XPost: comp.sys.cbm, rec.games.video.classic   
   From: wildstar128@hotmail.com   
      
   "Joel Koltner"  wrote in message   
   news:13j76qsckge5l0c@corp.supernews.com...   
   > "Wildstar"  wrote in message   
   > news:NvMYi.262$iB2.78@newsfe02.lga...   
   >> The business world isn't about "ethics". It is about doing what it takes   
   >> for business to survive the competition. Do what is legal. Law does not   
   >> equal ethic. Business is war and war is not for the timid   
   >> "goodie-tooshoo".   
   >   
   > To put it simply... not everyone views the world like this.  Plenty of   
   > businessmen are perfectly happy *not* trying to take over the world and   
   > put all their competitors out of business -- as long as any company makes   
   > a reasonable return on investment, who's going to complain?  Not the   
   > investors (since they were the ones who defined "reasonable return"), not   
   > the employees, etc.   
   >   
   > At least here in the U.S., you can run a business *incredibly* poorly and   
   > still stay in business; plenty of people have first-hand experience   
   > working for such companies.  This super-tough, "winner takes all, business   
   > is war" mentality does apply to some markets (CPUs and operating systems   
   > perhaps?), but the vast majority of companies (by number) extant today   
   > don't take themselves nearly as seriously as you suggest.   
      
   Different industries and different conditions involved. In case of lumber   
   industry, they own the land that they harvest and they don't have to fight   
   competitions. Others are different. Lets remember that the computer industry   
   is more "civilized" but the average cost is higher than it was in the 80s.   
   Even with deflation. Fierce competition brings the price down. Today, it is   
   pretty well stagnant. That is because there is a lack of competition.   
      
   > I'm not convinced that Tramiel's being less of a jackass would have in any   
   > significant way lessened Commodore's performance -- and it might have even   
   > helped it... but I admit there's no way to ever know that for certain.   
   >   
   > For the guy asking what Jack could do to attone: Simple apologies go a   
   > long way.  You don't even have to say (or think) that you were wrong,   
   > simply that you regret the hardships and grief you caused for others.   
      
   What did Jack do to you?   
      
   >> If you are not willing to screw the competition over when they are trying   
   >> to screw you, then you don't belong in corporate business leadership   
   >> because you are too timid.   
   >   
   > Again, plenty of successful businessmen today don't believe that sort of   
   > philosophy; it's just as arbitrary (if not downright bogus) today as it   
   > was half a century ago.  Ever heard the saying, "Turn the other cheek?"   
   > (And folks "selling" religion make *plenty* of money...)   
      
   Lets remember, Jack Tramiel was from that "half century ago". He was a   
   dinosaur and he was at the waning years of that philosophy. Also, remember   
   that Jack Tramiel started Commodore in the 1950s and 1960s. He was an old   
   school businessman then. Donald Trump is one of the few remaining hard-ass   
   types in the computer industry. In the building/construction industry, that   
   still exist prevelently. There also is good reasoning for being a hard ass   
   in that industry.   
      
   Remember, IBM's Thomas Watson, Jr. and others. Remember, Aikens and others.   
   Those guys were the guys who will fight hard.   
      
   > There would be more of a discussion here if Commodore, under Tramiels   
   > leadership, had performed spectacularly with well-above-market-average   
   > returns and a steady stream of solid products, but that didn't happen --   
   > while the C-64 was obviously a huge success, the release of the C16 and   
   > Plus/4 were market failures, and none of his post-Commodore companies were   
   > particularly notable either.  Hence Tramiel can't even claim, "might makes   
   > right" -- the guy jumped out of what he thought was a sinking ship, after   
   > all, when he'd been at the helm for decades!   
      
   Actually, Commodore did phenomenally while under his leadership. Over 4   
   Million C64s in a single year. It was after Jack Tramiel left that Commodore   
   had problems.   
      
   > Sounds to me there's a much stronger case that he's a decent businessman   
   > who happens to have been something of a jerk than a case that he was some   
   > visionary superstar businessman whose "achievements" couldn't have been   
   > obtained through less-abrasive-to-others means.   
      
   Commodore's success is a result of both Jack Tramiel's aggressive leadership   
   and the engineers creative working under strap budget and tight   
   time-windows. Sure, there was alot of products that were dropped for one   
   spectacular product. However, those products were combined to become one   
   spectacular product. Instead of a video chip product and a sound chip   
   product, they combined it to be the Commodore 64.   
      
   I don't think he was as much of a jackass as you have interpreted him to be.   
   He was tough and fired people who isn't going to do the work and complained.   
   Argue with him and you are out. Jack been in business to know that if his   
   employees just did the work, they'll find a solution. Instead of whining to   
   him, "We can't do it." Those that did the work, made it happen. Those that   
   complained, got ousted because he isn't going to waste his time with people   
   who aren't going to work.   
      
   There are various reasons for various cases. If you allow the engineers to   
   have free reign, they'll make fancy "projects" not products. Products is the   
   result of putting a deadline and budget of "projects" and price level. Jack   
   didn't want a bunch of fancy projects. He wants products. Engineers tends to   
   be full of featuritist. Of course, you need a hard-nose, down to earth,   
   businessman saying - "Enough. We need a product not a project." So, yes,   
   some dreams didn't make it. That is the difference between making a product   
   and some engineers wet-dream being engineered.   
      
   The thing is, engineers will keep fiddling with it and adding more features   
   and more features and eventually it will become too pricy. That is the   
   difference between a C-1 and C64DTV. That is the difference between a   
   project and a product. If we had a "Jack Tramiel", the we would have a   
   $99-199 C-One.   
      
   There is reason for people like Jack. As for atoning, who worked for   
   Commodore is even asking Jack to atone? Why does he have to atone? There is   
   nothing he has to answer to anyone. Nor is anyone who worked for Commodore   
   who had been "Jack attacked". No one demands Donald Trump to atone for his   
   "You're Fired!" when he does his "Trump attack". You would think Donald   
   Trump is an jackass. You know what, if you can't handle working for those   
   hard-nose, hard-ass employers, don't apply. They run their business their   
   way. It's his money and his investors had no problems. It was under Jack's   
   reign that the Vic-20 and C64 - (the best selling personal computer model in   
   world history)   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)