In article <192qbmqq8g3tw$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Was Toshiba paid-off to concede the HD battle? There are some signs that
> may point to this as a direct result of the ended format war. Reuters has
> reported that Sony has agreed to sell it's Cell and RSX fabrication plants
> in Japan to Toshiba. The WSJ is reporting that is is a joint venture in the
> form of 60% Toshiba,%20 Sony and %20 Sony Computer Entertainment Inc."
This brings up a point that Roy seems to usually miss--which leads to
many of his errors. Out in the real world, companies can be friends and
enemies *at* *the* *same* *time*.
Sony and Toshiba were on opposite sides of the HD format war. Yet the
Cell processor, which is vital to Sony's PS3 (and so indirectly to
Sony's strategy to beat Toshiba on HD formats) was a jointly developed
by IBM, Sony, *and* *Toshiba*.
You see this pattern all over the place in technology industries. IBM
and Sun are opposite Microsoft on document formats. But IBM and
Microsoft are close partners in many other areas. Microsoft, IBM, and
Sun all work together and get alone well in web services standards.
And you see this with employees. Down in the trenches, especially in
places like Silicon Valley, people jump from company to enemy company
all the time. At the executive level, this is even more prevalent.
Roy's view is that companies are kind of like countries were during the
cold war. Two companies are either BFFs, or KOS to each other. And
anyone who once worked for the other side is forever under suspicion.
It just doesn't work like that, as the Sony/Toshiba relationships over
HD formats and the Cell processor nicely illustrate. Until Roy adjusts
his world view to match reality, he will continue to be wrong far more
often then he is right.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
