Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ian@SI who wrote (31373)	7/12/1999 10:30:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Ian - OT - There are root causes that can and will be removed from the product, if not by the original manufacturer then by a current or new competitor. Sure, and Richard didn't really say anything that was different from this, except that by the time you've fixed some of these problems technology has made many of the fixes obsolete. Why is this wrong? Clark PS TQ is a process and a goal, and the goal is inherently unachievable (point to any manufacturer anywhere which has reached 100% satisfaction of its customers. It doesn't happen unless you fudge the customer surveys to be very narrowly focused.).

To: Ian@SI who wrote (31373)	7/12/1999 12:11:00 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

At NO time did I say that National's quality concerns were invalid. What I DID object to was the comparison of capital equipment to consumer products, with no seeming awareness of the fact that those two industries have different problems, and different cost issues. As for "Quality is Free" vs. "Quality Costs" as a philosophy, I have a problem with either point of view being applied without regard to where a given product is on the cost/reliability curve. The point is to spend design dollars where they will do the customer the most good. If customers have reliability issues, then that is evidence that more needs to be invested in making the necessary improvements. Finally, I must say that I resent your attempt to extract personal information from me so that you can attack my employer. It appears to be nothing more than an attempt on your part to silence a point of view which you find inconvenient, and are unable to refute by other means.