Hello stanvaughan,
> Pardon my jumping in here.
No need for pardon ... you are more than welcome to jump in! ;-)
> I was under the impression that the POMA has been
> presented from the outset, at least here in the U.S., as
> a developmental product being test marketed here. It is,
> after all, a Hitachi product and XYBR really
> hasn't "pushed" it very hard in the traditional sense.
This brings up some very interesting questions about the relationship between these two companies, and what the contractual and financial obligations are.
If XYBR does not have product management roles in evolving this forward, then I believe they are failing to position themselves with respect to this product. Their marketing could be claiming much more boldly that this *is* a Hitachi product simply being resold.
If XYBR has got themselves into a financial commitment with Hitachi, then I would hope that they also have some contractual control over the future of the product and would evolve it forward quickly.
What is concerning, IMHO, is that we are not necessarily seeing either!
> As for the MA V, I can only assume XYBR management
> depended on the expertise of IBM in developing,
> manufacturing and testing this unit.
I am not sure about the levels of development ... however manufacturing and testing could be heavily IBM influenced.
> Since IBM's design patents are being used by Antelope for
> it's core unit, why wouldn't they have the same
> developmental issues regarding BIOS that was found with
> the MA V, particularly as attachments are added?
The question is how far an engineering team strays from "off the shelf" clone PCs and standard BIOS. IMHO, it is not a complex task to create a wearable that is completely based on current generation technologies and standard BIOS. If this is done, then the levels of compatibility are automatically present, and the wearable truly becomes a "micro" equivalent of a laptop or desktop computer.
When engineers get too far ahead of the product management folks, then it becomes the "engineering challenge" to design and develop something that incorporates all of the newest whiz-bang features ... the old "Beta vs. VHS" story.
There are numerous places where I believe that XYBR has been looking so hard at the whiz-bang stuff that they have failed to deliver on some of the basic functionality requirements. The MA V, although an impressive engineering accomplishment, fails to deliver on some of the basic end-user requirements. (e.g. limited peripheral connectivity)
The BIOS issues are related to their desires to implement custom and proprietary solutions that require a custom and proprietary BIOS ... something that I believe does not make sense in a market that is going to be driven into commodity status within years ...
Scott C. Lemon |
