5 ms·

> Some people say SGI didn't see it coming - I think what was interesting was that they did see it coming but still structural issues prevented the taking of an

by mercer 12y ago

> Some people say SGI didn't see it coming - I think what was interesting was that they did see it coming but still structural issues prevented the taking of any effective action (for example salesforce commissions continued to encourage sales of large systems rather than the low end machines they really needed to push at the point.) It's interesting how knowledge of a (potential) problem often does not protect against that problem. As a psychologist it's one of my biggest fascinations: how people who work with addicts can become addicts themselves, how people who know of the 'evils' of racism are still susceptible to it, or how people who are professional psychologists do not deal with their own issues.

at-fates-hands 12y ago
I've always been fascinated by this as well. I've know several Cardiothoracic surgeons who were heavy smokers. Same thing with nurses. You'd think if anybody would know first hand the dangers of smoking it would be these folks, but nope, they all still smoked heavily regardless.
pionar 12y ago
> how people who are professional psychologists do not deal with their own issues My dad was owned a car mechanic's shop. One of the truisms in that industry is that mechanics often have cars in the worst shape, because they're so busy taking care of other people's cars that they just don't have the motivation or time to deal with the problems of their own car. Perhaps a similar phenomenon?
- agumonkey 12y ago
  Maybe in the desire to care for others more than themselves.
- lepht 12y ago
  > Another name for this is "vocational irony", which is a form of situational irony. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCobblersChildrenHaveNoShoes http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCobblersChildr...
ghaff 12y ago
And in this (and many other cases), how do you shift your business to something that is fundamentally different in a lot of ways, has a very different cost structure, and may not especially align with the particular competencies developed over the years? Reading about Kodak and Fujifilm is interesting: http://www.economist.com/node/21542796 http://www.economist.com/node/21542796. Both diversified--Fujifilm just did so more successfully. And, interestingly, did so by arguably focusing less on being a photo company in a digital age (though their mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are nice products) but by applying their film chemistry expertise elsewhere. Hopefully you have the advantage over starting fresh of a good revenue cash cow. But if that revenue declines rapidly, your legacy base may be more burden than help even if everything is managed perfectly.
- tim333 12y ago
  Reminds me of Buffett (1985 Letter to Shareholders) >“A horse that can count to ten is a remarkable horse - not a remarkable mathematician.” Likewise, a textile company that allocates capital brilliantly within its industry is a remarkable textile company - but not a remarkable business. And similarly I guess for Kodak and SGI reallocating capital to related projects.

by mercer 12y ago

at-fates-hands 12y ago

I've always been fascinated by this as well. I've know several Cardiothoracic surgeons who were heavy smokers. Same thing with nurses. You'd think if anybody would know first hand the dangers of smoking it would be these folks, but nope, they all still smoked heavily regardless.

pionar 12y ago

> how people who are professional psychologists do not deal with their own issues My dad was owned a car mechanic's shop. One of the truisms in that industry is that mechanics often have cars in the worst shape, because they're so busy taking care of other people's cars that they just don't have the motivation or time to deal with the problems of their own car. Perhaps a similar phenomenon?

agumonkey 12y ago
Maybe in the desire to care for others more than themselves.
lepht 12y ago
> Another name for this is "vocational irony", which is a form of situational irony. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCobblersChildrenHaveNoShoes http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCobblersChildr...

ghaff 12y ago

And in this (and many other cases), how do you shift your business to something that is fundamentally different in a lot of ways, has a very different cost structure, and may not especially align with the particular competencies developed over the years? Reading about Kodak and Fujifilm is interesting: http://www.economist.com/node/21542796 http://www.economist.com/node/21542796. Both diversified--Fujifilm just did so more successfully. And, interestingly, did so by arguably focusing less on being a photo company in a digital age (though their mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are nice products) but by applying their film chemistry expertise elsewhere. Hopefully you have the advantage over starting fresh of a good revenue cash cow. But if that revenue declines rapidly, your legacy base may be more burden than help even if everything is managed perfectly.

tim333 12y ago
Reminds me of Buffett (1985 Letter to Shareholders) >“A horse that can count to ten is a remarkable horse - not a remarkable mathematician.” Likewise, a textile company that allocates capital brilliantly within its industry is a remarkable textile company - but not a remarkable business. And similarly I guess for Kodak and SGI reallocating capital to related projects.