|
If you look at history, the mighty typically fall. I cannot think of many companies that stayed number 1 in their industry for much more than a half century, because someone else comes along and does it a bit less expensive and a bit better and develops the competitive advantage that eats the giant away. Plus, you have to remember that countries subsides some of their industries so they can put people to work and significantly boost their economies.
My prediction is Google will live, Apple will still be alive, though probably owned by someone else, and Facebook will probably be dead.
|
|
|
|
|
jgakenhe wrote: I cannot think of many companies that stayed number 1 in their industry for much more than a half century
I don't know you, but I do know some (Monsanto, Car Manufacturers (Ford, Audi...), BASF...) and there are a lot more older than 50 years in the top companies of the world.
On the other hand, they do change name to seem a "new" company with "new" vision, "new" user-friendly-ness, "new" ethic code... and so on. But at the end, they do exactly the same as their predecessor (in Spain we say "even when you dress a monkey with silk, it still is a monkey").
Even when your
jgakenhe wrote: because someone else comes along and does it a bit less expensive and a bit better and develops the competitive advantage that eats the giant away. Plus, you have to remember that countries subsides some of their industries so they can put people to work and significantly boost their economies.
is right... the ones coming later probably are might be even worst than the current ones.
I could continue, but then, the thread should be moved to the Soapbox.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Continue with what? Assumptions? One should never assume anything; be it business or computing.
Ford is not #1, they're 6th in global sales. GM was #1 for 77 years, but because of poor management decisions, unionized labor, and a competitive disadvantage to lower cost Japanese manufacturers they're now #3 (some other things too). Toyoda and VW are the top 2, but 50 years ago Toyoda was nothing but a small government subsidized company with low costs and a great manufacturing system.
Audi is a niche luxury brand of VW and is no where near #1, though they're very competitive in their segment for the past 15 years. 53 years ago they were a small company named Auto Union; which VW purchased.
In computing IBM was #1 50 years ago, but they are a shell of their former selves.
Quote:
I could continue, but then, the thread should be moved to the Soapbox.
That is why I did not mention any particular company. You opened the can of worms. I really doubt the IPhone will be fashionable in 53 years. They don't have much else other than the IPhone; which is why I have sold my shares in them.
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough... you were speaking about #1 on its sector and I was speaking on big enough to be there having a word or two on how the rules of the game are to be defined.
There are a lot of #1 that have fallen in disgrace, you are right. And perhaps there will be few current #1 that still hold the position in 50 years... but to say that they disappear is a bit too much too.
But at the end is as I already told... if they are not there anymore, there will be another occupying their place. And probably we will be even more insignificant for them than we currently are.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: Fair enough... you were speaking about #1 on its sector
Of course I was; the article is about a bigger Apple, Google, and Facebook in 2075 and they're currently 1# in their respected disciplines.
|
|
|
|
|
Drupal developers are threatening to quit unless Larry Garfield, a developer who was summarily removed from the development community for his unconventional sex life, is reinstated. One site used the phrase "sci-fi hanky panky." This tickles me.
|
|
|
|
|
One's own private life is a serious civil rights problem that men are beginning to experience in the western workplace. I myself, was under investigation for holidays in South East Asia, because a fellow employee didn't like the idea of me traveling alone there.
|
|
|
|
|
Even though I don't agree with what that developer does, I fully support him in this incident. What happened to him is discrimination, plain and simple.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
One's private life shouldn't be subject to employment discrimination. This is no different, really, than being fired for one's religious views.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think he was employed by the Drupal organization. He was just a contributor.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, true that. Misunderstood. Different situation.
Then I don't have a problem with his "banning".
It's funny how a sexually deviant lifestyle will be supported because hey, it's his choice, but someone who expresses sentiments that are not supportive of say gay marriage is forced to resign employment. Inconsistent and hypocritical.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
That correct, his is a contributor, which makes it even more heinous that this happened.
|
|
|
|
|
This action was taken by the copyright owner, which, among other things, raises the question about the nature of "open source." Are they really a community or a bunch of suckers doing work for free while the copyright owner cashes in?
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, just leave him alone.
K?
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Ewington wrote: This tickles me.
Whatever floats your boat
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Give it a few weeks, and it will probably be revealed that Buytaert frequently visits dominatrices, which is why he's so diametrically opposed to Garfield's preferences.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
New Tork Times: April 17: and you can kiss "net neutrality" goodbye [^]Quote: Would you want five companies owning every road in America and deciding who gets to travel where, at what price and speed? Taken further, should Verizon be able to require that the “internet of things” include only its things? ...
... These five companies account for over 80 percent of wired subscriptions and have almost total power in their territories. According to the Federal Communications Commission, nearly 75 percent of Americans have at most one choice for high-speed data.
Quote: The one bright light in this dismal story is the power of local authorities to encourage the construction of the communications equivalent of a street grid: fiber-optic networks running to every home and business. Hundreds of local governments, fed up with the existing network providers, have done exactly that.
According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, most Americans approve of this kind of local government effort. But the halls of state legislatures swarm with telecom lobbyists, and, amazingly, about 20 states already bar municipalities from making this choice. Not surprisingly, Mr. Pai has vigorously opposed federal proposals to block those state laws.
«When I consider my brief span of life, swallowed up in an eternity before and after, the little space I fill, and even can see, engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces of which I am ignorant, and which know me not, I am frightened, and am astonished at being here rather than there; for there is no reason why here rather than there, now rather than then.» Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
And the internet is not the only thing Trump is gutting (public relations, state budget, economy, healthcare, education).
It's alright as long as he the state can afford his weekly multi-million dollar golfing trips though.
But I guess that's soapbox material 
Trump supporter incoming in 3, 2, 1...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sandor, I omitted the name of a certain person, in the hope of focusing on the outcomes here, rather than "personalities." I felt this was necessary for a post in this forum.
cheers, Bill
«When I consider my brief span of life, swallowed up in an eternity before and after, the little space I fill, and even can see, engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces of which I am ignorant, and which know me not, I am frightened, and am astonished at being here rather than there; for there is no reason why here rather than there, now rather than then.» Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, this certain person's name is the first thing you read in the article's title
The outcome, of course, is pretty sad.
The internet was NOT designed to be in the hands of a few individual companies.
Everyone should have equal access to cat videos and pr0n, they are basic human rights!
|
|
|
|
|
For the me, the most infuriating thing is the state laws that bar municipalities from pursuing their own local systems. I can't see how that is anything but restricting competition and it makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Damn.
The US is where all the funny cat videos come from.
We'll miss them, when they're gone.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You have this problem when everything is based on capitalism without a socialism component [the converse is also true is other countries].
This is systemic in all aspects of America (health care, insurance, education) which they [the government] fail to correct, you need and have to have both for a healthy country and economy and that is the role of the central government.
Just me 2 cents so to speak...
|
|
|
|
|
Mehdi Gholam wrote: You have this problem when everything is based on capitalism without a socialism component
No, no. One of the main tenets of capitalism is competition. And it is competition that is lacking here, not bigger government.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
The only competition that will be going on is who can best monetize the customer. Currently there is no way to get true competition in the ISP arena due to impracticability of installing the infrastructure to allow competition. Also, the ISPs themselves (at least the big ones) have a huge army of government lobbyists that have worked to create road blocks to competition.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
