See if http://www.grandecom.com/ is available in your area. You won't be disappointed. If they aren't look for the 'alternative' cable offering, TW doesn't have a complete monopoly in all markets.
This is going under the assumption that a product may achieve perfection. When to release a product is something that every company, every industry, has to contend with. The phrase, "Release it late and bug free" doesn't exist for a vast majority of commercial products. Obviously, there are neo-flawless releases like a spatula that may not suffer from any design flaws, but those are the exception and not really the rule. I would say you can design for perfection but it isn't a reasonable goal.
I bet that if Microsoft addressed every little bug in Windows XP before release it *may* be released by now, perhaps not due to SP2 becoming so important. As a product matures, the market needs change, and your developers will code in circles trying to meet the demands of market predictions from pundits that seem right only 50% of the time. I'm all for having the consumers design your products by need, but there comes a point to where you need to put something out there and evolve it. I'd say this is true for products like operating systems to disruptive technologies to a automotive designs (I just had a great time with GMC's choice in parking brake designs).
I believe the customer's perception of value in their development costs on an embedded product as a capital cost of doing business; standard rules apply, like capital invested in a building - if your water fountain is broken, you expect it fixed (bugs and security); if you want new carpeting, you need to coordinate with the building owners to ensure it can be done (upgrading to new hardware).
I wouldn't say that embedded systems are out-of-the-box commoditized, and I agree with your point on CE and Linux brands speaking louder to the consumer than, say, QNX. Perhaps it isn't the technology but the market conditions are changing at the same time of increased demand; the decision makers aren't always the electrical/OS engineers anymore. I can imagine Microsoft's style of RAD expanding into this area and rolling out development power like commodities, and there will always be their competitor - Linux as a choice.
I still think that if Windriver dubbed their new OS "Moose Drool" then you'd see Green Hills' CEO issuing a press release stating that quadrupedal saliva will hurt the global economy.
R
Wait a minute here - Windriver is in the RED. Their stock is dropping like a ton of bricks and their 2004 sales growth is -18.1% and is shrinking their employee base. If you would equate Windriver's adoption of linux instead of their earnings as proof of their success, you will have to understand that I respectfully disagree.
Would it be probable that Windriver is embracing this technology (Linux) to gain market share and Green Hills is merely competiting with them (e.g., not a bunch of linux haters) to plant seeds of doubt with prospective Windriver customers? I understand that linux may be the victim of collateral damamge, but I fail to see Windriver going the way of market dominance (they already dominate quite a bit, just losing share) because of this choice and Green River on the fast track to Chapter 11. This may get Windriver a bit closer in the "Visionary" box in Gartner's magic quadrant, but it will be interesting to see if Linux will lower production/operating costs enough to bring profits out of the red.
R
Wait a minute, what do you mean failing company? Their projection for 2004 is almost $70M, if that is 1H04 annualized, then I'm fairly certain that's going to be accurate due to holiday sales in the channel and companies that renew their budgets at the end of the fiscal year. Average growth rate, keeping in mind they have been there for 20 years, is 30% - I don't know many technology companies that achieved that; not many at all. The only dip in growth was 2002, and that wasn't nearly as bad as most companies when the bubble burst (remember the "network appliance" frenzy?). 2003 net is $11.4M - that's profitable to me.
It is quite probable that there is a lot more money to be made in the market which could explain the increases in linux market share, but I don't think its driving this company into "failing" by any means - in fact, they look like a decent investment opportunity after looking at their financials. Of course, the company is private and the CEO owns 97%, but what can you do:)
Slashdot Mirror
See if http://www.grandecom.com/ is available in your area. You won't be disappointed. If they aren't look for the 'alternative' cable offering, TW doesn't have a complete monopoly in all markets.
This is going under the assumption that a product may achieve perfection. When to release a product is something that every company, every industry, has to contend with. The phrase, "Release it late and bug free" doesn't exist for a vast majority of commercial products. Obviously, there are neo-flawless releases like a spatula that may not suffer from any design flaws, but those are the exception and not really the rule. I would say you can design for perfection but it isn't a reasonable goal.
I bet that if Microsoft addressed every little bug in Windows XP before release it *may* be released by now, perhaps not due to SP2 becoming so important. As a product matures, the market needs change, and your developers will code in circles trying to meet the demands of market predictions from pundits that seem right only 50% of the time. I'm all for having the consumers design your products by need, but there comes a point to where you need to put something out there and evolve it. I'd say this is true for products like operating systems to disruptive technologies to a automotive designs (I just had a great time with GMC's choice in parking brake designs).
R
I believe the customer's perception of value in their development costs on an embedded product as a capital cost of doing business; standard rules apply, like capital invested in a building - if your water fountain is broken, you expect it fixed (bugs and security); if you want new carpeting, you need to coordinate with the building owners to ensure it can be done (upgrading to new hardware). I wouldn't say that embedded systems are out-of-the-box commoditized, and I agree with your point on CE and Linux brands speaking louder to the consumer than, say, QNX. Perhaps it isn't the technology but the market conditions are changing at the same time of increased demand; the decision makers aren't always the electrical/OS engineers anymore. I can imagine Microsoft's style of RAD expanding into this area and rolling out development power like commodities, and there will always be their competitor - Linux as a choice. I still think that if Windriver dubbed their new OS "Moose Drool" then you'd see Green Hills' CEO issuing a press release stating that quadrupedal saliva will hurt the global economy. R
Wait a minute here - Windriver is in the RED. Their stock is dropping like a ton of bricks and their 2004 sales growth is -18.1% and is shrinking their employee base. If you would equate Windriver's adoption of linux instead of their earnings as proof of their success, you will have to understand that I respectfully disagree. Would it be probable that Windriver is embracing this technology (Linux) to gain market share and Green Hills is merely competiting with them (e.g., not a bunch of linux haters) to plant seeds of doubt with prospective Windriver customers? I understand that linux may be the victim of collateral damamge, but I fail to see Windriver going the way of market dominance (they already dominate quite a bit, just losing share) because of this choice and Green River on the fast track to Chapter 11. This may get Windriver a bit closer in the "Visionary" box in Gartner's magic quadrant, but it will be interesting to see if Linux will lower production/operating costs enough to bring profits out of the red. R
Wait a minute, what do you mean failing company? Their projection for 2004 is almost $70M, if that is 1H04 annualized, then I'm fairly certain that's going to be accurate due to holiday sales in the channel and companies that renew their budgets at the end of the fiscal year. Average growth rate, keeping in mind they have been there for 20 years, is 30% - I don't know many technology companies that achieved that; not many at all. The only dip in growth was 2002, and that wasn't nearly as bad as most companies when the bubble burst (remember the "network appliance" frenzy?). 2003 net is $11.4M - that's profitable to me. It is quite probable that there is a lot more money to be made in the market which could explain the increases in linux market share, but I don't think its driving this company into "failing" by any means - in fact, they look like a decent investment opportunity after looking at their financials. Of course, the company is private and the CEO owns 97%, but what can you do :)