Originally Posted by wigby
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
I'm sorry to say, but Samsung can copy anything Apple can do and sell it for far less. I doubt Apple will even be able to protect whatever touch-sensor patents it has in the court system because Samsung will find a way around it. Samsung is a far superior hardware company than Apple is. Samsung can try 100 permutations of any component or product in a short time while Apple plods along at a snail's pace. Samsung has the brightest teams of employees whose specific tasks are to reverse-engineer rival's products. I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung has project teams that number in the hundreds whereas Apple probably has only a dozen employees working on any particular project at one time. Samsung has only one goal. To steal rival's product market share and then totally dominate that particular industry. Apple as a company is too passive to protect itself from that type of thinking.
Nearly every hedge fund manager on the planet sees Apple's iPhone as no better than any cheap, plastic Android smartphone. They all say that the Android smartphone competition has gotten too strong for Apple to handle and Apple has already fallen behind. They say this without any doubts in their minds. What gets me angry is that Apple is sitting on a mountain of reserve cash and should be able to prevent smaller companies from having any advantage at all. If Apple comes out with a touch-sensor smartphone that becomes successful, I'm willing to bet Samsung will have a new touch-sensor smartphone on the market within months if not sooner and thereafter, every Android smartphone in the world will have a touch-sensor.
So by your logic why should Apple (or any company for that matter) even try to compete against the behemoth that is Samsung? Samsung is just too superior, right? I'm glad you're consulting with hedge fund managers over Apple's product styling and tech. I'm sure they lend some real insights.
If you knew the first thing about designing and developing products
you would know that large teams are generally a hinderance and most problems are solved best with smaller, focused ones.
Hence, the reason you get so much garbage (hardware and software) included with a Samsung phone. You're right about one thing: The only successes Samsung has had has been when they've copied Apple. Otherwise, they're just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks.
I agree about small team size.
I worked for IBM in the 1960-1980 era. AIR, they had 400,000 employees, world-wide.
I worked on lots of software and hardware projects with team sizes ranging from 1 to hundreds of members.
The most successful teams, in my experience, had 5-7 members.
The main reason, IMO, was inter-member communication.
With smaller teams, each member can:
- understand the entire project and his role
- mentally keep track of what others are doing
- know where they should have progressed
- assume (fairly accurately) how far they actually have progressed
- quickly update each other on status
This limits or eliminates unproductive formal communication, status reports, meetings, etc.
This could be a typical communication between 2 members of a small project team -- the totality of the exchange:
A: "How's it going on the" [interrupted by B]
B: "I am a little behind because I am waiting for" [interrupted by A]
A: "Yeah, I just checked with him and he'll be back on sched tomorrow AM"
B: "Great! Then I'll be caught up by tomorrow evening!"
What just happened is almost magical
-- in that brief disjointed exchange a lot of information was communicated,
and the project status was updated for Members A, B and C by implication. And, very subtly, B and C set progress goals for themselves -- to meet or exceed.
Compare that to each member spending time documenting his progress, emailing and reading the emails of others... going to meetings.
I was on one large project team at IBM where a status meeting was scheduled for the next day. The project leader for our sub-group suggested that we have a pre-meeting meeting
to discuss what we were going to say at the meeting... No Lie!
After a few months the project was canceled.
Anyway, the inter-member communication advantage of a small team allows it to be efficient and responsive.
Jurgen Appelo suggested that the optimal team size might just be 5. Five is the common number based on various studies around communication and team structures.
- Scrum recommends the team size to be 7 plus/minus 2. Hence the team can vary between 5 and 9
- According to Congnitive Edge, the human brain has co-evolved with social conditions and there is a natural limit on the number of social relationships a person can maintain. The study could easily be labeled as the rule of 5,15 and 150. 5 is linked to the natural limits of short term memory, 15 is the natural level of deep trust and 150 is the number of identities that a person can maintain in his head.
- Another study related to the Parkinson’s Law, suggested that any team size below 20 can work except 8. Above 20 there is a natural digression into subgroups and no consensus can be formed. With 8, people usually find themselves in deadlock situations over decisions.
Further adding suppoprt for a team of 5 with a comment on the Parkinson’s Law, PMHut suggested that
The more team members you have, the more communication channels you will have, and this thing goes exponentially. If you have 3 team members, then you will have 4 communication channels, if you have 4 then you have 9. I think the formula is m-1^2.