This is just another example of a recurring pattern in technology adoption within large organizations. Whether it's desktop devices, operating systems, mobile devices, office productivity suites, software development tools, software development processes, CRM systems, accounting & reporting tools, etc., the same technology lifecycle pattern seems to repeat over and over again. Companies get enticed into going "all in" to adopt a particular tool, technology, or process as a standard, sink hundreds of millions of dollars and immeasurable worker hours rolling it out and supporting it and then watch it slip into obsolescence and decay, only to be replaced by a new or different standard within a few years or so.
As bad as it sounds, this recurring technology lifecycle of attraction -> adoption -> standardization -> decline -> abandonment is more of the nature of the beast rather than a fault or failing with the technology itself. It's more of a Darwinian process that's characteristic of technology evolution in general. Of course there will be some organizations that get burned badly by this lifecycle, especially when technology like Windows Phone takes the fast track to the decline and abandonment phases. It sucks for those who pushed for a technology choice that turned out to be suddenly dead ended. But total avoidance of the lifecycle is impossible because you never know when the vendor or owner of the technology you buy into will give up on it and leave you hung out to dry. The decision makers for the NYC phone case bet all their chips on a Microsoft promise. Microsoft is a big, powerful, long lived, and reliable business partner - so what could possibly go wrong?
Everything.
Who is to blame? If you have to assign blame I'd put a bit more of it on Microsoft than NYC. Sure, the minuscule market share of Windows Phone compared to Apple and Android was a legitimate warning sign for NYC. But I'd imagine that Microsoft provided NYC with plenty of assurances that Microsoft was the right choice and would deliver on the promise. Microsoft didn't live up to their promise and NYC is left holding the bag. NYC chose unwisely but Microsoft proved that it is not a reliable business partner.
This is just another example of a recurring pattern in technology adoption within large organizations. Whether it's desktop devices, operating systems, mobile devices, office productivity suites, software development tools, software development processes, CRM systems, accounting & reporting tools, etc., the same technology lifecycle pattern seems to repeat over and over again. Companies get enticed into going "all in" to adopt a particular tool, technology, or process as a standard, sink hundreds of millions of dollars and immeasurable worker hours rolling it out and supporting it and then watch it slip into obsolescence and decay, only to be replaced by a new or different standard within a few years or so.
As bad as it sounds, this recurring technology lifecycle of attraction -> adoption -> standardization -> decline -> abandonment is more of the nature of the beast rather than a fault or failing with the technology itself. It's more of a Darwinian process that's characteristic of technology evolution in general. Of course there will be some organizations that get burned badly by this lifecycle, especially when technology like Windows Phone takes the fast track to the decline and abandonment phases. It sucks for those who pushed for a technology choice that turned out to be suddenly dead ended. But total avoidance of the lifecycle is impossible because you never know when the vendor or owner of the technology you buy into will give up on it and leave you hung out to dry. The decision makers for the NYC phone case bet all their chips on a Microsoft promise. Microsoft is a big, powerful, long lived, and reliable business partner - so what could possibly go wrong?
Everything.
Who is to blame? If you have to assign blame I'd put a bit more of it on Microsoft than NYC. Sure, the minuscule market share of Windows Phone compared to Apple and Android was a legitimate warning sign for NYC. But I'd imagine that Microsoft provided NYC with plenty of assurances that Microsoft was the right choice and would deliver on the promise. Microsoft didn't live up to their promise and NYC is left holding the bag. NYC chose unwisely but Microsoft proved that it is not a reliable business partner.
Everyone lost.
Chalk it up to one single decision maker apparently, Jessica Tisch, the NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Information Technology, reportedly a terror when she doesn't get her way. So she got her way.
From the NY Post source article: "She was in charge. It was her project, no question about that,” a source said.""Sources said Tisch, whose late grandfather co-founded the Loews Corp. conglomerate, insisted on Microsoft-based phones in part because the NYPD was already using Microsoft software to run the video surveillance program at its Lower Manhattan Security Initiative Command Center."
The NYPD will be issuing a statement when Ms. Tisch returns from vacation later today.
Ouch! But why iPhones? Could @gatorguy please explain? Wouldn't Android be a better, more cost effective choice? The NYPD could probably get some really good deals on Samsung knockoffs. Is the NYPD wasting taxpayer money buying overpriced, substandard (as in years behind Android) Apple crap? Just asking. <s>
Because nothing scares the general public more than seeing a fire in a police car.
Ouch! But why iPhones? Could @gatorguy please explain?
See my previous post for a partial explanation. Since you want my guess (no better than anyone else's) as to why iPhones are now their new choice rather than "other" perhaps it's to avoid any possibility of a smaller OEM causing anything similar to the support problems from their initial choice. IMHO that was a "gimme", something you yourself could probably have written.. All eyes will be on the NYPD and with Apple absolutely the safe choice even if it may not be the least expensive why take another chance. Or maybe it is the least expensive too. No mention yet what iPhone model NYPD will be acquiring or from where (I assume a special deal with Apple directly considering who they are) but later today I think they may tell everyone more details.
I wonder if this will cause Apple to invest extra effort in detecting apps that send out the phone's location ( a la AccuWeather ) ? That's information that could certainly be misused.
It's a tricky one. Accuweather wasn't sending out the phone's location; it was sending the location of the WiFi station the phone is connecting to.
I wonder if this will cause Apple to invest extra effort in detecting apps that send out the phone's location ( a la AccuWeather ) ? That's information that could certainly be misused.
It's a tricky one. Accuweather wasn't sending out the phone's location; it was sending the location of the WiFi station the phone is connecting to.
Now that raises an interesting (but off-topic) question: How often is the average phone communicating through WiFi instead of the cell network? I very rarely use any WiFi but my home network. Any opinions?
IDC really coughed up a hair ball "Even shipments of the struggling BlackBerry smartphone from Research in Motion will grow by nearly 11 percent over five years"
Blackberry was suppose to still be around with 5.9% of the market share by 2016. Where are they now? They tried to go Android, how has that worked out? It hasn't!!! I said that right from the start that it was a completely dumb move. They would now be 1 of many company's, fighting from scraps. Losing all control over to Google. How the F could that ever help them?
Microsoft was just to late to the game. Big company slow to change. Didn't they piss off a lot of people when they said they would be able to upgrade their phones and in the end, they couldn't? Made a lot of people mad using their phones. That sure doesn't help you with your loyal customers. There really wasn't nothing that made the phone stand out. Same old off the shelf parts Android phones are using. Might as well get a Android phone.
OMG! Windows Phones. I had no idea the NYPD got stuck with that platform. I'd sure like to know who convinced the NYPD to go with Windows Phones and what was their motive to go with a dying platform. It was probably borne from the wonderful theory that no one ever got fired for choosing Windows. The Big Apple is filled with Apple retail stores and iPhone users so I think the NYPD should definitely go with iPhones.
New York City is one of the most corrupt in the United States and suffers from some of the most ignorant people you will ever meet. This is the city that outlaws Geiger counters because they scare people. So in a nut shell it is either corruption, ignorance or a combination of both.
I wonder if this will cause Apple to invest extra effort in detecting apps that send out the phone's location ( a la AccuWeather ) ? That's information that could certainly be misused.
It's a tricky one. Accuweather wasn't sending out the phone's location; it was sending the location of the WiFi station the phone is connecting to.
Now that raises an interesting (but off-topic) question: How often is the average phone communicating through WiFi instead of the cell network? I very rarely use any WiFi but my home network. Any opinions?
From data reported last year folks get much more data over wi-fi than cellular, with one carrier exception: T-Mo whose customers use apps via cellular more than on wifi. That's attributed to Binge On.
As a whole Verizon customers run the fewest app sessions, and also use the lowest total data and spend the least amount of time using them compared to other US providers. T-Mo customers use the most data and the most apps and for longer periods of time.
I bet the technology selection group was old school Windows and anti-Apple. What incompetence. They should all be fired
More like old school kickbacks and bribes...
No.
I would not dismiss the possibility. Generally though I find that the government in NYC repeatedly demonstrates mass ignorance as to what is happening in the real world. NYC is not a good place to be.
This is just another example of a recurring pattern in technology adoption within large organizations. Whether it's desktop devices, operating systems, mobile devices, office productivity suites, software development tools, software development processes, CRM systems, accounting & reporting tools, etc., the same technology lifecycle pattern seems to repeat over and over again. Companies get enticed into going "all in" to adopt a particular tool, technology, or process as a standard, sink hundreds of millions of dollars and immeasurable worker hours rolling it out and supporting it and then watch it slip into obsolescence and decay, only to be replaced by a new or different standard within a few years or so.
As bad as it sounds, this recurring technology lifecycle of attraction -> adoption -> standardization -> decline -> abandonment is more of the nature of the beast rather than a fault or failing with the technology itself. It's more of a Darwinian process that's characteristic of technology evolution in general. Of course there will be some organizations that get burned badly by this lifecycle, especially when technology like Windows Phone takes the fast track to the decline and abandonment phases. It sucks for those who pushed for a technology choice that turned out to be suddenly dead ended. But total avoidance of the lifecycle is impossible because you never know when the vendor or owner of the technology you buy into will give up on it and leave you hung out to dry. The decision makers for the NYC phone case bet all their chips on a Microsoft promise. Microsoft is a big, powerful, long lived, and reliable business partner - so what could possibly go wrong?
Everything.
Who is to blame? If you have to assign blame I'd put a bit more of it on Microsoft than NYC. Sure, the minuscule market share of Windows Phone compared to Apple and Android was a legitimate warning sign for NYC. But I'd imagine that Microsoft provided NYC with plenty of assurances that Microsoft was the right choice and would deliver on the promise. Microsoft didn't live up to their promise and NYC is left holding the bag. NYC chose unwisely but Microsoft proved that it is not a reliable business partner.
Everyone lost.
While you may have a point about tech in general this really doesn't apply here! A fundamental reality is that you don't trust salesman. In the case of Windows Phone the reality at the time was pretty clear, it didn't have a chance in hell in the market place. There can only be two explanations, ignorance or corruption, either way everybody involved in the purchase decision should be fired at the minimum.
Blackberry was suppose to still be around with 5.9% of the market share by 2016. Where are they now? They tried to go Android, how has that worked out? It hasn't!!! I said that right from the start that it was a completely dumb move. They would now be 1 of many company's, fighting from scraps. Losing all control over to Google. How the F could that ever help them?
BB is considering licensing their proprietary hardened version of Android. That's at least a little sump'n.
Comments
As bad as it sounds, this recurring technology lifecycle of attraction -> adoption -> standardization -> decline -> abandonment is more of the nature of the beast rather than a fault or failing with the technology itself. It's more of a Darwinian process that's characteristic of technology evolution in general. Of course there will be some organizations that get burned badly by this lifecycle, especially when technology like Windows Phone takes the fast track to the decline and abandonment phases. It sucks for those who pushed for a technology choice that turned out to be suddenly dead ended. But total avoidance of the lifecycle is impossible because you never know when the vendor or owner of the technology you buy into will give up on it and leave you hung out to dry. The decision makers for the NYC phone case bet all their chips on a Microsoft promise. Microsoft is a big, powerful, long lived, and reliable business partner - so what could possibly go wrong?
Everything.
Who is to blame? If you have to assign blame I'd put a bit more of it on Microsoft than NYC. Sure, the minuscule market share of Windows Phone compared to Apple and Android was a legitimate warning sign for NYC. But I'd imagine that Microsoft provided NYC with plenty of assurances that Microsoft was the right choice and would deliver on the promise. Microsoft didn't live up to their promise and NYC is left holding the bag. NYC chose unwisely but Microsoft proved that it is not a reliable business partner.
Everyone lost.
I suspect the NYPD purchasing decision makers were influenced by this:
From the NY Post source article:
"She was in charge. It was her project, no question about that,” a source said.""Sources said Tisch, whose late grandfather co-founded the Loews Corp. conglomerate, insisted on Microsoft-based phones in part because the NYPD was already using Microsoft software to run the video surveillance program at its Lower Manhattan Security Initiative Command Center."
The NYPD will be issuing a statement when Ms. Tisch returns from vacation later today.
It's a tricky one. Accuweather wasn't sending out the phone's location; it was sending the location of the WiFi station the phone is connecting to.
Blackberry was suppose to still be around with 5.9% of the market share by 2016. Where are they now? They tried to go Android, how has that worked out? It hasn't!!! I said that right from the start that it was a completely dumb move. They would now be 1 of many company's, fighting from scraps. Losing all control over to Google. How the F could that ever help them?
Microsoft was just to late to the game. Big company slow to change. Didn't they piss off a lot of people when they said they would be able to upgrade their phones and in the end, they couldn't? Made a lot of people mad using their phones. That sure doesn't help you with your loyal customers. There really wasn't nothing that made the phone stand out. Same old off the shelf parts Android phones are using. Might as well get a Android phone.
That report was a joke, then and now.
From data reported last year folks get much more data over wi-fi than cellular, with one carrier exception: T-Mo whose customers use apps via cellular more than on wifi. That's attributed to Binge On.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/how-much-cellular-and-wi-fi-data-are-smartphone-users-consuming-and-which-apps-verizon-at
As a whole Verizon customers run the fewest app sessions, and also use the lowest total data and spend the least amount of time using them compared to other US providers. T-Mo customers use the most data and the most apps and for longer periods of time.
I would not dismiss the possibility. Generally though I find that the government in NYC repeatedly demonstrates mass ignorance as to what is happening in the real world. NYC is not a good place to be.
http://nypost.com/2017/08/28/nypd-needs-to-replace-36k-useless-smartphones/