Posts by JohnCr

Makers slam Qualcomm for tightening the clamps on Arduino

History Repeats Its Self

Read my comments in the last Arduino/Qualcomm story. Read the stories of the VMware/Qualcomm mess. Qualcomm has become a technology parasite. They acquire companies, change contract terms, increase pricing, and alienate the companies customers.

Soon Arduino will be dead. Qualcomm will kill what made it important and great.

It is time to move on. It is time to leave Arduino. I STRONGLY recommend all Arduino supporters and develpers download all their contributions to date and secure their Intellectual Property rights over them. Repost all your work to another platform that will respect the open source and maker community. Stop supporting, stop developing, and stop using Arduino technology as soon as you can. Move to another platform ASAP. If you have a successful business based on Arduino, your good days are numbered. As Qualcomm precedes with doing to Arduino as they did to VMware your ability to conduct business will be seriously impacted. Your customers will be hit with new fees and licensing terms.

Qualcomm's only interest in Arduino is to bleed its customers. If you look at their recent history this should be abundantly obvious. There are alternatives. It is time to move on.

Arduino has a new job selling chips for its new owner. Let's not pretend otherwise

Tragedy of Epic Proportions!

I am an IT expert and Engineer who has been HAPPILY RETIRED for about 5 years. The number one topic of my colleagues these days is the carnage done to VMware by Broadcom. I am very happy to think to myself "no longer my problem!" Broadcom's actions are probably the most disruptive event in the IT world in 25 years.

The low numbers of students going into the sciences and engineering is a big problem. In the US it is a huge one. There are very few firms who make STEM education products. Arduino is one of the important ones. The hobbiest and education sector is probably a small part of Arduino's business. I can see Broadcom killing it. The impact of doing so would be felt for a generation.

Ten years ago Microsoft bought Nokia's phone unit – then killed it as a tax write-off

A tale of two Microsofts

For the first decade or two of its existence Microsoft was notorious for its "borrowing" ideas and products from the competition. They'd reverse engineer products, buy firms, do interesting things to put other firms out of business. The anti-trust case only skimmed the surface of Microsoft's mischief. Once Microsoft became THE dominate force in the industry they adopted an NIH (not invented here) mentality. If Microsoft didn't think of it, it couldn't be important. Mobile phones and devices are an excellent example of this. Just as the GUI transformed personal computing, the iPhone transformed the mobile industry. Anyone who took a serious look at the offerings of the day from Nokia, Sanyo, Samsung, and Apple would quickly realize this. Microsoft failed to see a watershed event in technology and chose to ignore it. Worse, they discouraged everyone working at Microsoft from getting an iPhone.

In 2015 while traveling in Europe I went to get an in-country cellular service for our phones. My USA carrier didn't properly unlock my phone and I ended up getting a cheap "burner" phone for our trip. For €79 I could get either an Android or Windows phone. I asked for the Android model. The phone shop then offered the Windows phone for €35, then free. I still got the Android model. We activated the phone. I logged into my Google account and all my contact and trip information downloaded flawlessly. We were ready to go. The store was impressed and acknowledged this wouldn't have worked on the Windows phone. They offered me a Windows phone, just to play with. I declined. They smiled and said 'we understand. we can't give these phones away.' This little (true) story speaks volumes about Microsoft. The poor quality of their phone OS was obvious, even to the casual bystander. How did things get so bad at Microsoft?

Now let's consider an interesting hypothetical... What if Microsoft had gone to Google and licensed Android? Can you imagine the quality of the integration between Android mobile devices and Windows personal computing that could have been? It would have secured Microsoft's place in desktop computing for decades to come. We could have had a high quality, fully integrated Android VM as part of the Windows OS. Nokia engineering with an Android OS and with Microsoft's full support would have resulted in a truly great product. Fortunately Samsung had a better vision and better management -- and they seized some of the opportunity.

It is important to study the competition, observe market trends, and talk to one's customers. A NIH business culture tunes out feedback and keeps important visionary information from reaching the corporate decision makers.

IBM health benefits blackout leaves retirees footing the bill

The money is in the bank!

I am a former USA employee.

1) I have about a year of experience with UnitedHealthcare's Optum service. So far they've handled stuff competently. No problems, yet.

2) When the IBM HRA money was not transferred on time I contacted UnitedHealthcare. They told me the money would be transferred from Via Benefits to their Optum Financial services in mid-February.

3) I just checked, there is now money in my HRA/Optum Financial account!

4) We should be getting HRA debit cards soon.

This scare may be coming to an end.

Source: IBM disguised Watson Health layoffs as a 'redeployment initiative'

A layoff by any other name is still a layoff

Having worked at IBM and having also been part of a resource action (RA) -- make no mistake. A resource action IS A LAYOFF. So is a redeployment. Even though I was told I could transfer to another division and had the skills and experience needed, my application was blocked. Other IBM divisions were instructed not to hire people on RA lists. IBM uses layoffs to make its quarterly earnings statements. Any division that is not making huge sales and profits will have layoffs. It is that simple. Different words. Same intent. Sorry.

What's big, blue, and hands out pink slips? IBM on Thursday: Word spreads of job cuts

The danger of instant gratification

IBM suffers from the danger of instant gratification. The problem started during Sam P's tenure when IBM started managing the company to please Wall Street. Every earnings report had to be rosy. The company was manged, serious cost cuts were made to achieve that goal. That put many of their lines of business into a death spiral. Now they need new lines of business and they are too impatient to spend the years it may take to develop them.

It takes over a decade to develop new medical products and services. Years are needed for R&D, testing, and the regulatory work. IBM's Watson Health work had great potential. The fact they gave up on it in a couple short years shows IBM really does not know how to operate in the health care industry. They were looking for instant gratification, instant profits, a nice pop of their quarterly earning statement. Spending $100M's over 10 years is incomprehensible to them.

IBM is still a very large and profitable company. The problem is their existing business are shrinking and layoffs needed. The new businesses are not growing fast enough, nor are they covering the decline of the rest of the company. IBM use to be a $100B/year company. Now it is below $80B. It is getting smaller each year. The big question for IBM is 'do you want to be a $100B, 80B, or 50B per year company?' If the company wants to GROW it needs to be managed differently. It needs to seriously invest in itself, not pander to Wall Street. The stock buybacks must be suspended. The company should plan on returning smaller profits. A lot more money needs to be invested into the business. And, most important. IBM needs leaders who know how to manage for growth, who know how to build new businesses,

I worked at IBM for 20 years. You can't imagine how many great businesses IBM has neglected over the years. Global Services could be very relevant today if it were managed better, made more efficient (not by moving jobs to cheap labor markets), and saw smart investments in the business. The world needs more storage, a lot more storage. IBM doesn't make the storage the world needs. The R&D needed to make the storage products needed is trivially easy. It is all open source technology. If IBM were willing to operate the division as a high volume, commodity, lower margin business they could be THE major player in the market.

IBM's problem is it is managing the company to please Wall Street. Wall Street does not provide IBM's income. They are really not a customer. IBM's real customers have been subjected to terrible service and over priced products. They are shopping elsewhere and each year in increasing numbers. It is sad to watch.

Stop us if you've heard this one: Job cuts at IBM

Attn IBM'ers

https://features.propublica.org/ibm/ibm-age-discrimination-american-workers/

Things one can do... Make the EEOC in the USA force IBM to release its layoff data as required by law- AEDA, OWBPA acts. Contact the EEOC. Contact your congressional representative and senator.

It's 30 years ago: IBM's final battle with reality

A tiny bit more

A few comments.

1) IBM was STRONGLY urged to skip the 286 and create a true 32 bit, 386 version of OS/2. Even Microsoft was strongly pushing IBM in this direction. IBM's resistance to do so was a major contributor to the split between IBM and Microsoft.

2) The MicroChannel was better than the ISA bus. The problem was it was not good enough for the future. The PC evolution was moving towards faster graphics and network (100 mbps) connectivity. The MicroChannel, even 3 generations into the future did not have the bandwidth to meet these needs. The industry evolved to the PCI interface. As an interesting historical coincidence, PCI uses the same type of connectors as did the MicroChannel. And the PCI interface found its way into other IBM systems.

3) The IBM PC was inferior to Apple's products. The PC became more successful because a new industry and IBM's customers worked together to make it successful. (Steve Job - The Lost Interview) In 1987 IBM turned a deaf ear to the industry and its customers. When IBM stopped listening its fortunes turned. This culture took over the whole company and was a major factor in the company almost going out of business in the 1990's.