Talk:Osborne effect/Archives/2011

Old discussions

In a somewhat circular way, I thought I'd point out that The Register, in discussing the possible Apple Osborne effect, has a "Bootnote" today saying:

Thanks to Charles Eicher for pointing out that the "Osborne Effect", as dutifully recorded in Wikipedia, is misnamed, and had very little to do with Adam Osbourne pre-announcing a computer. But this historical correction is so delicious, we'll save it for tomorrow. - "Waiting for Intel, Apple faces massive Osborne chill", 9 June 2005

So, if anyone fancies looking out tomorrow for what form this "correction" might take, it should of course be included into our "dutiful record" back here; we don't want our article not to reflect the facts now do we? :D - IMSoP 22:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The other point I would make, is that it was not, actually, the Osborne effect that sank the company. Adam only announced similar stuff to what his competitors were announcing, and had he not done so, he would have been seen as falling behind. He had a sensible transition plan to switch to the new computer. Unfortunately, a new CEO he hired to "caretake" the company while he worked on the new computer, only saw the fact that the Is were flying off the shelves.

He countermanded Adam's order to stop production and dump stock, and ordered another six-month's worth of components. A couple of months later, both Osborne, and its competitors! delivered on their promises of new systems. With loads of obsolete stock, Osborne got dragged under.

Adam could see the oncoming light was a train. Blinded by the dollar signs, his temporary CEO scrapped all the precautions Adam had put in place :-(

Cheers, Wol (10 June, 10:40 BST)

I just came from the register news item. It's shockingly awesome to see that this article has already been updated to reflect the information from the 2 days old register article. You guys rock! Wikipedia truly is the 'highly emergent oracle'.

writing style that will not stand test of time

After the Apple announcement renewed interest in the history of Osborne Computer, columnist Robert Cringely interviewed ex-Osborne 

This statement will make future readers wonder what it is about. I'd suggest someone to add some wiki-link to the "announcement" or be more specific to which announcement out of the tens of thousands out of Apple or put some kind of time stamp in the sentence to give a chronological scope. It is hard for reader to relate a 2005 announcement with a 1980's phenomenon. When the Apple announcement is fresh in readers' mind, this sentence is marginally acceptable. But within months, this article cannot be understood anymore.Kowloonese 21:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The main mention of the Apple stuff was actually further down, so I've changed this into a "see below" so that we're not tempted to repeat ourselves (the fact that it's Apple and Intel is irrelevant in that particular sentence). - IMSoP 22:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In this case, perhaps, "loose lips sink chips"?

The statement above, although amusing, is of no encyclopedical value. Is it really necessary?

Please consider.

Greets, Alex Z.

this was one of the POV:iest articles I've ever seen

Please reconsider. Sunnan 07:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm, I'm sorry you thought that - though some more specific pointers about what you thought was wrong would help in improving it; for instance, whose point of view do you feel it is biased towards, and what other points of view should we be representing?

My own main concern is that there seems to be a subtle conflict over whether to describe it as a term (with its origins in a particular, possibly false, event) or as a particular historical event (with a possibly falsely-based cultural legacy) - look at how the first paragraph has been changed between my last edit and now, for instance. This has a knock-on effect on things like how much the pros and cons of pre-announcement are discussed, as opposed to just what was wrong with Osborne... - IMSoP 14:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

removal of first information

Why was the first source of information criticising the Register's Osborne Effect article series erased from public record? This entire section was deleted, purported because it was from a "blog," but RDM has been published for three years and is more than a blog; it's been cited in BusinessWeek and other publications. Is the Register not a blog? Is Cringeley's blog not a blog? Is the "Osborne Effect" something that even exists outside of blog talk? This is actual information that would be useful to someone interested in the context of the OE teapot tempest of 2005.

It is disingenuous to remove my contributions and suggest that the Register corrected themselves. They invented the myth regarding Apple & Intel; RDM corrected them.

Further, citing the iTV is not an example of the "Osborne Effect" in any possible way imagainable. As described, it could be called Vaporware, but certainly not the Osborne Effect. I find it very disapointing that anyone can remove the truth without leaving any record, but is happy with innacurate FUD type comments in the article.

Danieleran 01:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

On 17 June 2005, Daniel Eran of RoughlyDrafted observed that in 1983, Osborne Computer "had more problems than simply an early announcement of a future product," and noted that Osborne Computer "was a small, three year old company with scant customer loyalty or developer base, facing strong competition while struggling with quality control problems in their existing product." The company's competition included a more competitive portable product from Kaypro; the Apple II, which ran Digital Research's CP/M software used in the Osborne, in addition to its own; IBM's emerging standard PC; and Compaq's Osborne-like PC compatible portable. - The article stated that the "much ballyhooed Osborne Effect" would not have a significant effect on Apple Computer's move to Intel because their circumstances were so different, and gave examples of computers Apple continued to sell after announcing plans that effectively rendered them obsolete: The Apple IIGS, which sold for seven years, though it had already been obsolesced by the Macintosh line when it appeared; the Quadra 630 and similar 040 based Macs which sold long after the announcement to move to PowerPC, the demand for PowerMac G4s which continued after the introduction of the PowerMac G5 and - according to the article - even prompted Apple to reintroduce the older G4 machine (in fact they never stopped selling it), and the demand for Mac OS 9 that continued after the release of Mac OS X.

Stop doing lobby for microsoft

I´m tired of hearing critics to (and not limited to.) : Linux, FLOSS, Mac, GNU ,etc. If you are being pay for writting such articles, why don´t you make your microsoftpedia. And put all the perfect flawless microsoft software articles there. This is a community, not a forum. So take your lobby words out of here. Thanks --201.250.81.33 17:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Prevention - outdated / poor example

I don't want to get into a holy OS war, but the example for the Prevention section seems off.

First it states that, "the stronger the market position of a company, the less it will reveal about product plans and pricing." Then, it goes on to give the example of Apple' "tight-lipped" policies. While Apple is undoubtedly tight lipped, much more so then any of their competitors, they do not have the strongest market position in computer hardware. They may in other markets (IPod), but this just goes to show that there is not a strong correlation between market share and press releases.

Not only that, but many companies have adopted much more open policies in regards to discussing current and future products, such as encouraging employees to blog about what they are doing.

I say we remove the Prevention section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.107.87.10 (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Adequate Citations?

It seems as if the article now contains adequate citations of the key factual points. Do we need to have the citation notice still present for the entire article? Seems unnecessary to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by General Ludd (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)