Bad MEN Of Wireless 121
justbeatit wrote to us with an article from
Red Herring about the bad MEN of Wireless. MEN, of course, means Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia.
"Virtual" means never knowing where your next byte is coming from.
Re:MEN (Score:1)
AIM + MEN = AMEN
Re:MEN (Score:1)
Time to clean up. (Score:1, Funny)
Re:MEN (Score:1)
Life with Macintosh Computers will improve.
And AI just sounds cool. That and IBM can taken PowerPC chips WAAAAAYYYY beyond.
Why are we suprised by this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Every company in a position of power in their particular market will do whatever they can to stay in that position.
Are we really suprised that Microsoft isn't the only company in the world that likes to choke out its competition?
Re:Why are we suprised by this? (Score:1)
THE PRIMARY GOAL OF A BUSINESS IS TO MAKE MONEY! Investing in new technology is a risk. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes you lose big. If a large corporation carefully chooses the right technology to cultivate they will survive. If not, then they will eventually be knocked off their high horse by another company with the Next Big Thing (TM).
What else is new? (Score:1)
OT: Please do not cast return of malloc() (Score:1, Funny)
That is all.
Re:OT: Please do not cast return of malloc() (Score:1)
Trus and False.
It will compile just fine - but then bitch when it tries to link non-existant, implicitly defined code.
Re:OT: Please do not cast return of malloc() (Score:1)
Its like driving a car...you don't put the car into first gear without first depressing the clutch...Likewise I never use a library call without first making sure its
But, yes, you are correct...the cast is unnecessary. I leave it there cause 1) it looks cool (it IS just a
Re:OT: Please do not cast return of malloc() (Score:1)
So whats new.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The continuous pressures from the stock markets, share holders and investors to keep stock prices high means that companies are venturing further and further into the grey areas of business practice in order to achive and maintain high stock valuations.
Controlling technology is just another way of doing what Enron, Westcomm and KPNQWest did though dodgy financing. In this case its not quite as effective in terms of boosting share prices in the short term, but it's a whole lot more legal.
Re:So whats new.... (Score:2)
Re:So whats new.... (Score:1)
Three companies working together to develop new standards and opening them up to others.... Thats a whole new ball game and one the lawyers can keep playing for years before anyone decides whats wrong or right.
As I said before, it's one of those grey areas of business practice where legalities can be argued while the profits are being made.
Cooking the accounts is clearly illegal, what MAN have done isnt. It _may_ be illegal but not obviously so, and they have taken the business decision that the money they stand to make from doing this outweighs what it _might_ cost them _if_ the SEC ( or whoever ) decide that they are going to investigate.
Re:So whats new.... (Score:2)
Doesn't the fact that the game Monopoly where most of us first came across the term is a product of the 30s mean anything to anybody?
Re:Another day (Score:1)
But really - yes there is a lot of corporate bashing on Slashdot. And thats not to say that smaller companies are innocent as little girls, but when you are big, and bad and high profile, then someone will point it out when you misbehave. Too many corporations are misbehaving, and the worlds justice systems are showing that they just cannot respond. In fact the American DOJ has shown to be impotent after actually finding Microsoft guilty.
Yes there are ideals of free software, and not free as in beer but free as in speech(please make sure you understand the distinction). Which means you can still make a profit. The question is at what price - I mean how many heads is it moral to stomp on to get there? In the ideal world none. In the current "real" world - a lot of big corporations just dont care because they have no-one else to answer to. Microsofts shareholders have far more power than any number of countries judicial systems.
If you dont care - then go away and continue to be part of the problem - your time will be up when the day comes to adapt or die(in the bankrupcy kind of sense)...
Re:Another day (Score:2)
Forget the MEN... (Score:5, Funny)
Who cares? I wanna see the WOMEN of Wireless [playboy.com]!
Re:Forget the MEN... (Score:2, Funny)
WAP anyone ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the issue here is that there are a few basic tennets for the wireless industry
1) Open Standards, strange to say but the folks at these three are actively pushing such standards
2) Security and reliability, the operators have to support the hardware so they won't buy that which isn't reliable as it costs them more.
3) Investment, these three have invested huge amounts of cash already, and don't want to see Mr Johnny come lately investing 3c and getting a totally different level of ROI.
4) Fear. Of Microsoft, Of diminising returns, Of competition. This is a tough marketplace and they would prefer to be the last man standing, and so anyone new isn't being blocked out by a cartel, but blocked out by 3 companies who see newcommers as potential allies of their competitors.
For someone to complain that they are blocked out of the "wireless messaging" meetings when they don't manufacture handsets is a bit rich. This is like me complaining that I get cut out of UN Security Council meetings just because I'm not a country and don't have an army.
Big business is often bad, but these aer three companies that act against each other to drive down prices and drive up inovation. Small fry on the side who bitch that $1,000 doesn't buy them the same seat at the table as $1,000,000,000 are just as clueless as the
Welcome to capitalism, if you don't like it... become an accountant.
Re:WAP anyone ? (Score:2, Informative)
Not invented by the big three, hyped and failed.
According to this [wapsight.com] document, WAP was created by the WAP forum, which originally consisted of Phone.com, Nokia, Ericsson and Motorola. So it _was_ invented by the big three. (plus Phone.com)
Duh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Thats (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Duh... (Score:3, Informative)
This is a common misquote. The actual phrase is "The love of money is the root of all evil"
Re:Duh... (Score:1)
Re:Duh... (Score:1)
The actual phrase is "*I* am the root of all evil!"
telnet RootOfAllEvil
Re:Duh... (Score:1)
Are MEN even relevant? (Score:3, Interesting)
They know not what they do (Score:5, Informative)
So as a company they may be part of a group (MEN) that collectively keeps their own interests to heart, but there is no grand conspiracy as far as I could tell. Unless it is between the VPs or CEOs, or other people who make those important decisions. I was just a grunt that got sick of working for a lumbering giant with a cult-like company culture.
Re:They know not what they do (Score:1, Interesting)
Yeah, I can coroborate that. Example: One of our customers wants our software to interface with their switch. When we went to the manufacturer (Who isn't one of MEN but whos name begins with S) to get a spec for the interface that their equipment has. They swore blind that what we trying to do was impossible.
So, one of our developers spent a week with access to said model of switch. Lo and behold, he achieves the (apparently) impossible! I'm not even sure we've bothered to tell the manuacturer.
Mobile Telecoms a funny 'ol business though.
Re:They know not what they do (Score:1)
Re:They know not what they do (Score:1, Funny)
Maybe it was because their employees didn't know where the ' goes in COULDN'T, and didn't know the difference between THERE and THEIR...
Re:They know not what they do (Score:1, Interesting)
Generally, no-one knows where the wireless industry is headed. The one thing that everyone does know is that 3G has the potential to become the most expensive suicide note in history!
There are still a lot of folks emplyed in the wireless industry. If 3G doesn't work there are going to be a lot of unemployed engineers.
Re:They know not what they do (Score:1)
Re:They know not what they do (Score:2)
Back then, everyone had Unix terminals at their desk instead of PCs. 10 people per server.
He was still able to do his work, simply because we had some lab accounts that he could use to login. He didn't have email access though, cause he didn't have an account. That was a real PITA.
Ahh, the days of using Mosaic, Zmail, Framemaker, shell scripting, telnet, ftp, talk, etc. on a daily basis.
BOFH for M (Score:2, Interesting)
I was once a BOFH with M. It was my job to determine whether or not interns (or full-blown employees for that matter) actually really needed UNIX accounts or not... and to deny them without telling their supervisors why... deliberately making it look like either a big bloated bureaucracy dragging its feet or a conspiracy against them, whichever scenario best suited our egos. Most requests for new accounts came because somebody wanted to poke their noses around systems where they didn't belong, or perhaps to spy on company secrets, etc. All in the name of paranoid security, and justification of access to expensive systems that were really meant for elite users only, we did our jobs well and took great pride in doing them.
Re:BOFH for M (Score:2)
Well, back then we all had Unix accounts, so no account = no email. We had our own server farm, etc. We USED to have our own admin, who was a cool guy who would create the accounts while you were standing there. Then corporate stepped in, and decided that we didn't need our own admin (for 200 people, all with Unix access?), so they reassigned that person, and we had to send all of our requests through corporate.
Re:They know not what they do (Score:1, Informative)
I think this isn't universally true at Motorola. I worked there several years ago in one department that was SW-CMM Level 5, and most people there seemed pretty sharp. However, their general UNIX network and their network admins left a great deal to be desired. Their UNIX servers were vintage early-90's (really old Sun servers, I believe), couldn't handle the load they subjected them to (lots of users using new software on old computers tends to suck), and the reliability was poor (due to poor network architecture, I believe). Since then, they may very well have improved things; at least, I really hope they did.
Re:They know not what they do (Score:2)
Heh, probably the same equipment that they used when I was there. ('93-'98) When I started, we had the old black and white Sun boxes. The kind where you could get screen dumps of anyone else on your server, or you could change their background. Man, those were unsecure pieces of crap. Then we upgraded to newer servers. Those are probably the same ones that you used.
I agree, there were bright people there, but they were caught in the same mess as everyone else, and it still took forever to get anything accomplished.
Wanna know how to bring a server to it's knees?
write a shell script called "hose", with this as the contents:
./hose &
When you run it with (hose &), it will eat all the cpu on the server, but it probably won't crash it, it will eventually taper off and stay at a really high level. Nobody else will be able to log in, and even if they do, they can't kill the process (it is constantly changing). I did this on accident once, and went immediately to our Unix admin. They were going to reboot the server. I said "wait a minute" and went back to my terminal. Can you guess what I typed to get it to stop?
rm hose
I wonder if that will still work today, I haven't tried it lately.
Re:They know not what they do (Score:2)
Pretty funny, though. Luckily it wasn't a server and we don't really even use the darn thing.
Re:They know not what they do (Score:1)
Sometimes my arm gets tired of beating users with the cluestick.
Re:They know not what they do (Score:2, Informative)
Childish whining (Score:2, Insightful)
If I had a grocery store and customers wanted to buy yesterday's bananas, then, by Jove, that's what I'd be selling them!
On the lighter side, how about this for an acronym: Siemens, LUcent Technologies, Nortel Networks?
Re:Childish whining (Score:2)
Similar leverage to the MAP (Minimum Advertised Pricing) that got the labels dragged through court (they lost) 2 years ago.
The carriers may have made the mistake in borrowing so heavily in the first place, but I think you're missing the big picture - that we shouldn't have to make laws and rules to prevent companies from behaving in fasions that run counter to the purpose of capitalism (to raise everybody's wealth)
Or are we just so disillusioned these days, we don't expect anyone to do anything good unless we have a team of riot police standing by to enforce the order? If we are, fuck that. People are forgetting that altruism is the most 'profitable' course of action in the end for everybody. Any other action designed to profit at the *expense* of progress and co-operation (and it can be done quite easily as we have seen) should be publicly condemned.
Re:Childish whining (Score:1)
Granted, I didn't pay much attention to the part on warranties - but similar practices are in place in most industries, right? You overclock your processor -> warranty voided.
Of course it would be cordial if companies cooperated with 3rd party solution providers to approve these solutions, but seeing as how that competes with MEN's own products, I understand their reluctance. At the end of the day, capitalism isn't altruistic. The purpose of any company is to produce return on the investment of it's owners, not to serve some greater purpose of technological development.
I agree with you that this is not how things necessarily should be. So far, there just haven't been viable alternatives.
analogy wars (Score:1)
Re:Childish whining (Score:2)
There is something called public opinion that is more powerful than anybody can comprehend.
If everybody just started disliking folks that operatate in the world of "is" instead of "should", we'd be fine. As it stands, going "Hey, thats how it is" is part of the reason that we can't seem to find a viable alternative.
> capitalism isn't altruistic
Sure it is. Competition can be altruistic if everybody participating understands that a little competition will fuel people's desire to make stuff better, faster, cheaper, etc. It's only once its participants start beliving that using every single possible advantage and loopwhole to exploit their leverage is fair game does it cease to be. That's not capitalism, because capitalism was never meant to be that. Gains are meant to come on the back of development and innovation; any other means of competition is abusing the rules of the game and ultimately doing the league a disservice.
I know thats not how it is right now, but that sure as hell isn't going to make me excuse anybody from straying from the noble goals of capitalism. I won't be sympathetic because some company sinks to whatever low the next company does even if it's the only means to that company's economic survival. Manipulating grey areas of rules and laws is as inexcusable as abusing the black and white rules and laws, doubly so when most people seem to agree that the aforementionned questionable behaviour is not the kind of behaviour capitalism was designed and enforced to encourage.
Interesting... but I don't know... (Score:2, Interesting)
So, I dunno - it all sounds like capitalism to me. Maybe it's a screwy Major Corporation vs. Major Corporation capitalism with no place for the small business person, but it's capitalism just the same.
Re:Interesting... but I don't know... (Score:2)
I get it... (Score:4, Funny)
Reality? (Score:2, Interesting)
All of those three are now starting to support Symbian OS and Java. Would the situation be the same if there were 20 companies with each having 5% share of the market?
To me as a customer it's alot easier when there are only few models to choose from and even those have the same OS.
As a programmer it's very nice to see my Java code working in all of those phones.
How do you define optimal market? Thousand companies, hundred companies, ten companies or just a one company?
Re:Reality? (Score:2)
Re:Reality? (Score:2)
Ericsson (Score:4, Interesting)
IMO, Ericsson troubles can be traced back to one problem which name is AXE. AXE is a telephone exchange and the most successful product of Ericsson. All over the world you can find AXEs in exchanges. The problem is that everyone already bought an AXE, so there is almost no market to sell more. Another reason is that AXE is quite old. It was developed in the '70s and it starts showing its age. There were projects to create a new type of AXE, but they failed.
This is the reason why Ericsson partnered with Juniper. The future is IP telephony and Ericsson needs a partner to develop its next flagship product.
As for the article, it claims that MEN are holding back wireless technology. I think this is not true. From the inside it seems the carriers do not have the money to buy the state-of-the-art 3G and UMTS equipment because they threw away their money at the UMTS tenders. Ericsson hopes in 2003 the carriers will overcome their predicament and start buying. Otherwise, lay offs will continue...
Everything I wrote in this comment is my personal opinion only and NOT an official statement from Ericsson.
Re:Ericsson (Score:2, Interesting)
Mobile phones. Ericsson has shown again and again they cannot produce consumer products. Phones,PDA'a, bluetooth,etc. The company is to slow moving to meet consumer demands. They were just a black hole to poor money down. They should of sold the mobile phone division off years ago. However the management believed you needed a finger in all mobile pies.
Secondly lack of direction, the number of cancelled projects in ericsson is legendary, and most departments spend there time in fighting. As for juniper, it was the kind of company that ericsson needed. However I think they sold there stake months ago.
Ericsson spent heavily betting on 3G. Unfortunately I do not think it is going to happen.
Re:Ericsson (Score:2)
I got a T68 in Nov 2001 and within 3-6 months about 10-15 colleagues had bought one.
Re:Ericsson (Score:1)
Cellular carriers have already got exactly enough bandwidth in the ground to carry their cellular traffic, both 2, 2.5 and 3G. Bandwidth is expensive.
VoIP only makes sense if you have infinite amounts of bandwidth, or if you believe the Cisco BS, which is about the same thing. The latency and packet delay will kill VoIP if used on a carrier scale as the bandwidth requirements are uneconomic, or if are interfacing with a cellular network for the same reason.
They need to look for something else to save them. It won't be 3G either.
VoIP will be used (Score:2)
VoIP is also mandated by the UMTS Release 4 and 5 standards - some operators will launch with Release 4, so they will be using VoIP for cellular calls.
Bad men of wireless (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Bad men of wireless (Score:2)
Kind of like the 7-UP truck driver calendar?
ahem. (Score:1)
Is 'Dan' Briody actually
(a) a pseudonym;
(b) a feminist?
Bah.. this is OLD. (Score:1)
Carries have no money/people don't want it (Score:1)
Has he seen how the carriers are doing lately? MEN couldn't sell the new technology to the carriers no matter how badly they wanted to. The carriers have no money to buy the infrastructure or even pay someone to go out and set it up! It is really expensive to buy the equipment considering that its only your early adopters that will actually use it to begin with. That's a pretty small niche market.
Couple that with the fact that there is no killer app for 3G networks. People don't know what to do with all of that bandwidth that you'll be getting with 3G. Hell, MEN don't know what to do with it. Even if you are just talking about coverage increases, you'll have to buy a multi-mode phone to work in your new 3G systems (we'll say IS-2000 CDMA) then be able to switch down to IS-95 CDMA, our current CDMA systems, and also be able to work in AMPS, lovely analog mode that for some reason, I believe (though I could be dead wrong here), is required of phones by some government regulatory body; most likely the FCC.
Early adopter phones are expensive, getting all of those modes into one phone can be a challenge which leads to higher phone prices. I'd love to see it, but I don't think that its going to happen all that soon.
Re:Carries have no money/people don't want it (Score:2)
Individual phones are not required to support AMPS, but carriers who operate in the 800 MHz band are still required to maintain AMPS compatibility on their networks. The theory being (at least in part) that anyone with an AMPS handset should be able to at least place an emergency call wherever there is an 800 MHz network. Hopefully the US will take the European approach and finally permit carriers to start turning this off soon and reclaiming some bandwidth.
Red Herring Indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
The article has it backwards: These three all rely on product renewal for growth.
Yet another recursive acronym (Score:1)
Author's talking out his butt (Score:2, Insightful)
Stifled innovation is sometimes profitable (Score:1)
I think it's an interesting idea, but it sucks for the consumers not to be able to use better stuff
DRACO-