Month: June 2008

Categories
technology

Bye Bye Moto

Is what many Motorola Labs employees will be saying in a few days time thanks to the culling of 150 engineers of the approx 600 total in the R&D division. There will also be 180 reassignments to other divisions. There are pros and cons to this but I don’t think it’s reasonable to blame one of the most creative R&D departments in the telecoms industry. The reg picks up on the story here. However, the reg misses a trick. The innovation from Moto R&D is often way ahead of the released products but the actual products launched have often been somewhat disapointing. Niggly bugs etc. It wasn’t just the late Geoffrey Frost who brought about the RAZR models that arguably saved the company (stay of execution?.The engineering worked with the packaging to produce a quite satisfying phone. The sad thing is that Motorola could have produced the iPhone based on their R&D but they haven’t. If Carl Icahn wants to put anything in place at Motorola it should be a longer term view which could yield a sustainable company rather than a vain hope of finding the next RAZR. There’s more money and value to be created in the long run from this. Don’t give someone a band-aid when they’ve just cut off their arm.
Of course with the closure/sale/reorg/whatever of the mobile phone division in 2009 it’s hard to think long term. It’s easy to lay off staff to cut costs. It’s easier to close or sell off divisions to cut losses. However, building a successful company that knows and taps its niches requires vision, leadership and a strategy that can be articulated. Steve Jobs gave that to Apple. Motorola should take a good look at the Apple board and consider how the fruit company’s management team have consistently delivered over the past few years. Not just great financial performance but innovative and beautiful products. Consistency of software, hardware, design, packaging; functionality and elegance. Which in many ways the RAZR had.

Categories
art

Month long auction in Manifesto

Over at my other job, the one that doesn’t involved shifting bits/bytes around a screen, we’re having a silent auction. It’s basically a sealed-bid auction but we thought the term silent auction had a bit of gravitas 🙂 We’ve listened carefully to our customers and so we’re running it for a month to give everyone time to consider the lots and their bids. We’re also arranging delivery/collection for successful bidders.
We’ve a fantastic collection of art and artists in the Manifesto Silent Auction and some keen prices reflecting our usual modest 15% commission. So if you fancy some art then visit manifesto.ie, browse the catalogue which will be available by the 25th and register a bid at or exceeding the minimum bid value. It’s not much more complicated than that!

Categories
politics

It’s not over yet

It is with sadness but little surprise that I read this article and others from what’s collectively described as the world press.
We may have rejected the treaty but EU leaders, especially the commission president Juan Manuel Barroso are saying the “treaty is alive”. They stab at it with their steely knives etc. Leaving the humour aside it just confirms that this is a “ratify or else” treaty with Barroso making rather pompous comments about getting an explanation for this from BIFFOT.
The conversation may go something like this
Barroso: “BIFFOT, how did your teeny weeny insignificant country think they could actually reject this treaty? Make them Vote Yes next time. I don’t care how you do it. You can’t be the Euro lap dog if you shit on our carpet.”
Cowen: “….. Yes boss…”
Of course he won’t call him BIFFOT (probably). And that’s the nub of the issue. Barroso was hopeful we’d all do what we were told and vote yes. His patronising and in my opinion obnoxious attitude comes from his belief in the grand European plan, whatever means are required to implement it. He is not the first European to have such a plan (think Napoleon etc.) but the current Eurocracy have a most cunning way to implement it. BIFFOT will be put under pressure to get this thing through, whatever it takes. The people of the country have rejected it and yet “senior sources” close to the government see “little alternative but a second referendum”.
This Treaty required unanimous ratification, those were the terms under which it was to be introduced. It hasn’t gotten it. We’ve rejected it yet our clear NO is being dismissed. The Treaty should now be DEAD, not alive no matter what Barroso or any of the other leaders are claiming.
Mr. Barroso is now attempting to subvert democracy in a sovereign nation and conveniently ignoring the terms of ratification for the treaty. It’s as simple as that. I remember hearing those seemingly daft Euro sceptics in the UK when I was much younger (think Norman Tebbit, Tony Benn etc.) and thinking how crazy they were that they didn’t trust what appeared to be a great and wonderful endeavour. It is largely a great and wonderful endeavour and it’s worth tempering whatever nationalistic fervour we may feel to participate. However a federalised Europe goes way beyond the 4 freedoms. It takes the envisaged benefits of cooperation and solidarity many steps too far. The comments today from Merkel, Barroso etc. show how the grand experimented has been perverted and the most basic right, democratic governance, is dismissed. It’s disappointing and disheartening.

Categories
politics

cowen a china shop

From the Irish Times

“Extraneous issues are used opportunistically by our opponents in an effort to garner support for their weaker case, to create confusion about the treaty provisions themselves, to raise fears, worries and concerns needlessly in an effort to win support. Theirs has been, frankly, a dishonest campaign,”

In a sentence, how the f*&k (to use his favourite word) does Cowen know whether these issues are extraneous when he hasn’t even had the decency to read the thing? Let’s leave deciding whether conduct is dishonest to the tribunals, shall we? Of course BIFFOT doesn’t think we’ll be able to renegotiate it. OK, here’s the thing about a referendum. It’s supposed to be the voters’ decision. If the EU is an organisation which coerces us into ratifying agreements that we don’t want to then what does that say for the EU?
The provisions of our constitution prevent the government from agreeing to constitutional changes with external parties (e.g. the EU) on our behalf. A vote is required. In that respect our constitution has been revealed to be a farsighted document. I appreciate this is not uniform and it’s overtly catholic values are problematic but the provisions for agreeing ammendments via referenda are a truly wonderful thing.
Also, it was a bit of a faux pas to let John Gormley know where he stood in the pecking order by not inviting him to their politico love-in. That could end up biting them in the butt in the near future considering the general stability of FF coalitions.