Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matt Walsh is an idiot.
[flagged]
Requires someone to say they are wrong because of the character attack.
Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
191–200 of 354 posts
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep this clip open in a browser tab so I can go back to it from time-to-time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3NASGb5m8s It's the same basic message from Jobs, but this time about Xerox.
How does this apply to e.g. the Bell System? From what I understand, their network was over engineered and they generally put out a very high quality product, and didn't need to do a lot of marketing.
[deleted]
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#193[deleted]
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#194Jack Welch style management and shareholder capitalism are some of the most destructive forces in the US economy.
What can reasonably be done to combat it? Leadership at all the biggest firms is on board with shareholder capitalism. To them, Welch style management just means line goes up...
Except for when they say they aren't.
https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redef...
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also possible to optimize for long term profitability. > There were certain things about the business where it was obvious – speaking to people who had been on that journey for 25 years before I joined – that they were not likely to change in the future because they hadn’t changed in the previous 25 years. The first thing that struck me was an absolutely rock-solid commitment to gaining the trust of the customer…
If you're in a stable business like groceries where you can be confident that your market will still be around in 25 years, sure. But that doesn't apply to a lot of businesses.
Save for perhaps the development of transporter technology or an unending deluge of viral pandemics, making airplanes for commercial aviation seems fairly predictable as to whether or not it'll exist in 25 years.
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep this clip open in a browser tab so I can go back to it from time-to-time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3NASGb5m8s It's the same basic message from Jobs, but this time about Xerox.
How does this apply to e.g. the Bell System? From what I understand, their network was over engineered and they generally put out a very high quality product, and didn't need to do a lot of marketing.
They put out a high quality, overengineered, extremely expensive product that, by government mandate, had no competition. After deregulation it was clear that customers wanted a little less quality for a lot less money.
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#197I know ahead of time that what I am about to say, will result in me getting yelled at by the HN crowd that what I am saying is anecdotal and all that. But, after refraining for a while, I guess I have to say something so, I know you will down vote me because this is not based on a scientific A-B test blah blah. Cool. People's lives are at risk. And No, I DO NOT work for Boeing and never have. I work for a company tha…
So what does your anecdotal evidence say about what's wrong?
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep this clip open in a browser tab so I can go back to it from time-to-time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3NASGb5m8s It's the same basic message from Jobs, but this time about Xerox.
How does this apply to e.g. the Bell System? From what I understand, their network was over engineered and they generally put out a very high quality product, and didn't need to do a lot of marketing.
Bronson said what is intended with my now deleted post.
And considering the landfills that are filled with things that replaced "expensive" goods like a Bell phone—maybe the tradeoff isn't worth it?
I doubt any consumers then had heard about 'economic externalities' (in fact, I'm not sure enough have heard about it now).
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “I have my own theory about why decline happens at companies,” Jobs told me: They make some great products, but then the sales and marketing people take over the company, because they are the ones who can juice up profits. “When the sales guys run the company, the product guys don’t matter so much, and a lot of them just turn off. It happened at Apple when Sculley came in, which was my fault, and it happened when B…
Reminds me of Clayton Christensen's talk at Google or argument in this article. "Because they were taught to believe that the efficiency of capital was a virtue, financiers began measuring profitability not as dollars, yen, or yuan, but as ratios like RONA (return on net assets), ROIC (return on invested capital), and IRR (internal rate of return)... All of this makes market-creating innovations appear less attractiv…
Is the upshot, then, that we can steer the arguably horrible course of capitalism by changes in the tax code?
Sounds like a plan to me. (Oh, wait, because lobbying. NM.)
[Yes, I'm a yankee.]
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#200Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…
> had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software
The problem was not the aerodynamic design. It was the software that granted too much authority to the MCAS system and the MCAS system relying on a single sensor.
Both those problems have been fixed.
A further problem was two crews not remembering how to deal with runaway stabilizer trim (it's supposed to be a "memory item").
Generally what is in the popular press about the MAX is wrong.