World's most profitable Android company? Microsoft!
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/worlds-most-profitable-android-company-microsoft/9651?tag=mantle_skin;content
This is a continuation of legal battle and lawsuit of patents.. Out of all people involve with Android, the biggest winner of profits is no other than Microsoft.
"Goldman Sachs estimates that Microsoft will pick up $444-million in revenue from its Android patent deals for fiscal year 2012. For those of you playing at home, that’s $3-$6 per Android device. Yes, that may well be more than Microsoft makes from its own troubled mobile operating systems."
So the irony is that Andriod that is "open" is not really open. With patent violation and legal matters, Microsoft seem to made out a bit on the Android. The better question is another legal lawsuit is pending.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
When Cost and Innovation reaches a Crossroad
Digressing from normal blog, I wanted to reflect about how America could get out of this plague and see why we are in here in the first place.
HP: Is it a broken company?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/hp-is-it-a-broken-company/59293?tag=content;feature-roto
I know my blog goes away from the article to a point but it sees to reinforce the issue we are dealing with.
How does a company generate revenues and stay profitable in a dynamic environment?
To have a competitive advantage!
What competitive advantage could be focused on operations, products, and strategy.
HP has becoming the laughing stock because they have become the fool they made themselves to be especially going away from their roots.
HP was founded and focused on research and product development. HP was all about innovation and was the biggest reason for their success.
When the economy started to tank in 2000, companies got focused on business operational cost. This led to Dell and its outsourcing of their business to India. Then companies followed like HP. Seeing that it still did not resolve their budget, they cut research and development instead developing better products.
I remember how Mark Hurd was given so much accolades for his profitability. But it was clear that he was all about cut business costs (including R&D) and did not really improve on new product lines (see the past 5 years of HP product lines). Now, Mark is gone and all his directives are clear and visible in that it helped the short term but failed on the long term.
As the article points out:
"Add it up and I argued that HP’s problems will outlast Whitman’s tenure:
Whatever HP decides it wants to be when it grows up it needs to focus on research and development and carve its own path. The current model revolves around being someone else—IBM, Cisco, Apple, whoever’s next. The problem is that HP has starved R&D at 3 percent of revenue all through the Mark Hurd years. Now HP doesn’t have the financial heft to suddenly jump to 6 percent (IBM levels) or even higher. That’s why I’m arguing that Whitman can’t turn around HP. HP’s R&D problems will last longer than Whitman’s tenure if history is any guide."
So HP can't be Cisco or IBM. They do not have the manpower to research and innovate new products. They can't develop their own competitive advantage. Cost is as low as HP could focus on strategy (but that is already an issue at hand).
This is the same issue with corporations today. R&D development is in what companies do internally. Instead, it is all about acquisitions and mergers. So there is a lack of fluidity and continuity and makes innovation harder to achieve efficiently. To constantly make profits short term could hamper the long term goals and revenues.
Why I am so adamant? It is the same thing of placing American workers as commodities and expecting profits short-term. Selling goods at a premium while not fairly compensating Americans workers for their hard work. Who do you think is going to buy your goods? All I hear is that American workers are lazy but the reality is far from the truth. Do Americans have to lower their cost of living? Maybe but the extent seems a bit unfair and naive on both fences. Companies tell us to re-invest ourselves at our own cost but won't pay necessarily premium wages. Our education is by far more than the wage but that is easily justified one way (workers) but not with corporations (R&D and self-innovate)...
HP is reflective of corporations' mentality of trying to get most for little. At one point, investment has to be made and requires commitment for success. Do I think companies need to be lean? Of course but being lean and starving are two different things. It is important to understand that even well-trained athletes just can't be lean but be strong to perform. Why does corporations fail to acknowledge that?
HP: Is it a broken company?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/hp-is-it-a-broken-company/59293?tag=content;feature-roto
I know my blog goes away from the article to a point but it sees to reinforce the issue we are dealing with.
How does a company generate revenues and stay profitable in a dynamic environment?
To have a competitive advantage!
What competitive advantage could be focused on operations, products, and strategy.
HP has becoming the laughing stock because they have become the fool they made themselves to be especially going away from their roots.
HP was founded and focused on research and product development. HP was all about innovation and was the biggest reason for their success.
When the economy started to tank in 2000, companies got focused on business operational cost. This led to Dell and its outsourcing of their business to India. Then companies followed like HP. Seeing that it still did not resolve their budget, they cut research and development instead developing better products.
I remember how Mark Hurd was given so much accolades for his profitability. But it was clear that he was all about cut business costs (including R&D) and did not really improve on new product lines (see the past 5 years of HP product lines). Now, Mark is gone and all his directives are clear and visible in that it helped the short term but failed on the long term.
As the article points out:
"Add it up and I argued that HP’s problems will outlast Whitman’s tenure:
Whatever HP decides it wants to be when it grows up it needs to focus on research and development and carve its own path. The current model revolves around being someone else—IBM, Cisco, Apple, whoever’s next. The problem is that HP has starved R&D at 3 percent of revenue all through the Mark Hurd years. Now HP doesn’t have the financial heft to suddenly jump to 6 percent (IBM levels) or even higher. That’s why I’m arguing that Whitman can’t turn around HP. HP’s R&D problems will last longer than Whitman’s tenure if history is any guide."
So HP can't be Cisco or IBM. They do not have the manpower to research and innovate new products. They can't develop their own competitive advantage. Cost is as low as HP could focus on strategy (but that is already an issue at hand).
This is the same issue with corporations today. R&D development is in what companies do internally. Instead, it is all about acquisitions and mergers. So there is a lack of fluidity and continuity and makes innovation harder to achieve efficiently. To constantly make profits short term could hamper the long term goals and revenues.
Why I am so adamant? It is the same thing of placing American workers as commodities and expecting profits short-term. Selling goods at a premium while not fairly compensating Americans workers for their hard work. Who do you think is going to buy your goods? All I hear is that American workers are lazy but the reality is far from the truth. Do Americans have to lower their cost of living? Maybe but the extent seems a bit unfair and naive on both fences. Companies tell us to re-invest ourselves at our own cost but won't pay necessarily premium wages. Our education is by far more than the wage but that is easily justified one way (workers) but not with corporations (R&D and self-innovate)...
HP is reflective of corporations' mentality of trying to get most for little. At one point, investment has to be made and requires commitment for success. Do I think companies need to be lean? Of course but being lean and starving are two different things. It is important to understand that even well-trained athletes just can't be lean but be strong to perform. Why does corporations fail to acknowledge that?
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wait and See with Windows 8
I know there are many people who is wowing about Windows 8 but one thing caught my eye (like the author). Really? The spec requirement won't change?
Another Windows Version. Another Hardware Upgrade.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/virtualization/another-windows-version-another-hardware-upgrade/3849?tag=mantle_skin;content
The article details how they state one thing and with every upgrade, there is a big change which require a significant upgrade..
You have to ask with Windows integrate to work in mobile or desktop, I would think it had to have same or lower requirements. But to work with multiple driver platform (from Intel to ARM), you the computation and coding has to increase.
What would it be? History seems to favor the author..
Another Windows Version. Another Hardware Upgrade.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/virtualization/another-windows-version-another-hardware-upgrade/3849?tag=mantle_skin;content
The article details how they state one thing and with every upgrade, there is a big change which require a significant upgrade..
You have to ask with Windows integrate to work in mobile or desktop, I would think it had to have same or lower requirements. But to work with multiple driver platform (from Intel to ARM), you the computation and coding has to increase.
What would it be? History seems to favor the author..
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Apps are becoming a mainstay in Health
4 Best Types of Apps for Hospital Use
http://healthcareitnews.com/news/4-best-types-apps-hospital-use
At the end, apps are important for several things.. To make the life of health professionals simple, mobile, reliable, and productive..
As the article points out:
1. Those that free providers from offices or workstations.
2. Those that offer access to lab results and medical imaging.
3. Those that convert a smartphone into a medical device.
4. Those that offer practice management.
At the end, the apps help to make smartphone or tablet into a productive unit. One to keep them as wireless as they can, read results conveniently, read and obtain measurements, and do work related to the duty at hand like prescription.
Though it seems great but I take it with a fine comb.. The person who is utilizing it with be the biggest question..
http://healthcareitnews.com/news/4-best-types-apps-hospital-use
At the end, apps are important for several things.. To make the life of health professionals simple, mobile, reliable, and productive..
As the article points out:
1. Those that free providers from offices or workstations.
2. Those that offer access to lab results and medical imaging.
3. Those that convert a smartphone into a medical device.
4. Those that offer practice management.
At the end, the apps help to make smartphone or tablet into a productive unit. One to keep them as wireless as they can, read results conveniently, read and obtain measurements, and do work related to the duty at hand like prescription.
Though it seems great but I take it with a fine comb.. The person who is utilizing it with be the biggest question..
Monday, September 26, 2011
Telehealth likely to increase
Growth in global telehealth forecast at more than $1B
http://healthcareitnews.com/news/growth-global-telehealth-forecast-more-1b
Looking at our current assignment, I wonder if outsourcing is the only means of hospitals being competitive. I thought about mobile units (since I dealt with some of them) but it might not easy for clients. With various industries working, the monitoring of patients could be done at their convenience and home.
The article believes the growth is substantial (1 billion by 2016) and minimize healthcare cost and expenses.
I think it is promising but it does not guarantee reduction. It might be better patient care and alerts but not guarantee healthcare improvement. I believe it could be but it all depends upon implementation. Lastly, it will apply well in rural area and how patient monitoring is being done is a bigger question.
I see healthcare industry converging... It has in dentistry and more in the health field..
http://healthcareitnews.com/news/growth-global-telehealth-forecast-more-1b
Looking at our current assignment, I wonder if outsourcing is the only means of hospitals being competitive. I thought about mobile units (since I dealt with some of them) but it might not easy for clients. With various industries working, the monitoring of patients could be done at their convenience and home.
The article believes the growth is substantial (1 billion by 2016) and minimize healthcare cost and expenses.
I think it is promising but it does not guarantee reduction. It might be better patient care and alerts but not guarantee healthcare improvement. I believe it could be but it all depends upon implementation. Lastly, it will apply well in rural area and how patient monitoring is being done is a bigger question.
I see healthcare industry converging... It has in dentistry and more in the health field..
Feel like this is a concern to address: Infringement
Have you noticed how many IT companies are suing and counter-suing back... I understand you are protecting intellectual property but when does it become known as universal or common knowledge? I guess that is why I had legality. You could make anything into a lawsuit if you really want to think about.. With the IT sector, it is no different.
After much lawsuit from Apple to Samsung and HTC, Oracle to Google, Google to Apple, and Real to Microsoft, this one caught my eye... Via suing Apple
Via patent suit may give Apple the most trouble
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/via-patent-suit-may-give-apple-the-most-trouble/4654?tag=mantle_skin;content
I found the lawsuit title to be an oddball. Via is a chipmaker (personally, I do not like their product) and Apple is manufacturer of their iProducts. The article points out one important relations to the lawsuit:
"Two, Apple makes its own chips used in the products the suit claims infringes on Via’s patents. The three patents Via claims are being infringed by Apple:
* US Patent No. 6253312, Method and apparatus for double operand load
* US Patent Nos. 6253311 & 6754810, Instruction set for bi-directional conversion and transfer of integer and floating point data
Notice those are microprocessor related? Via claims Apple infringes on these patents with nearly its entire mobile product line: iPhone, iPad, iPod, and Apple TV. What do these have in common? Apple makes its own processor for them."
I understand that it is a how the chip processes these certain tasks. But how could you really prove that process is a patent infringement? It is a process and how it processes it could seem the same but might not. Maybe I am wrong but technicality is important but to what extent?
What I am worried is that there will be copyright lawsuit on everything. It is happening in the biosector with human genome. What makes you think one code or one word could be copyright violation. Yes, I am know "you're fired" is a trademark now but saying publicly that you're fired (by mistake on television) could render a lawsuit?
Lastly, these development can't be just abstract and needs to really define how hardware and firmware works to achieve that process. If that is define, Via might have more than a lawsuit (especially if Apple products hinge on that process).
After much lawsuit from Apple to Samsung and HTC, Oracle to Google, Google to Apple, and Real to Microsoft, this one caught my eye... Via suing Apple
Via patent suit may give Apple the most trouble
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/via-patent-suit-may-give-apple-the-most-trouble/4654?tag=mantle_skin;content
I found the lawsuit title to be an oddball. Via is a chipmaker (personally, I do not like their product) and Apple is manufacturer of their iProducts. The article points out one important relations to the lawsuit:
"Two, Apple makes its own chips used in the products the suit claims infringes on Via’s patents. The three patents Via claims are being infringed by Apple:
* US Patent No. 6253312, Method and apparatus for double operand load
* US Patent Nos. 6253311 & 6754810, Instruction set for bi-directional conversion and transfer of integer and floating point data
Notice those are microprocessor related? Via claims Apple infringes on these patents with nearly its entire mobile product line: iPhone, iPad, iPod, and Apple TV. What do these have in common? Apple makes its own processor for them."
I understand that it is a how the chip processes these certain tasks. But how could you really prove that process is a patent infringement? It is a process and how it processes it could seem the same but might not. Maybe I am wrong but technicality is important but to what extent?
What I am worried is that there will be copyright lawsuit on everything. It is happening in the biosector with human genome. What makes you think one code or one word could be copyright violation. Yes, I am know "you're fired" is a trademark now but saying publicly that you're fired (by mistake on television) could render a lawsuit?
Lastly, these development can't be just abstract and needs to really define how hardware and firmware works to achieve that process. If that is define, Via might have more than a lawsuit (especially if Apple products hinge on that process).
Friday, September 23, 2011
HP do not know what they want..
After reading the ousting of Leo Apotheker, I was checking back on why it does not work. With my numerous issues with HP (I had my PC shipped out for warranty a record 3 times in the past 3 months and it does not include 4 misdirections and numerous complaints to BBB), I wonder why the company has so much problem. So there is what upper management seem to have a poblem.
HP Is Having An Identity Crisis
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20109667-64/hp-is-having-an-identity-crisis/?tag=content;siu-container
Not only did HP forget its root, it tried to change everything at once. It is like telling the whole company that we are not hardware but software. Thinking that the change is seamless and easily changeable. That is a significant issue.
As the article points out:
"You can't ignore legacy. [That's] what your value is," said Bob O'Donnell, an analyst at IDC. "They have a huge amount of value in the PC space. There's no way around it, it's just a huge, huge business."
The way HP made a dent and took market share was through hardware (especially their printers) and customer service. To me, they are horrific and numerous hardware issues are common in many blogs and postings. They seem to forget how they got big in the first place. They could say that the hardware business is not profitable but that seems to be naive when you consider it has a significant percentage of your revenues. I would have phase it out little by little.
Again,the article makes one key point:
"You just can't cherry-pick a sector that you want to be in and expect explosive growth. The genesis of the company was PCs and instrumentation. They don't have to be IBM [which sold off its PC business in 2005]. They can be different and still be very profitable."
That is the point I keep addressing time and time again to many companies.
HP Is Having An Identity Crisis
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20109667-64/hp-is-having-an-identity-crisis/?tag=content;siu-container
Not only did HP forget its root, it tried to change everything at once. It is like telling the whole company that we are not hardware but software. Thinking that the change is seamless and easily changeable. That is a significant issue.
As the article points out:
"You can't ignore legacy. [That's] what your value is," said Bob O'Donnell, an analyst at IDC. "They have a huge amount of value in the PC space. There's no way around it, it's just a huge, huge business."
The way HP made a dent and took market share was through hardware (especially their printers) and customer service. To me, they are horrific and numerous hardware issues are common in many blogs and postings. They seem to forget how they got big in the first place. They could say that the hardware business is not profitable but that seems to be naive when you consider it has a significant percentage of your revenues. I would have phase it out little by little.
Again,the article makes one key point:
"You just can't cherry-pick a sector that you want to be in and expect explosive growth. The genesis of the company was PCs and instrumentation. They don't have to be IBM [which sold off its PC business in 2005]. They can be different and still be very profitable."
That is the point I keep addressing time and time again to many companies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)