Worth their salt
The current train of management thought firmly puts employees in the "cost" section of Excel spreadsheets, but is that really a fair way of looking at it? Maybe not: Royal Pingdom did some profit per employee calculations, and found that each Googledroid brought home US$210,000.
Microsofties were almost as worthwhile, at $195k each, with Baidu, Apple, Cisco, Adobe, and eBay employees all delivering US$100,000 or more to their respective motherships. Google and Apple top the revenue per employee chart, with just over US$1m each, but Microsoft’s doing well to wring $195k profit out of $$664k revenue for each salary slave. Just saying… — Congratulations Google staff
Open source makes Microsoft stronger
For how long have we predicted the end of Microsoft as the open source battle cruiser rolls on? For about as long as Linux was meant to take over as the desktop OS of choice. The problem with those predictions and others that say Microsoft will sink in the open source waves is that they assume Redmond will remain static and learn nothing. It’s true that Microsoft requires more than the usual share of boots to the head to start listening and changing, but isn’t that what open source provides? Look at the above story on per-employee profits and revenue – Microsoft is still making money, by producing software that people buy. I’m wondering if the lack of Open Source wouldn’t have led to Microsoft stagnating and dying off, instead of being honed by just the right amount of competition. — Ex-Microsoftie says free software will kill Redmond — Government prepares for new three-year Microsoft deal — NZOSS: Stop G2009 — Bernard Hickey: Our government should adopt communism to save money
Stop the broadband jockeying
I fear the fibre to the home network that National is proposing will be a cock-up. This is because the government is being lobbied on allowing private interests in on the network build, paying some of the cost of the deployment alongside the taxpayer. This may seem like a good thing — the government (that’s us!) is pretty broke and it’s only fair enough that Telecom, Vodafone and others should invest some of their handsome profits back into infrastructure. However, doing so would open up another Pandora’s Box of vested interests wanting to keep pricing high through lack of infrastructure competition and barriers of entry to access seekers — and this is what companies should do, as it’s their job to ensure rapid and maximum return on investment. Letting the telcos dictate the terms of the FttP network would be a mistake, and it would hurt us for a long time to come. The Southern Cross Cable isn’t the right model to follow here, unless we desire no competition, limited choice and ensuing high prices for the FttP network as well. Regulating to fix the lack of infrastructure competition isn’t going to fix anything. Just ask Vodafone the reason why it’s not offering Naked DSL and is focusing its broadband efforts on the LLU service. Guess which of the two Vodafone can make work financially? The Australians have already figured this one out, so why not take a leaf out of their book? They believe they’ll get A$80 billion out of the A$43 billion investment without allowing vertically integrated telcos a foothold in the NBN. — Vodafone proposes broadband alternative — ACCC: National Broadband Network heralds new wave of telecommunications development — Telco Forum CEO Chivers to lead broadband project — Europe drafts rule for state broadband investment