31–40 of 118 posts
Computer 1: Dell - Works as expected
Computer 2: Lenovo Thinkpad (work) - Old, works amazing
Computer 3: Surface pro - Randomly unresponsive, often times the keyboard has to be disconnected and reconnected. Often times it just freaks out and starts clicking where I am not clicking.
I followed all troubleshooting steps. It is terrible.
> The other communication systems involve the press box to the coaches on the field, and then the coach on the field, the signal caller, or the coach-to-quarterback, coach-to-signal caller system. Those fail on a regular basis.
> And again, there's a lot of equipment involved, too. There are headsets in the helmets, there's the belt pack, that communication, there's a hookup or connection to internet service or that process and so forth with the coaches and the press box. So, there are a number of pieces of equipment, there is a number of connections that are on different frequencies.
> And then during the game sometimes something happens and it has to be fixed, and first of all, you have to figure out what the problem is. Is it a battery? Is it the helmet? Is it the coaches' pack? Is it the battery on the coaches' pack? I mean you know, again, it could be one of 15 different things.
[1] http://www.patriots.com/news/2016/10/18/bill-belichick-confe...
This speaks to a higher level perception about software. Bugs and crashes, however inconsistent, irreparably damage the sentiment about using a technology. Younger folks grew up in an age with these inconsistencies and are less perturbed by them. To older folks though, manual systems rarely "fail" during use. The bar of acceptance is a great deal higher when your reliability and availability are compared to pencil an…
Oh, I don't know if I'd go that far. If since you were young you awakened each morning by being beaten with a stick, you might think that's just the way of things, but it's still unpleasant and you'd probably pay a good sum to make it stop.
No, the difference is that the oldsters have been putting up with this shit for over thirty years (flashing VCR clocks, anyone?). You've shaved one yak, you've shaved them all.
as the median age of user rises, quality requirements increase dramatically.
Because oldsters don't "get" technology? They don't want to give up their pen and paper? No, because they've got thirty years of experience backing their decisions: your shit doesn't work, and until proven otherwise they're going to stick with that assumption. I know I'm personally surprised when a piece of purchased technology does what it says on the tin.
So it has nothing to do with oldster vs. youngster. It has to do with "busy man has a job to do, a job that has nothing to do with yaks or shaving them" vs. "I'm going to spend my time dicking around with this tablet when I should be calling plays".
Now, I have to preface this by saying that I don't know much about football and even less about coaching it, but I wonder how much of this speaks to a lack of a real need for a technology solution for coaches. If it were providing a lot of value to them, I imagine they'd have a harder giving it up. This NFL suggests that there is such a need: "Since Microsoft has been a partner of the N.F.L. and implemented their tec…
QB just threw an interception, lets look over the play that just happened to see what he overlooked and how we can adjust.
The problem with technology in this case, is that there is no room for error. You have 40 seconds to call the next play, if you swipe wrong, something crashes you don't call a time out to call IT, you are just fucked. So 100% reliability will trump convenience, no software or hardware is 100% reliable.
This speaks to a higher level perception about software. Bugs and crashes, however inconsistent, irreparably damage the sentiment about using a technology. Younger folks grew up in an age with these inconsistencies and are less perturbed by them. To older folks though, manual systems rarely "fail" during use. The bar of acceptance is a great deal higher when your reliability and availability are compared to pencil an…
The alternative interpretation is that younger users will put up with lower quality even when it is not rational.
Football isn't the most important thing in the world, but within it communication and data-gathering are mission-critical. If your processes are not reliable, that's a problem. You're accepting a risk that they will not work when you need them. And the trade-off is for an incremental improvement when they do work? Why would a rational actor find that acceptable?
Rather than being an old luddite, maybe Belichick is one of the few coaches with enough clout to call out the NFL's solution as being unacceptable.
> Microsoft entered into a long-term sponsorship partnership with the league in 2013. At the time, the N.F.L. had a list of demands for the equipment, including ruggedness, ease of use, size, effectiveness in extreme temperature and glare resistance. > In 2014, Belichick noted that the system had crashed, but seemed mostly cool with it. “I’d say that’s all kind of part of the game,” he said. > “I just can’t take it a…
Robust systems are achievable already. We need managers that understand quality takes proper planning, time, and deep, concentrated, uninterrupted work.
Now, I have to preface this by saying that I don't know much about football and even less about coaching it, but I wonder how much of this speaks to a lack of a real need for a technology solution for coaches. If it were providing a lot of value to them, I imagine they'd have a harder giving it up. This NFL suggests that there is such a need: "Since Microsoft has been a partner of the N.F.L. and implemented their tec…
Belichick is considered the best coach in football of the last twenty odd years, so he has probably his process with pen and paper nailed down. And the thing is, new technology requires a learning curve both individually and also on a larger scale culturally, so I would guess that tablets after a year or so of use would provide a lot of value, however they do not do so now.
Now, I have to preface this by saying that I don't know much about football and even less about coaching it, but I wonder how much of this speaks to a lack of a real need for a technology solution for coaches. If it were providing a lot of value to them, I imagine they'd have a harder giving it up. This NFL suggests that there is such a need: "Since Microsoft has been a partner of the N.F.L. and implemented their tec…
Belichick is considered the best coach in football of the last twenty odd years, so he has probably his process with pen and paper nailed down. And the thing is, new technology requires a learning curve both individually and also on a larger scale culturally, so I would guess that tablets after a year or so of use would provide a lot of value, however they do not do so now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Robust systems are achievable already. We need managers that understand quality takes proper planning, time, and deep, concentrated, uninterrupted work.
And money. Don't forget about lots and lots of money. I'm going through this headache right now.
Sales wants more features to be competitive.
Management wants to ship it because it will generate revenue.
QRE/Manufacturing wants more time to test all of the features and their interactions.
And everywhere money gets squeezed out, sales wants to offer a discount to "win the deal", management wants to improve the margins by lowering the cost to develop, and the factory wants to ship product faster and spend less time qualifying it.