The Twelve Biggest Industry Mistakes of the Digital Age

[admin]

When I think back through some of the more recent technology inventions and innovations that we are enjoying in this digital age I am often reminded of the somewhat ridiculous nature of who brings forth these products and services. After all, you'd think the market leaders would continue to lead, or that those involved in a particular industry would remain on the forefront and bring that industry to repeat pinnacle achievements and advances. But this is simply not the case for many companies. In fact, more often than not, large companies tend towards stagnation and are thus greatly reduced in size from large megaliths to mere shadows of their former glory.


Discuss "The Twelve Biggest Industry Mistakes of the Digital Age" here. Read the article.

[MidnightSensi]

Great article.

While your article addresses specific examples, I feel that one of the biggest technology blunders as a whole has been using technology to fit needs we don't have as people.

Successful businesses that don't rely on previous marketshare or smoke and mirrors, provide services or products that make sense and fill a need.

I know, that's obvious, but when you look at a lot of the technology blunders mentioned, they violate this.

Technology developed to where we could move music around, and when it became available, instead of changing to what people wanted and were aware of, they fought it and tried to make money off of a failed business model. While it maybe made their numbers for a few more years, we all know these labels, without a dramatic change, will fail. If the suits at the labels don't know it, their kids sure do.

HDMI, like you said, is this all over: "It's also easy to see how high definition audio required, in theory at least, a new cable configuration and some additional copy protection to give the record labels the warm fuzzy of knowing that it would take an extra week to crack the revised standard for encryption... but I digress" ... couldn't have said it better.

Number 5 is the only one I kind of disagree with. I think that, while we as "Audioholics" feel that SACD and other improved formats would have been the obvious successor to CDs, with the rise of protable players sound quality took a back seat to portability. But this didn't violate the rule of giving people what they want, as a whole. Compressed music that sounds louder on an iPod, and smaller file sizes, were simply what people wanted. Now that memory is so cheap, and bandwidth to match, this might falter in the future.... but with the rise of digital came a fall for places to experience good sound. When I was a kid, lots of people had nice speakers and had pride in their equipment.... now people don't seem to even care.

As for Vista, I'm still in trouble with it. And I'm so stuck, that I find myself sitting here praying 7 will be better. While Mac and Linux have taken some of the marketshare, I agree that Me and Vista was the end of them. Because they are so big, it will take a while for them to fall, but they are already falling. I'm sitting here waiting for Linux, or anything better, to support for my software at work... Waiting. And its coming, I betcha.

[STRONGBADF1]

Sounded like Clint needed to get some frustrations out.

Nice read.

[Seth=L]

Sounded like Clint needed to get some frustrations out.

Nice read.

He's got every right to be pissed, we are all pissed.

[Clint DeBoer]

I actually learned a lot from writing this article.

The SACD/DVD-Audio dabacle was so interesting to me because the industry ignored a solution to their own desires. I agree with the assessment that the compressed audio solution was the popular movement, however the clamor for a secure file format was what the industry/labels wanted... and they ignored the solution that was right in front of them.

Plus the whole video aspect of the debate... why music is still most popular as a two-channel audio-only format is beyond me when it could easily be standardized as a surround sound video format - with a downgradable 2-channel mode for portability.

When you want to keep making money you have 3 choices... add more of it (in this case tracks), cut prices and seek more volume (distribution), or increase the value of your product... Well adding more tracks was out of the question and distribution was already maxed out... but...

The labels could have increased the value of their product (surround sound and adding video) for almost negligible costs. I'm not talking full-out video with 3D animation, effects and a storyline.. I'm talking behind the scenes music videos that can be cut by a college student in his underwear on an Apple HD rig (at worst).

[Nemo128]

I knew all this stuff, but I must say, it's nice for a notable source to agree with me and publicize it for all to see. It's correct on every count unquestionably.

Sensi, the Google Chrome OS will basically be a Linux distribution that they say will have better hardware support, a larger developer base, and of course support from arguably the best software development house in the biz. Do I agree with any of it? Maybe not. Is it good news? Absolutely!

[MidnightSensi]

I actually learned a lot from writing this article.

The SACD/DVD-Audio dabacle was so interesting to me because the industry ignored a solution to their own desires. I agree with the assessment that the compressed audio solution was the popular movement, however the clamor for a secure file format was what the industry/labels wanted... and they ignored the solution that was right in front of them.

Nod. I guess I just don't know that SACD and the like would be all that secure. It would take more hardware to break, and that I assume would be more difficult than just software like previous attempts... but, I think it would eventually get ripped to an open format like DVDs were. Maybe it wouldn't play on the same player, but, software would come along to read the new format.. I'm blathering and talking way over my head, but, maybe I got enough down to see where my brain was going there?

When you want to keep making money you have 3 choices... add more of it (in this case tracks), cut prices and seek more volume (distribution), or increase the value of your product... Well adding more tracks was out of the question and distribution was already maxed out... but...

They probably looked at this, but I wonder how big their market would really be? I see less and less surround sound systems. Theaters are still popular in large homes, but I actually see /less/ surround sound in regular homes than I did years ago. I see a ton of LCDs, but less home theater systems.

I think that the pain of wiring them, the difficultly of use, and the cost just killed it for a lot of people. Buy an iPod for a few hundred bucks, but to get a decent looking surround sound system is big money. The little home theater in a box things went for a while, but, people eventually realized that hassle of them wasn't worth the rather ordinary improvement in their experience.

The labels could have increased the value of their product (surround sound and adding video) for almost negligible costs. I'm not talking full-out video with 3D animation, effects and a storyline.. I'm talking behind the scenes music videos that can be cut by a college student in his underwear on an Apple HD rig (at worst).

Agreed.

But, I think some of the problems we are seeing with our "stuck" economy today is just that we have a hard time stepping outside of our specialized worlds. I think almost every industry has fallen victim to this, and those that have gotten past it have been wildly successful. Customer oriented ideas like delivering movies that weigh less than a letter through the mail, or an easy to use portable music system that connects to your computer.

Look at the automotive industry. How could they have come up with all these different car models? They all look the same, share most the same parts. It's people looking at numbers and months and figures and forgetting to open their eyes and see the obvious.

Look at the airline industry. I used to fly all the time, and love to travel. Now I can't stand it, I look for every way to avoid it. I have to go to Ibiza this summer and I dread the flight. In a month when I travel to Denver I had to use something like 5,000 miles for my upgrade. To fly to Frankfurt I had to use 20,000 miles. The flight attendants are mostly mean and lazy, the food sucks, all this technology in this expensive plane and they can't even get a decent movie system or the bloody internet on most of them. They make it MISERABLE and GROSSLY INEFFICIENT then wonder why they are in business trouble.

Part of it stems to their obvious loss of looking at how people actually travel. The Airbus A380 makes no sense to me. Take 550 people while they travel and ask them where they are going, I bet you on a flight to Frankfurt the majority aren't even stopping there. They make these huge airplanes, and then they need hubs and giant infastructure to support them. Since people generally go many different places, they should make smaller airplanes and have smaller airports and run them like a train. Which, maybe a more obvious idea would be to use less expensive methods of travel.... like bloody trains. You need airplanes to get across the pond, but for most travel a high speed train would be fine. Sure works for me in Europe, and I don't arrive feeling like crap because I can have things like "space" and "fresh air coming in" and "food"

I know I'm spreading out and ranting, but it really is all connected. It's the same problem, and I think we are all suffering from it to some degree. It's like the world has lost its perspective.

[STRONGBADF1]

Sounded like Sensi needed to get some frustrations out.

Another good read.

[lsiberian]

Great article.

While your article addresses specific examples, I feel that one of the biggest technology blunders as a whole has been using technology to fit needs we don't have as people.

Successful businesses that don't rely on previous marketshare or smoke and mirrors, provide services or products that make sense and fill a need.

I know, that's obvious, but when you look at a lot of the technology blunders mentioned, they violate this.

Technology developed to where we could move music around, and when it became available, instead of changing to what people wanted and were aware of, they fought it and tried to make money off of a failed business model. While it maybe made their numbers for a few more years, we all know these labels, without a dramatic change, will fail. If the suits at the labels don't know it, their kids sure do.

HDMI, like you said, is this all over: "It's also easy to see how high definition audio required, in theory at least, a new cable configuration and some additional copy protection to give the record labels the warm fuzzy of knowing that it would take an extra week to crack the revised standard for encryption... but I digress" ... couldn't have said it better.

Number 5 is the only one I kind of disagree with. I think that, while we as "Audioholics" feel that SACD and other improved formats would have been the obvious successor to CDs, with the rise of protable players sound quality took a back seat to portability. But this didn't violate the rule of giving people what they want, as a whole. Compressed music that sounds louder on an iPod, and smaller file sizes, were simply what people wanted. Now that memory is so cheap, and bandwidth to match, this might falter in the future.... but with the rise of digital came a fall for places to experience good sound. When I was a kid, lots of people had nice speakers and had pride in their equipment.... now people don't seem to even care.

As for Vista, I'm still in trouble with it. And I'm so stuck, that I find myself sitting here praying 7 will be better. While Mac and Linux have taken some of the marketshare, I agree that Me and Vista was the end of them. Because they are so big, it will take a while for them to fall, but they are already falling. I'm sitting here waiting for Linux, or anything better, to support for my software at work... Waiting. And its coming, I betcha.

Have you used Visual Studio for software development?

I can tell you that it's the main reason they have the edge over anyone else. They literally give it free to universities so that students get hooked on it and it's light years ahead of Java or anything else I've used.

Microsoft won't lose their market share as long as they stay ahead in the developer race. Though Apple(owned partially by MS actually) may make headway with the iphone stuff.

[Nemo128]

Visual * Express versions are free to anyone that has an e-mail address now. An 8 year old can start .net and C# development in his spare time for free.

Look at the automotive industry. How could they have come up with all these different car models? They all look the same, share most the same parts. It's people looking at numbers and months and figures and forgetting to open their eyes and see the obvious.

As of 2008, GM was the most brand-redunant auto manufacturer in the world by a wide margin. It were one of only two that looked for federal help when the recession hit. Am I the only one that doesn't think this is a coincidence?