think Steve's control was a bad thing. I think he's entitled to it. Jobs and Wozniak created Apple and they can operate it any way they see fit (well as long as they made money for their VC investor Markkula who retained 1/3 share). Of course, when you go public the majority share holders always think differently but that's another topic all together.
Sculley's skill, which he learned at Pepsi, was to market everything Apple had in its arsenal and see what sells. He had no "vision" (long term plan for the Mac). Apple was selling a bunch of different models of the Mac (and Apple even got into markets it shouldn't have. Most of Apple's flops were during Sculley's reign.
Sculley was pushing Apple products (like they were soda's), and Jobs sells an Apple platform (The user friendly computer) and an Apple brand.
Jobs did the 180 for Apple (and it didn't happen overnight) by pruning Apple down to its original core market and bringing Apple back into the high-end (or boutique) computer market.
I also think that Jobs being a control-freak is what keeps Apple from being a generic commodity computer. I see that quality as leadership and the insistence to make a product that he wants to associate with Apple. Those that disagree with him see that quality as petty or over demanding. But hey if it was so bad they can work at Dell...
But Jobs' story isn't unique, people just think so because the computer press worship him. Most public companies go astray when the founders leave the company. In Apple's case it's said that Markkula picked Sculley over Jobs to replace him at the helm of Apple, because of he thought Sculley would be able to make more money for the shareholders. This turned Apple into just another computer company making a buck in the 80's and remember in the 80's there used to be a lot of them.
An example outside of the computer market is Home Depot. Home depot lost its way (hopefully temporarily) when Bernie Marcus and then Athur Blank left Home Depot. Arthur was replaced by an outsider named Robert Nardelli who almost ran Home Depot into the ground. The board finally replaced him with Frank Blake (who I like). Robert Nardelli moved on the Chrysler and well....
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. I'll help the lazy troll...
Kaiser Permanente is working with Veteran Affairs and DoD for their EHR exchange and below is a small portion of a list of EHR software producers and service providers:
Allscripts
Waiting Room Solutions
EaseMD Solutions
McKesson
Pure Safety
Smooth Practice Solutions
IOS Health Systems
Eclipsys
Antek Healthware
SpectraSoft
HealthPac Computer Systems
EMR Experts
Intivia
Marshfield Clinic
Bay View Soft
ProtoMED Medical Management
Clinix Medical Management Systems
Scribe Healthcare Technologies
LCD Solutions
6N Systems
AbelMed
Abraxas Medical Systems
AcerMed
Acrendo Software
Addison Health Systems
Allscripts
American Medical Software
Amstor
Clinix Medical Information Systems
Whew... I'll leave it up to you to find the rest of the alphabetized list.
What you actually think Google is the only data warehouse on this planet? There are plenty of HIPAA compliant medical transcription services that already handle patient records. You didn't realize hospital outsource transcription services? Not to mention, the insurance companies have a electronic clearing house too.
So how does the lack of me providing a list of competitors indemnify Google?
What? I voted for him too, but probably won't make the same mistake twice.
Anyway, it's not mere frothing when Google's Eric Schmidt campaigned for Obama and was rewarded with a seat on Obama's "President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology". But don't let the facts get in your way...
From Google Health's terms of service:
4. Use of Your Information
If you create, transmit, or display health or other information while using Google Health, you may provide only information that you own or have the right to use. When you provide your information through Google Health, you give Google a license to use and distribute it in connection with Google Health and other Google services. However, Google may only use health information you provide as permitted by the Google Health Privacy Policy, your Sharing Authorization, and applicable law. Google is not a "covered entity" under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the regulations promulgated thereunder ("HIPAA"). As a result, HIPAA does not apply to the transmission of health information by Google to any third party.
Also:
6. Content and Services Accessed through Google Health
Google Health may include content that you find offensive, including health-related content that is sexually explicit.
Google may make third-party services available through Google Health. In order to use a specific service, you may choose to allow the third-party service provider to retrieve, provide, and/or modify health and other information in your account or otherwise share your information with the service provider. Once you enable a specific third-party service provider to access your account, the service provider may continue to access your account until you affirmatively disable access. Third-party service providers include both health care providers and other entities. It is your sole responsibility to review and approve each such third-party service before sharing your information through or otherwise accessing it.
Google may screen, modify, refuse, or remove certain content or third-party services, but is not responsible for and does not endorse any third-party content or services. Google further does not endorse any third-party service providers, other health care providers, products, services, opinions, or web sites accessed through Google Health.
USE OF THESE SERVICES AND RELIANCE ON THIS CONTENT IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. GOOGLE MAY NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO YOUR USE OF ANY THIRD-PARTY SERVICE OR CONTENT. Providers of these third-party services and/or content are Google's "Licensors"
And the final piece of evidence:
12. Limitation of Liability
NEITHER YOU NOR GOOGLE OR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR ANY DAMAGES OTHER THAN DIRECT DAMAGES, EVEN IF THE PARTY KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW THAT OTHER DAMAGES ARE POSSIBLE OR THAT DIRECT DAMAGES ARE NOT A SATISFACTORY REMEDY. THE LIMITATIONS IN THIS SECTION APPLY TO YOU ONLY TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE LAWFUL IN YOUR JURISDICTION.
NEITHER YOU NOR GOOGLE OR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR MORE THAN $1,000.
The limitations of liability in this Section do not apply to breaches of intellectual property provisions or indemnification obligations.
If Google isn't getting their money's worth from all that campaigning with Obama, why should I care?
There are other corporations that understand HIPAA, the value of privacy, and willing to enter an agreement that makes them risk liability and criminal penalties for accidental disclosure.
I can't understand the irrational willingness to give all data to Google. Of course, this is Slashdot so a lot of comments are from people predisposed to like and trust Google. This is despite comments from Google executives that say otherwise. I guess Google's position would be that if you have something embarrassingly wrong with you then don't go to the doctor...
Do you really need 50/5? You can get a slower plan that is still well within your data budget for less. Also $99/month doesn't seem unreasonable to me when compared to what I had to pay for business data services.
What other countries? I think people throw that around without actually researching it. I miss the internet connections that I have access to in the US. I can go to pretty much ANY city in the US and get free WiFi to check my email and such.
In Australia, I'm having to either pay between $4 to $6 and hour for WiFi, or wait until I get to work and use the Telsa connection that is much slower than I have at home and way more expensive.
If you want broadband data service, you need to move closer to a metropolitan area. Why should the government be in the business of subsidizing people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere, yet feel entitled to enjoy the same benefits of those who live in urban areas?
This is an example of why our debt is so high.
Diamond Systems aim mostly at the embedded market. So I don't really see this coming to the consumer side.
I use Diamond System products, and they always incorporate some sort of GPIO and ADC on their single board computers. This looks like a way for them introduce more expansion options that will be initially tied to their brand.
Almost all the industrial/scientific computing suppliers are pushing their own standard form of an expansion bus. CompactPCI and PC104+ are getting pretty old and some vendors are trying to be the first to come up with a viable replacement in order to gain an advantage and the ability to collect royalties from their competitors. I'm waiting to see what happens with StackableUSB...
Well it seems Canonical follows the money.
I've seen reports that Canonical has just recently signed a deal with Yahoo!. Which surprised me since they had signed a deal with Google earlier.
Maybe Google's Chrome OS was causing some tension between the two? Or Yahoo (w/Microsoft's money) made a better deal?
I whole heartedly agree. I don't make drivers for my employer nor do I advocate the use of linux at work in order to "stop Microsoft" either.
However, the mantra of the more vocal linux advocates including the ones on Slashdot in years past have been to "stop Microsoft". While the kernel creator may have created it to learn operating systems and have a more affordable Unix derivative to experiment with, that doesn't mean that some distribution creators (particularly those who champion the "GNU/Linux" naming) don't have an agenda to generally make all software free and specifically "stop Microsoft".
Sorry I hit submit instead of continue editing:
..."Capitalism" or probably more aptly "Free Market" cease to exist when a court can force company to enter into an agreement.
Court creating a monopoly from a business method or algorithm is just as bad.
It's a double edged sword.
You are correct, and I was to general in my post.
I'm not talking about enforcing contracts.
"Capitalism" or probably more aptly "Free Market" cease to exist when a court can force company to enter into an agreement.
Quiet! Or you'll spill the beans on how the DOJ changed course and decided to go after Microsoft under the orders of the new Clinton administration that needed to appease the California software industry in order to guarantee enough electoral votes for re-election.
Next thing you know you'll bring up the fact that the Bush administration considered killing the case political suicide because it too needed the electoral votes for re-election, but instead decided to accept a very favorable (for Microsoft) settlement therefore ending the affair without sacrificing votes from California and Washington.
How are we suppose to keep the charade of an independent court system, when you point out that the plaintiffs and judges are political appointments?
Loose lips sinks ships ;)
I think it's more like the DOJ and EU asking Microsoft why they should be allow to merge with Yahoo and Microsoft answering that the merger would not constitute a monopoly since Google has an overwhelming share of the market.
Don't let reasoning get in the way of a good Microsoft bashing.
I think we are witnessing the age when geeks finally comprehend that all corporations strive to create a monopoly.
Well this would not be fair to Google which spent money acquiring all that data.
Capitalism stopped being an issue once the DOJ and EU became involved.
Court mandated "Capitalism" is still not capitalism...
Wow what a flame. Let's look at your points:
Google pays Mozilla and Canonical for making Google their default search engine choice.
Hmm. Why was it okay to tolerate the poor desktop experience of past Linux distributions to "stop Microsoft" and yet it's not okay to make a search engine to "stop Google"? Competition is always good for the consumer.
Now you're being irrational. There is no standard API for web searches to embrace and extend.
I see Google on almost every website I visit. Google is also the default search engine on both my Safari and Firefox browsers.
Offering value added services is not evil. There is nothing wrong with charging for highres sat images (hence the reason Google's free sat images isn't much better). The realtor probably paid for the service with the intention of offering it to its paid customers. Seems reasonable to me, and it doesn't prevent anyone else from offering highres sat images.
I'm sure the fact that Google signs your paycheck, may make using Bing hard to use too...
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft. I also don't believe our interests are being served by giving Google a free pass either.
I had a similar experience when I was an active amateur radio operator. I constructed a 40 foot rohn tower in my backyard to support my 10 - 40 meter yagi antenna. My lawyer friend (who happens to be a ham too) recommended that I let the antenna sit on the tower for a couple of weeks before actually installing the cables.
The home owners' association filed a grievance against me complaining about TV interference and "head aches" (more like eye-sore). Anyway, I didn't have to use the boiler plate FCC part 15 defense. Instead, I let their representative with my lawyer inspect the tower. After they realized that the tower was not even functional, they ended their complaint. My lawyer reminded them that he will use the visit and the followup "inspection report" as evidence that the complaint is aesthetic related (which wasn't cover by my deed's covenant) and not safety related. I never had any more trouble from them, and operated the station until I moved into my new house.
Actually this IRS regulation has it good and bad points.
For a while there in the 80s, corporations were refusing to hire computer programmers as employees. They did this to get out of paying SSI and their portion of the employee taxes. It was pretty much ridiculous, and despite being "contract labor" with wages that weren't really that good considering the SE tax that was due, these corporations insisted on dictating working hours and other rules associated with being an employee.
This law stop that stupidity.
Walmart wouldn't take over what it considers a free employee benefit.
It's really not that expensive to become an LLC or Corporation.
In fact considering the litigious society of today, it may be a good idea.
The plaintiffs in the case successfully argued that:
a) Microsoft held a large enough stake in the PC market to be considered a monopoly.
b) Microsoft leveraged their monopoly to cause harm to their competitors.
Careful the same can be said of Google and the online market.
Name the default search engine in almost every browser except maybe one....
Sure because he should be man enough to be the youngest person there. Not being able to find a date, or being invited to the parties.
He can suck it up and persevere by going to class, study, and then go home for the night. While his high school friends go to the prom, ask out the new girl in class, and party with their social group. Your high school age buddies will invite you to their parties but you'll be the outsider and have nothing really in common to talk about. In about 2 years, you'll eventually find someone to date at college and get invited to parties, and etc.
Of course times have changed, but I do not have fond memories of being 16 and in college. After all your college experience is a package deal not just classes for high school graduates.
It doesn't matter because I thought the article was talking about "community college" which is a glorified high school...
At best, I view this as more evidence that Google isn't mature enough to be the 800 Lb gorilla of the Internet.
At worse, I see this as evidence that Google can be just as much as a monopoly threat as Microsoft was on the PC.
I was a little unfair to Robert Nardelli. He did double Home Depot's earnings when Home Depot was expanding into new regions. However, he killed the corporate culture that existed under the former bosses and once Home Depot's expansion hit critical mass the revenue growth plateaued.
No I don't think Steve's control was a bad thing. I think he's entitled to it. Jobs and Wozniak created Apple and they can operate it any way they see fit (well as long as they made money for their VC investor Markkula who retained 1/3 share). Of course, when you go public the majority share holders always think differently but that's another topic all together.
Sculley's skill, which he learned at Pepsi, was to market everything Apple had in its arsenal and see what sells. He had no "vision" (long term plan for the Mac). Apple was selling a bunch of different models of the Mac (and Apple even got into markets it shouldn't have. Most of Apple's flops were during Sculley's reign.
Sculley was pushing Apple products (like they were soda's), and Jobs sells an Apple platform (The user friendly computer) and an Apple brand.
Jobs did the 180 for Apple (and it didn't happen overnight) by pruning Apple down to its original core market and bringing Apple back into the high-end (or boutique) computer market.
I also think that Jobs being a control-freak is what keeps Apple from being a generic commodity computer. I see that quality as leadership and the insistence to make a product that he wants to associate with Apple. Those that disagree with him see that quality as petty or over demanding. But hey if it was so bad they can work at Dell...
But Jobs' story isn't unique, people just think so because the computer press worship him. Most public companies go astray when the founders leave the company. In Apple's case it's said that Markkula picked Sculley over Jobs to replace him at the helm of Apple, because of he thought Sculley would be able to make more money for the shareholders. This turned Apple into just another computer company making a buck in the 80's and remember in the 80's there used to be a lot of them.
An example outside of the computer market is Home Depot. Home depot lost its way (hopefully temporarily) when Bernie Marcus and then Athur Blank left Home Depot. Arthur was replaced by an outsider named Robert Nardelli who almost ran Home Depot into the ground. The board finally replaced him with Frank Blake (who I like). Robert Nardelli moved on the Chrysler and well....