Microsoft claims that only 3% of the XBox 360 units sold have been faulty, which is below the industry average. (Through www.engadget.com)
Since when did 3% of defective units is acceptable. If percentage looks very small to anyone, it is 12,000 units given that 400,000 units have been sold so far. Personally, that is an aweful lot of defective units. Microsoft just can't and shouldn't extend its software standards to its hardware devices when it wants to take over the living room of every household. People expect a lot more stability and reliability from devices like these. I for one is so glad that Microsoft isn't getting into Cars (or any other appliances). 3% would be lot and I would stop driving the car when the day comes.
Many readers of the article commented along the lines of what I feel. Here are some (ofcourse I am biased here by posting only the ones that supports my view =:0)
Posted Dec 1, 2005, 4:51 PM ET by KB
I don't play video games by any means and could care less about the Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo fueds but since when did 3% of manufactured XBox's to be defective was a "good" percent? Thats actually AWFUL. Is this what U.S. quality control standards have come down to?
Posted Dec 1, 2005, 6:09 PM ET by wxrman
Aren't you glad Microsoft doesn't make heart pace makers!
Sarah/Haloman, I have taken my "product quality control" classes or whatever you want. I have interned at GE. Six sigma is 3.4 defective for every million, not 100.
Posted Dec 1, 2005, 6:13 PM ET by umrain
3% means 1 in every 33 units is bad. that sounds rather poor to me.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Cable channels a la carte - Revisited
It seems FCC is having second thoughts about allowing "A La Carte" option for the consumers. That is not what I wanted to mention here. I came across this article at www.engadget.com (which is my favorite site) which made arguments which didn't make a lot of sense. First the author said the following
"..If you make a channel like say “The History Channel” stand on its own, the number of people who watch the channel would plummet. This would cause the cost of the channel to rise which would, in turn, cause the number of viewers to decrease. It’s a standard supply and demand curve and with each decrease in viewership, the loss of potential advertising revenue exacerbates the issue."
which is O.K with me. But going by the same supply-demand theory, the following cannot be true
"...The majority of cable television programming costs are due to a few select channels such as ESPN"
Based on the supply-demand, if more people prefer watching select channels, then the cost should obviously go down isn't? If I own a channel, I would price it lower so that I could have a broader reach instead of charging a premium and have few people opt it.
The other thing that I hated about the article is the author's negativity about something that hasn't been tried. Why would you oppose something that gives consumers more choices? If this new scheme fails in the market, that is a different thing. Let the market decide. What does the consumer have to lose or the cable providers have to lose because of all this? Nothing.
"..If you make a channel like say “The History Channel” stand on its own, the number of people who watch the channel would plummet. This would cause the cost of the channel to rise which would, in turn, cause the number of viewers to decrease. It’s a standard supply and demand curve and with each decrease in viewership, the loss of potential advertising revenue exacerbates the issue."
which is O.K with me. But going by the same supply-demand theory, the following cannot be true
"...The majority of cable television programming costs are due to a few select channels such as ESPN"
Based on the supply-demand, if more people prefer watching select channels, then the cost should obviously go down isn't? If I own a channel, I would price it lower so that I could have a broader reach instead of charging a premium and have few people opt it.
The other thing that I hated about the article is the author's negativity about something that hasn't been tried. Why would you oppose something that gives consumers more choices? If this new scheme fails in the market, that is a different thing. Let the market decide. What does the consumer have to lose or the cable providers have to lose because of all this? Nothing.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Sure XBox 360 was a success. But...
Sure it is a great machine and is going to change the gaming experience for the better. Not doubt about that.
But, I for one is very dissatisfied with the execution. Microsoft set a launch date in May 2005 and had plenty of time in its hands to make enough available for the launch date. I saw the demand for at least 10million units in North America on Nov 22nd,2005 and saw so little available. I for one did a bit of waiting in the night and the morning after and saw how disappointed so many people where. I think Microsoft missed the opportunity to cash in on the excitement and sell more units on that day. I call this the carpet-bombing strategy. Hollywood knows this strategy better than anyone else. Any new movie like "LOTR" for example runs in as many theaters as possible on any given cineplex so that people come see it on the excitement built so far.
With Sony's PS3 available mid 2006, I am sure many who considered Xbox 360 will wait rather than buy it. I called Dell the other day and they said any orders might take February/March of 2006 to deliver. If that is going to take that long, a few more months wouldn't hurt waiting to see what Sony has to offer for its PS3.
But, I for one is very dissatisfied with the execution. Microsoft set a launch date in May 2005 and had plenty of time in its hands to make enough available for the launch date. I saw the demand for at least 10million units in North America on Nov 22nd,2005 and saw so little available. I for one did a bit of waiting in the night and the morning after and saw how disappointed so many people where. I think Microsoft missed the opportunity to cash in on the excitement and sell more units on that day. I call this the carpet-bombing strategy. Hollywood knows this strategy better than anyone else. Any new movie like "LOTR" for example runs in as many theaters as possible on any given cineplex so that people come see it on the excitement built so far.
With Sony's PS3 available mid 2006, I am sure many who considered Xbox 360 will wait rather than buy it. I called Dell the other day and they said any orders might take February/March of 2006 to deliver. If that is going to take that long, a few more months wouldn't hurt waiting to see what Sony has to offer for its PS3.
FDA and the "Morning after" fiasco
There is no end to Bush's idealogical war which overrides common sense and forces people to see it the conservative way. I am deeply offended and pissed by an non-political (but governmental) organization like FDA sidestepping its responsibilities and procrastinating the decision. FDA should weigh any decision based on scientific evidence and the side effects of a specific drug. With conservatives in control, gone are the days where any department can make decisions based on the facts rather than their idealogies of the president or the forces behind him.
Link: Women are waiting.
Here is the timeline as available from the site. 4 years is a pretty long time:
November 14, 2005 : GAO report confirms "unusual" process for Plan B® application for over-the-counter status.
August 26, 2005: FDA misses its deadline for the third time.
January 21, 2005: FDA delays its decision on Plan B® again.
May 6, 2004: The FDA bows to political pressure and denies the application to switch Plan B® to over-the-counter status.
February 13, 2004: The FDA postpones its decision on Plan B® for 90 days.
December 16, 2003: Two scientific panels of experts at the FDA vote overwhelmingly to recommend the morning-after pill for over-the-counter sales.
February 14, 2001: 70 medical and public health organizations file a citizen's petition urging the FDA to make emergency contraception available over the counter.
God, please bless america and throw right wing conservatives out of power. We had enough. Let people make their choices and not the government.
Link: Women are waiting.
Here is the timeline as available from the site. 4 years is a pretty long time:
November 14, 2005 : GAO report confirms "unusual" process for Plan B® application for over-the-counter status.
August 26, 2005: FDA misses its deadline for the third time.
January 21, 2005: FDA delays its decision on Plan B® again.
May 6, 2004: The FDA bows to political pressure and denies the application to switch Plan B® to over-the-counter status.
February 13, 2004: The FDA postpones its decision on Plan B® for 90 days.
December 16, 2003: Two scientific panels of experts at the FDA vote overwhelmingly to recommend the morning-after pill for over-the-counter sales.
February 14, 2001: 70 medical and public health organizations file a citizen's petition urging the FDA to make emergency contraception available over the counter.
God, please bless america and throw right wing conservatives out of power. We had enough. Let people make their choices and not the government.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Sexy and sophisticated with a cute edge
That is how David Wang put it when talking about his Mac Mini experience and the Apple. Nicely written blog David. My computer is at least 4 years old and I have been thinking of switching to a Mac.
If anyone has been reading my blogs, it is easy to come to the conclusion that I am with him and share a lot of his sentiments. Windows always seems crude and is like a product thown out to the customer before it is even ready. Sure some one could claim it is technically superior, but I don't agree fully with that claim. For Microsoft, software is (1) a business and (2) a tool to help make people more productive. Nothing more and nothing less.
If anyone has been reading my blogs, it is easy to come to the conclusion that I am with him and share a lot of his sentiments. Windows always seems crude and is like a product thown out to the customer before it is even ready. Sure some one could claim it is technically superior, but I don't agree fully with that claim. For Microsoft, software is (1) a business and (2) a tool to help make people more productive. Nothing more and nothing less.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Google is going to charge access fee
No, it is the other way around. Just wanted to have a sensational title! Here is what caught my attention and my OpEd following that:
SBC Head Ignites Access Debate
"...The head of a major telecommunications company stirred up a hornets' nest this week by suggesting that he wants to charge companies like Google and Yahoo a fee for bringing them into consumers' homes."
Sure SBC can say and make any claims they want to. But this is one of the stupidest things I have heard from my point of view. You know why? Web isn't a much useful place w/o a lot of sites like these and infact it is the SBC which should be paying sites like Google for bringing customers to them :-) It is not like SBC is providing the bandwidth free of charge and wants someone to pay. It is charging customers a lot for the bandwidth and the whole reason customers are ready to pay them is because they want to access content or services provided by these sites.
Think of the traditional TV broadcasting. It is the companies like Comcast, Dish & DirectTV who pay the content providers (like CBS, NBC, CNN..) to bring their content to the consumer's home and in turn they charge consumers a hefty sum for being the middlemen. Not the other way around.
I think it is time the SBC chief starts thinking about the new economy.
Design matters, visuals matter...it ALL matters!
Garr Raynolds has 2 excellent blogs that reflect my current thinking very well. Be it a product or a presentation, Microsoft seems very focussed on content and misses every thing else.
Bill Gates and visual complexity
Gates, Jobs, & the Zen aesthetic
Bill Gates and visual complexity
Gates, Jobs, & the Zen aesthetic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)