On Jul 2, 10:46 am, "Dr. Seymour Butts" <seym...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:1809744.405Euja3pd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > Palm's Linux OS not surfacing until 2008?
>
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | ...BrightHand is now reporting that Palm CEO Ed Colligan recently
> > | announced on a conference call that "products based on the new
> > | Linux-based platform won't be available until some time next year."
> > `----
>
> >http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/02/palms-linux-os-not-surfacing-until...
>
> Nobody cares about Palm anymore. They are deader than a door nail. Research
> in Motion ate Palms lunch long ago. Palm is zombie... the walking dead.
Zombies are often the most dangerous. They have nothing to lose, they
are willing to take huge risks, and they are often likely to introduce
products that are really "out there".
Remember when Steve Jobs went back to Apple? The company was
desparate. They were losing market share, revenue was dropping, and
profits were getting thinner and thinner. Steve Jobs came back,
raised some cash with the iPod, then revamped the Mac with OS/X, the
most Artistic interface to Unix available in the market. They
expanded the business to media, and most recently to cell phones.
Remember when Lou Gerstner joined IBM? IBM had released MVS 4.0 and
nobody wanted it. They released OS/2 2.0 and it was not very good
(I'm being generous here). John Akers had preached "if we build it,
they will buy", IBM built, and nobody was buying. Lou redesigned the
marketing organization, and created a consulting organization - with
the primary goal of LISTENING to the customer, and making sure that
IBM delivered what THEY wanted. For many IBMers, it was too traumatic
to make the adjustment, but over time, even the Mainframe was
experiencing new life and even GROWTH.
Even Microsoft has a turnaround story. When the Mac came out,
Microsoft tried to create a cheap imitation. Windows 1.0, Windows/
286, and Windows/386 were so slow and unreliable that no one wanted
it. Microsoft took on the strategy of making sure that Windows 3.0
would run machines that previously only ran MS-DOS. It gave people a
chance to get a "taste". In addition, Microsoft supported Windows 3.0
by providing a toll-free number that users could call. Microsoft
tracked the most common problems, and built that back into the Windows
3.1 product. The result was that Windows 3.1 was computer software
that you could use without depending on a bulky user's manual. The
same approach with Word and Excel made it easier for people to use
those tools as well.
Microsoft even found a way to create a database that was easy enough
to use that users could create small and simple databases without
needing to understand normalization or performance issues of a DBA.
This "hand holding software" gave the advantage back to Microsoft over
Mac. People were willing to use Windows, even though it crashed
frequently, because it was cheap, and they didn't need to spend hours
trying to learn how to enter a formula in a spreadsheet, or how to
pick a sensible font.
Yes, this is correct, this is a Linux Advocate Penguinista praising
Microsoft,
for something they did right - - - 16 years ago.
The tech industry is very volitile. The company is as good as it's
ideas, and they have to be willing to focus on the needs of the
customer. Where companies get into trouble, is when they stop
listening, or when they promise big and don't execute.
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
|
|
