OK, Rob, I take back my assertion that you are smart.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Jul 19, 2007 7:12 AM EDT |
Until this piece, I thought Enderle was a fairly smart guy, figuring that he wrote the stuff he wrote because it made him money. I can respect that. But... A monopoly is the most efficient business model? To make a statement like that makes clear that words have very specific meanings to the man, and not likely the same meanings the rest of us might apply. It is well established that monopoly is NOT the most efficient business model for any purpose save one: short term profitability. Monopolies tend to maximize profit without fear of competition, thus sewing the seeds of their own demise. While they're not looking, new technologies, new processes, or simply new competitors arise. They lose market and find themselves unable to compete. Best example was AT&T immediately after the break-up of its monopoly. IBM in the 90s is another great example, with internecine warfare causing the company to take big lumps as PCs and lans changed the face of computing. Lucent, anybody -- child of the old Bell Labs? I still think you can reasonable for slowing momentum in FOSS, or, at least the perception of a slowdown. FOSS is bigger and more established now. It's expected to get a piece of the pie. The early FOSS years included a lot of green-field wins: web servers and web-related applications. More and more, FOSS is taking over for existing apps on Unix and (gasp!) Windows. That's a harder thing to do. If you really want to talk about slowing momentum -- not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of monopolies -- take a look at how Microsoft is doing. Lessee...Vista took forever to reach the market, and really still hasn't when you consider that it has nearly none of the promised gee-whiz. It's uptake is abysmal, driven by "you got no choice, that's what it comes with" buyers of new computers. I know at least one VAR who promises to deliver machines with XP, not matter what the vendor may say. Doesn't sound like a rosy picture of health to me. So, Rob, you have turned me. I thought you were a curmudgeon, perhaps a bit of a troll. Now I realize that you are just plain daft. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 19, 2007 9:28 AM EDT |
Wait a second..you thought he was smart?!?! Dino, Dino, Dino...tisk tisk. LOL!! |
| dinotrac Jul 19, 2007 9:39 AM EDT |
>Wait a second..you thought he was smart?!?! Y'know, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Besides, when dealing with "the other side", it's generally wiser to presume they're smart and have to recant than to figure them for morons only to be beaten into the ground. Must be a southern thing. I've lived in yankeeland for years, and it always amazes me how many nathenuhs presume that southern folk are slow-witted as well as slow-paced. That presumption is the basis for a great Southern pastime, "Screw the Yankee." People who think you're a bunch of rubes tend not to pay as much attention as they should!!! At any rate, WRT Enderle, I now recant. |
| montezuma Jul 19, 2007 12:06 PM EDT |
Interesting question: How does such an opinionated moron get so much attention? I see quotes from Rob Enderle from "The Enderle Group" all the time on CNN and Reuters. Mostly it is overblown non fact checked garbage but they certainly seem to lap it up. Must be just inertia: Hack needs a quotable quote; Enderle has said something pithy/vaguely relevant in the past; "Enderle Group" sounds like a respectable outfit; OK lets use that.... Sounds a bit like the Coulter Effect: Who the hell is Ann Coulter and why does she get quoted all the time? Hell I could come out with 20 outrageous statements a day but would not get quoted by the MSM. Coulter must be a publicity genius..... |
| dinotrac Jul 19, 2007 12:46 PM EDT |
>Sounds a bit like the Coulter Effect: Who the hell is Ann Coulter and why does she get quoted all the time? Hey -- don't go dissing the blonde bombshell. She, at least, bothers to do her research. |
| montezuma Jul 19, 2007 12:52 PM EDT |
Ewww Dino! Everyone to their own I guess. She doesn't revv me up. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 19, 2007 12:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:How does such an opinionated moron get so much attention? In the eyes of some people (press for instance) he probably still has some credit left from the old days. In the old days the industry was ruled by the giant corporations of yore. They *were* the industry. Back then it made sense to get your information from the big guys. I bet that in those days, Rob was a reasonably decent analyst, especially because he had the ear of many a CEO. Fast forward a decade plus change and it's a different ballgame. The industry runs on the little guys and the community. The big guys are out-paced and out-innovated. They can only keep up by reinventing themselves or buying up the little guys. In this new world you cannot have the big companies be your only source of information. Rob is wrong because his sources of information are wrong, and years of mixing with the top brass has left him biased. But he used to have a name and that name still rings a bell with the press, so they quote him. Without checking. Until the NYT incident that is... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/12/analyst_nytimes/ |
| montezuma Jul 19, 2007 1:10 PM EDT |
Interesting link: I liked this: "And nothing will change until reporters start demanding that the analyst firms disclose their ties to vendors or the vendors start pulling their contracts with the analyst firms" And then El Reg defends Enderle: "Until that happens, leave Enderle alone" Overall a very dismal picture and it makes the present discussion on FUD rather unsurprising. |
| herzeleid Jul 19, 2007 1:24 PM EDT |
> Ewww Dino! Everyone to their own I guess. She doesn't revv me up. Hey, Ann Coulter tells it like it is, even though she's hated for it - not by me, though. I rather admire her spunk. |
| dinotrac Jul 19, 2007 1:34 PM EDT |
> I rather admire her spunk. And her schtick. She's figured out how easy it is to get all the wieners lathered up. |
| montezuma Jul 19, 2007 1:45 PM EDT |
"Schtick" and "spunk" are what sells her books to her constituency and she is pretty damned clever in attracting media coverage. The content of her books is however in my view not worth the cover price. |
| dinotrac Jul 19, 2007 2:02 PM EDT |
>"Schtick" and "spunk" are what sells her books to her constituency No. Content presented in an entertaining way is what sells her books. Schtick promotes them. > she is pretty damned clever in attracting media coverage Truth is, she doesn't even have to be clever. Most media folk are not exactly the sharpest knives in anybody's drawer. |
| montezuma Jul 19, 2007 3:25 PM EDT |
> No. Content presented in an entertaining way is what sells her books.
Schtick promotes them. I don't agree. There is very little content. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 19, 2007 3:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:There is very little content. I agree, the only thing her books are good for is kindling. |
| tuxchick Jul 19, 2007 4:01 PM EDT |
I'm not a Coulter fan either, but she has way more on the ball than dunderle. He's not even close to her league. You have to love how the Enderle Group is Rob and his wife. That's some group, and I'm skeptical of the existence of a wife. :) |
| dinotrac Jul 19, 2007 5:51 PM EDT |
>I don't agree. There is very little content.
>I agree, the only thing her books are good for is kindling. So, which of her books have you read, and why do you think there is little content? The footnotes alone are worth the price of admission. |
| herzeleid Jul 19, 2007 7:01 PM EDT |
> I agree, the only thing her books are good for is kindling. Wow, the book burners are out in force tonight! |
| dinotrac Jul 19, 2007 7:07 PM EDT |
>Wow, the book burners are out in force tonight! Easier than reading. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 19, 2007 7:13 PM EDT |
Its that she purposefully spreads such a divisive view of what she thinks is right and wrong that makes me not like her. |
| dinotrac Jul 19, 2007 7:16 PM EDT |
>Its that she purposefully spreads such a divisive view of what she thinks is right and wrong that makes me not like her. That's completely understandable. I can only take so much of her myself. But that's very different from claiming that her books have no content. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 19, 2007 7:39 PM EDT |
Ok, no content for me would(edit) be a more accurate descriptor. |
| dinotrac Jul 19, 2007 7:56 PM EDT |
>Ok, no content for me wolf be a more accurate descriptor. I can buy that. After all, her books are targeted exclusively to intelligent, open-minded, thoughtful and well-read types. Like me! |
| tuxchick Jul 19, 2007 8:43 PM EDT |
/me dies from retching Thanks a lot, dino, just when I was having fun! |
| tracyanne Jul 20, 2007 1:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:her books are targeted exclusively to intelligent, open-minded, thoughtful and well-read types. dino you do yourself a disservice. |
| dinotrac Jul 20, 2007 3:57 AM EDT |
>dino you do yourself a disservice. Incredible humility prevents me from presenting the true magnitude of my magnificence. |
| jdixon Jul 20, 2007 9:46 AM EDT |
> Its that she purposefully spreads such a divisive view of what she thinks is right and wrong that makes me not like her. Well, yes. But then she's writing for a specific market, and her message is tailored for that market. And it's not like the folks she's taking on are any better. Compare her books to those of Michael Moore, for example. I think you'll find that Coulter's books have more actual content, more factual information backing her positions, and fewer flat out lies and misrepresentations. Note: I didn't say none, merely fewer :). Now, I will admit that's somewhat like saying frozen leftovers are better than day old garbage, but... |
| jdixon Jul 20, 2007 9:46 AM EDT |
> Incredible humility prevents me from presenting the true magnitude of my magnificence. For which we are all profoundly grateful, Dino. I'm not sure our fragile egos could take it. :) |
| tuxchick Jul 20, 2007 11:20 AM EDT |
jdixon, you're right that Michael Moore plays rather fast and loose with the facts, and re-arranges events to tell a better story. What I like about his work is, to paraphrase something he said recently, is why is he the only one asking the questions he asks? He's a high-school dropout with a camera- why the profound silence among all the "real" journalists and reporters on the tough issues? Instead, they're all maintaining craven silences on the important issues and wasting their lives chasing celebrities in and out of rehab. |
| jdixon Jul 20, 2007 11:32 AM EDT |
> What I like about his work is, to paraphrase something he said recently, is why is he the only one asking the questions he asks? I don't mind the questions he asks TC, but when his only solution to all problems involves the government, I lose interest. |
| Abe Jul 20, 2007 11:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:but when his only solution to all problems involves the government, I lose interest. jdixson. I don't think he is advocating that, he is blaming the government for not watching out for the well fare of the people in areas where the government supposed to. Health care is a one of them. The private sector is out to make money and that is all what they care about. We have a government Post Office, and it is run pretty good, is it more important to people than health care? We have Medicaid or whatever it is called, why can't that be expended to all? We have a government controlled school system, how come it is that bad and in other countries have superior curriculum than ours? Moore is not educated but he is more passionate about the issues a lot more than anyone else we know. |
| jdixon Jul 20, 2007 12:16 PM EDT |
> ...he is blaming the government for not watching out for the well fare of the people in areas where the government supposed to. > Health care is a one of them. Not under our constitution. Even the broadest interpretation of "the general welfare" doesn't encompass a national health care system. > We have a government Post Office, and it is run pretty good... You've obviously dealt with a different Post Office than I have. > We have a government controlled school system, how come it is that bad and in other countries have superior curriculum than ours? Our government controlled school system is terrible. When there was no government control, it was the envy of the world. I'd shut down the public school system tomorrow if I could. Quoting Reagan, and others before him: "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem". This is obviously going to lead to a discussion outside the TOS, so we'd best drop it at this point. I'll let you have the last word if you want. |
| dinotrac Jul 20, 2007 12:27 PM EDT |
>We have a government Post Office, and it is run pretty good, is it more important to people than health care? Not so much important as it is explicitly provided for in the constitution. By the way, the Postal Service is an odd duck. It is not a government agency per se, but a corporation. >We have Medicaid or whatever it is called, why can't that be expended to all? You don't want that any more than you want Medicare (which my mother is on and I'm getting uncomfortably close to). Total government control in health care tends not to work well anywhere, notwithstanding all the crap about the wonders of Cuba. France, whose health care is considered among the world's best, employs a hybrid public-private model. I think Japan does the same. We'd go a long way if a) We trained doctors differently. In particular, remove pharmaceutical companies completely from continuing medical education b) Outlawed advertising of prescription drugs. This goes against my libertarian leanings in a big way, but would go a long way towards dropping the price of health care by removing pressure on those differently trained doctors to prescribe the newest drugs instead of the most effective ones. c) Came up with some reasonable answer to the malpractice problem, perhaps something along the lines of Workers Comp. This pains me as a former lawyer, but the impact on health care costs is many times what some would have you believe, d) Make available the information needed to make informed choices. It's really really hard to find out death rates for surgeries, surgeons, hospitals, etc, or the expected statistical outcome of getting a test vs not getting it, etc. e) Eliminate cherry picking by insurance companies. It might be reasonable to modify this somewhat by life choices -- smoking, weighing three tons (like me!), etc, but, by and large, we don't have control over many of the things that can lay us low. It's reasonable to spread the risk over everyone. |
| Abe Jul 20, 2007 12:30 PM EDT |
No need to have the last world, you are right, let's drop it. We obviously look at these issues from different perspectives. But we do have problems and they need to be solved. So far the government is the only entity who can do something about them because the people are becoming fragmented, disorganized, worrisome, naive, too trusting and helpless in front of greedy big corp. |
| number6x Jul 20, 2007 12:40 PM EDT |
Hybrid public /private is how Canada did it. The provider sector remained private, they nationalized the insurance. Its kind of like one big government HMO paying the bills. Doctors and hospitals are still private, but prices are pre-set. England Nationalized both sides. Private providers still exist for medical procedures that are not mandatory, like elective plastic surgery and such. The US will have to do something. The high cost of health care is hurting small and mid size businesses. I'm hoping the private sector will come up with a solution, but so far they have only increased costs and reduced benefits. (I shouldn't complain too loudly, half my clients over the last decade have been health insurance companies.) |
| jdixon Jul 20, 2007 1:03 PM EDT |
> The US will have to do something. The high cost of health care is hurting small and mid size businesses. Well, that's a simple supply vs. demand problem. You have to increase the supply of health care. :) While that's a flippant answer, that actually is most of the problem. The demand for heath care services is outstripping our ability to provide them. The fact that the latest treatments always seem to involve heavily researched drugs and high tech devices isn't helping things any. We need far more doctors, nurses, etc. than we have and a greater emphasis on low cost treatment methods. |
| NoDough Jul 20, 2007 1:18 PM EDT |
Quoting:Hybrid public /private is how Canada did it. The provider sector remained private, they nationalized the insurance.Heh. I know a young man that went to Canada to intern. The first thing the nurses told him was, "If you need medical care, go back to the US." |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 20, 2007 2:16 PM EDT |
Now that everyone has had their last words in, shall we get back on the topic of dino's humbling magnificence? |
| dinotrac Jul 20, 2007 2:52 PM EDT |
>shall we get back on the topic of dino's humbling magnificence? In all humility, it's not necessary. Some things shine so brightly as to overwhelm mere mortal understanding. Words do not suffice. |
| dcparris Jul 20, 2007 4:35 PM EDT |
Good thing I keep my hip waders handy. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!