Skip to main content

The New Toyota, Part 2

After last week's entry, I received a fair amount of flack from readers complaining that I was anti-Apple and that the company's products really don't deserve the constant tongue lashing that the haters keep delivering. I can relate to their viewpoint: nearly 20 years ago I was berating the Windows lovers for hating OS/2, which was obviously a better operating system. It was frustrating because I was right on the technical points but I missed the bigger picture, which is that a company has an obligation to its user community to do the right thing. (IBM let the OS/2 user base down considerably back then, but that's a story for another day.)

I'm not going to rehash last week's story, but I find it ironic that accusations have been leveled again against Apple after it appears that several iTunes accounts have been hacked. The Infoworld article describes how several hundred accounts have had unauthorized purchases made on behalf of the account owners, sometimes vaulting the purchased applications into Apple's Top Picks section of the App Store (according to something I read elsewhere regarding this).

Is Apple responding to the problem? Yes they are, but they are doing it Ostrich-style: they are putting their head in the sand and pretending that the problem doesn't exist. Or at least that's what they are publicly telling the world. "iTunes is an impenetrable application store architecture!" is the feeling I'm getting from Cupertino.

Am I being too hard on Apple? You tell me.

At least Apple - with regards to the iTunes situation - is reacting to a situation they did not initiate. Dell apparently initiated the situation and pretended that they did not know about it. From 2003 to 2005 they intentionally sold computers with faulty parts to resellers and customers alike. Ironically, the law firm defending the company from the ensuing lawsuit owned 1,000 of these computers, which Dell refused to fix after they stopped working.

What is wrong with these companies? I'm at a loss to explain it. Am I suggesting that all companies should be altruistic or at least have good intentions behind everything they do? I'm not naive - I know that'll never happen - but there are certain companies that represent more than just capitalism, e.g. Apple with its never ending pursuit of elegant and sleek design; and Dell with its exceedingly high standard of product quality and customer service.

Are these companies now relegated to the stable of companies that have made headlines for the wrong reasons such as Enron? Certainly not. But one can't help but feel a tad disappointed at the way companies that used to be untouchable (at least in my eyes) have fallen from grace just a little bit when it was quite preventable.

Popular posts from this blog

"Ni jiang yi yang de hua ma?"

Last week, I wrote about the necessity of having a clear message . Because this topic is so important I decided to follow-up with another entry on this general subject. This week we will approach it from another angle. (For the curious, the title says " Do you speak the same language? " in pinyin, which is a transliterated Mandarin Chinese.) Recently, a good friend of mine (who is Chinese, ironically) and I were playing pool. He had to bank the 8-ball in the pocket to win the game, and since it was an informal game and bank shots are my area of expertise, he asked me for advice. I told him, "you just need to strike the cue ball with medium speed so that it hits the 8-ball right in the middle." He didn't believe me so we marked the positions of the balls, and then he took his shot only to watch the 8-ball sail past the pocket. "A-ha!" he exclaimed. "I told you it wasn't that easy." But when we reset the positions and I made an attemp

It's Easier to Fail at DevOps than it is to Succeed

Slippery when wet Since the term DevOps was coined in Belgium back in 2009, it is impossible to avoid the term whether in discussions with colleagues or in professional trade magazines.  And during the years while this movement has gained momentum, many things have been written to describe what elements of a DevOps strategy are required for it to be successful. Yet in spite of this, there is an interesting data point worth noting: not many organizations feel there is a need for DevOps.  In a Gartner report entitled DevOps Adoption Survey Results (published in September 2015),  40%  of respondents said they had no plans to implement DevOps and 31% of respondents said they hadn't implemented it but planned to start in the 12 months after the survey was conducted. That left only 29% who had implemented DevOps in a pilot project or in production systems, which isn't a lot. "Maybe it's because there truly isn't a need for DevOps," you say.  While that

Is No/Low-Code the Key to IT Nirvana?

 Unless you've had your head in the sand for the past year or so, you've seen the phrases low-code  and no-code  bandied about quite frequently everywhere you look.  You've probably wondered if this is something new that's here to stay or just a "flash in the pan."  Although the terms have been in the fore of the IT trade publications recently, Low Code Development Platforms (LCDP) (and the corresponding No Code Development Platforms) have been in existence since 2011.  Their roots can be traced to the 90's with 4th generation programming languages and GUI-assisted programming paradigms, e.g. IBM VisualAge for Basic, which was discontinued in 1998. For those of you who aren't familiar with either, the premise is that these platforms allow someone to quickly build applications using a WYSIWYG interface and a "click and configure" paradigm to Isn't this the source code to Roblox? rapidly build full applications with little or no coding requ