<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">Your argument is
similar to suggesting Nike has superior engineering because they have the
coolest shoes. </font></span></font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br>uhh... yes. The coolest shoes come from doing real *engineering*. Unless by cool you just mean pretty colors. An *incredible* amount of engineering goes into the creation of nike shoes. An **INCREDIBLE** amount.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">No doubt there is some engineering at Nike wrt shoes but it
aint that special in the grand scheme of things. </font></span></font></span> <br></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"> It's about selling a
minimal product with high margins, like Apple.</font></span></font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Hmm... this is just wrong. Nike (nor apple) wins because they designed the cheapest to manufacture product. In fact most of the time this is not true.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us"><br></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us"><span></span><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">If we take as a simplistic metric the number of inferences
and resulting complexity produced from work at the company required to go
from the drawing board to the product release, then the engineering that
goes into an iPhone is not really any more then most of the McWindows
phones out there.</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br>First of all I said Apple not iPhone. But to focus on the iphone for a sec, because Apple controls the software and the hardware of all of its products, even with the iPhone this statement is demonstrably false since McWindows phone manufacturers OEM their software and so do far less than half the work apple has to do. And certainly, at this point, apple has the most appealing software stack in the phone market. To suggest that there is no difference between the iphone software and the crash prone clunky windows mobile is to not have used either.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"> A lot of design and art and marketing considerations
mostly, but that is not really engineering,</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br>design *is* engineering, particularly as it relates to software and mechanical engineering. You cannot separate them. And by design I do not mean art work. It means how you make things work. Again your comments reflect not having actually worked on this stuff. Engineering good designs is hard. Its not about art, it is about execution. To suggest otherwise is really to reveal a lack of understanding of the process.<br>
</div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>blog: <a href="http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com">whydoeseverythingsuck.com</a>