Not a bad thing at all.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Nov 08, 2013 9:49 AM EDT |
This is not a dilemma. We live in a universe of scarce resources. In order to build one thing, the building of other things must be abandoned. The scarce resources that went into thing A must be repurposed in order to build thing B. That repurposing is uncomfortable to people who do not understand change. Factories are sold, machines are re-tooled, that which was in demand before is not in demand any longer. New skills must be learned. This has always been reality, people just resist change because it's dangerous. Discovering one day that one's existing skills will not earn the salaries previously enjoyed is so awful for some people that they consider it something to be avoided no matter what. Just look at Detroit. Embrace it. Lead it. That is where the real benefits to mankind are found. |
| andrews51 Nov 15, 2013 6:14 PM EDT |
I disagree with the scarce resource argument for this particular apparent sea change. It's very possible to build both as many PCs and as many smartphones as both markets would consume - even if both markets were increasing rapidly. There is no scarcity of electronic components or manufacturers. The scarcity is the lack of buyers in the market, and that's not even true. It's rather the lack of growth in the PC market, not the overall market space of the PC, that is driving the "old guard" into disarray. The PC market has stagnated mostly due to non-increasing consumer demand and overall higher system costs versus a mobile platform. However, I don't believe the desktop PC is going to disappear. There will always be a need for non-touch data entry machines, as well as machines that support large screens and high power processors. Perhaps, the general purpose PC used for editing text documents will be transformed into the web app enabled low power keyboard+screen thin-client like model. But, disregarding complex engineering and science documents, even simplistic business document creation is more efficient with a keyboard and monitor, so - I don't believe the hype surrounding "the death of the PC"... |
| BernardSwiss Nov 15, 2013 8:00 PM EDT |
Outgoing Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer tells WSJ that he was part of the problem "At the end of the day, we need to break a pattern. Face it: I'm a pattern." http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/11/outgoing-microsoft-c... |
| skelband Nov 15, 2013 9:56 PM EDT |
> It's rather the lack of growth in the PC market, not the overall market space of the PC, that is driving the "old guard" into disarray. I believe, if I interpret him correctly, that this is what Bob is referring to. Microsoft, thus far, have leaned very heavily on the idea of Windows in the desktop concept. The current situation is caused by the old guard, which is afraid of abanding their traditional cash cow and the new guard which wishes to take the company in an entirely new direction. Thus, we end up with the frankensoft of Windows 8 which embodies all of the confusion and lack of focus that ensues. Splitting up the old and new is what will ultimately save Microsoft from gathering irrelevence. My old man used to work for ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries) in the UK before he retired. ICI built a massive portfolio in the synthetic dye industry producing industrial dyes and pigments for paint. Over time, cheap, good-enough imports from the east made this largely unprofitable for them, whereas there burgeoning moves into genetic and other niche (at the time) technologies was the way forward. Unable to make the corporate change, they split into two, ICI (old) and Zeneca (new). It was the best thing they ever did. |
| andrews51 Nov 15, 2013 10:47 PM EDT |
> Splitting up the old and new is what will ultimately save Microsoft from gathering irrelevence. I'm not sure if Microsoft will be saved from its fate... of course, I hold that belief mostly because I'm not a fan of Microsoft... but anyway - the "good enough" argument is one which, I believe, will kill Microsoft. Right now most Microsoft products have "good enough" replacements that are cheaper or altogether free from licensing costs. It's only a matter of time until the board room types begin to realize this. Once that happens, Microsoft will be irrelevant, regardless of the state of the market of the desktop PC. There are arguments for and against Microsoft products, but, I feel, at the end of the day - ROI rules decisions - and Microsoft has a very limited time left on the ROI clock - regardless of whether or not you are a fan of the Ribbon... Just my thoughts - of course - and I - like most - have an opinion --- which are like, well - you know the rest... |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 18, 2013 9:41 AM EDT |
> It's very possible to build both as many PCs and as many smartphones as both markets would consume - even if both markets were increasing rapidly Scarcity is reality in all things. Even if only in the time we each have to spend before death. If I spend $100 on a smart phone, that's $100 I don't have to spend on a PC. If I spend my time fiddling with my phone, that that then cannot be spent fiddling with a PC. There was a term used a decade ago very widely: Mindshare. This, too, is a scarce resource, where if I hear about one product I am not hearing about some other product. |
| gus3 Nov 18, 2013 5:05 PM EDT |
That makes about as much semantic sense as saying "Bill Gates' money is less scarce than my own." Bounded, yes. Scarce? That's a subjective conclusion. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 18, 2013 5:55 PM EDT |
Scarcity is a simple fact. Cal it what you wish. |
| jdixon Nov 19, 2013 12:42 AM EDT |
> Bounded, yes. Scarce? That's a subjective conclusion. As with many terms, gus3, scarce has a specific meaning with differs slightly from it's common one. :) In this case, Bob is using the economics definition, which would better translate to limited or finite in common terms. |
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!