This looks like the beginning of the end of QNX as
a usable real-time operating system.
I think you’re underestimating the reliability and technology required
by in-car systems. Crashing is absolutely not acceptable: witness the
negative PR that BMW got recently when their system was misbehaving.
Power requirements and instant-on capabilities are far more important
than in a generic computing device. Your in-car computing devices need
to be on at the turn of the key and then use essentially no power
afterwards.
I don’t believe that automotive goals for QNX are going to be in any way
incompatable with the requirements for medical or telecom or military or
any other high reliability realtime product.
I agree with that, but my concern is of different nature.
Consider you’re looking for a plot of land to build something expensive that
you’re going to use for decades. Would you rather find a place where you can
buy a suitable plot of land or go with a generous offer of another
manufacturer (who at this point may not be a direct competitor but has
history of acquisitions and is looking to expand his business into new
areas) to sublease his plot? That plot is darn nice, but they can only sign
a short-term sublease (you’d have to renew every year or so)?
Corporate culture is all about risk management. There are many ways to
assess the same event and some people will chose to be optimistic. However
most people will chose to be pragmatic. Management can change (at both QNX
and Harman) and that does not fit well into any risk management strategy.
This concern is of course not unique to QNX. Notice for example what
Trolltech does to convince people that betting on Qt is safe. Their license
agreement explicitly states that in the event of Trolltech demise, sale or
other circumstances preventing it from continuing to release and support Qt
on the current terms, the Qt source shall be automatically considered
released under BSD license. And they still have hard time …
John Nagle wrote:
This looks like the beginning of the end of QNX as
a usable real-time operating system.
I think you’re underestimating the reliability and technology required
by in-car systems. Crashing is absolutely not acceptable: witness the
negative PR that BMW got recently when their system was misbehaving.
Power requirements and instant-on capabilities are far more important
than in a generic computing device. Your in-car computing devices need
to be on at the turn of the key and then use essentially no power
afterwards.
I don’t believe that automotive goals for QNX are going to be in any way
incompatable with the requirements for medical or telecom or military or
any other high reliability realtime product.
I agree with that, but my concern is of different nature.
Consider you’re looking for a plot of land to build something expensive that
you’re going to use for decades. Would you rather find a place where you can
buy a suitable plot of land or go with a generous offer of another
manufacturer (who at this point may not be a direct competitor but has
history of acquisitions and is looking to expand his business into new
areas) to sublease his plot? That plot is darn nice, but they can only sign
a short-term sublease (you’d have to renew every year or so)?
Corporate culture is all about risk management. There are many ways to
assess the same event and some people will chose to be optimistic. However
most people will chose to be pragmatic. Management can change (at both QNX
and Harman) and that does not fit well into any risk management strategy.
This kind of ‘risk management strategy’ seems to be a little bit
curious. Life is short … also for managers
Management can change from day to day … this can’t be a realistic base
for any decision.
Regards
Armin
This concern is of course not unique to QNX. Notice for example what
Trolltech does to convince people that betting on Qt is safe. Their license
agreement explicitly states that in the event of Trolltech demise, sale or
other circumstances preventing it from continuing to release and support Qt
on the current terms, the Qt source shall be automatically considered
released under BSD license. And they still have hard time …
This looks like the beginning of the end of QNX as
a usable real-time operating system.
I think you’re underestimating the reliability and technology required
by in-car systems. Crashing is absolutely not acceptable: witness the
negative PR that BMW got recently when their system was misbehaving.
Power requirements and instant-on capabilities are far more important
than in a generic computing device. Your in-car computing devices need
to be on at the turn of the key and then use essentially no power
afterwards.
I don’t believe that automotive goals for QNX are going to be in any way
incompatable with the requirements for medical or telecom or military or
any other high reliability realtime product.
Igor Kovalenko wrote:
I agree with that, but my concern is of different nature.
Consider you’re looking for a plot of land to build something expensive
that
you’re going to use for decades. Would you rather find a place where you
can
buy a suitable plot of land or go with a generous offer of another
manufacturer (who at this point may not be a direct competitor but has
history of acquisitions and is looking to expand his business into new
areas) to sublease his plot? That plot is darn nice, but they can only
sign
a short-term sublease (you’d have to renew every year or so)?
Corporate culture is all about risk management. There are many ways to
assess the same event and some people will chose to be optimistic.
However
most people will chose to be pragmatic. Management can change (at both
QNX
and Harman) and that does not fit well into any risk management
strategy.
This kind of ‘risk management strategy’ seems to be a little bit
curious. Life is short … also for managers >
Yes Armin, I know that. This would not be an issue by itself, but it becomes
an issue when management of your vendor has interests at their heart other
than the product you’re buying/using. Today Harman is promising that they
will let QNX to continue to sell to their competitors, but you can’t take
that promise to a bank. Tomorrow they may change their mind. You’re
effectively at their mercy.
This concern is of course not unique to QNX. Notice for example what
Trolltech does to convince people that betting on Qt is safe. Their license
agreement explicitly states that in the event of Trolltech demise, sale or
other circumstances preventing it from continuing to release and support Qt
on the current terms, the Qt source shall be automatically considered
released under BSD license.
Now that’s the beginning of a good idea. That, plus source
code escrow, would go a long way towards assuring customers that
QNX will be usable in the future.
We, as a society, need QNX, or something at least as good,
for systems that have to work.
I agree with that, but my concern is of different nature.
Consider you’re looking for a plot of land to build something expensive
that
you’re going to use for decades. Would you rather find a place where you
can
buy a suitable plot of land or go with a generous offer of another
manufacturer (who at this point may not be a direct competitor but has
history of acquisitions and is looking to expand his business into new
areas) to sublease his plot? That plot is darn nice, but they can only
sign
a short-term sublease (you’d have to renew every year or so)?
Corporate culture is all about risk management. There are many ways to
assess the same event and some people will chose to be optimistic.
However
most people will chose to be pragmatic. Management can change (at both
QNX
and Harman) and that does not fit well into any risk management
strategy.
This kind of ‘risk management strategy’ seems to be a little bit
curious. Life is short … also for managers >
Yes Armin, I know that. This would not be an issue by itself, but it becomes
an issue when management of your vendor has interests at their heart other
than the product you’re buying/using. Today Harman is promising that they
will let QNX to continue to sell to their competitors,
To buy QNX by a competitor is more their decission, IMHO. I can’t
imagine that a real direct competitor of Harman will use QNX.
On the other hand I can’t imagine that Harman has any intension to use
QNX as an ‘in-house’ operating system … this would be FAR to
expensive
That means QNX must also be commercially successfull outsite of the
Harman group.
From a commercial point of view I don’t see any big changes …
Regards
Armin
but you can’t take
that promise to a bank. Tomorrow they may change their mind. You’re
effectively at their mercy.
Yes Armin, I know that. This would not be an issue by itself, but it becomes
an issue when management of your vendor has interests at their heart other
than the product you’re buying/using. Today Harman is promising that they
will let QNX to continue to sell to their competitors, but you can’t take
that promise to a bank. Tomorrow they may change their mind. You’re
effectively at their mercy.
Harmon has a history of buying companies and leaving them alone to run
themselves while nurturing their brands…
–
Chris Herborth (cherborth@qnx.com)
Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist.
I’ve been in the hospital for the last month and have been unable to jion in
this discussion. But now I’d like to add my 2 cents.
I used to work for a Harman company. In fact I still own Harmon stock, which
is how I first found out about the acquisition. Let me make one thing
perfectly clear. Harman is in the buisness of making money, period! They
bought QSSL because they are sure that they will make money with it,
either via increased revenues, or by reselling it. If they can use the
fact that they own QSSL to the advantage of their own products, that is a
plus for them, but it is NOT why they bought it. I can promise you this,
if QSSL looks like it is turning sour, they will dump it so fast it will
make your head spin.
The company I worked for was very profitible for many years, as soon as
they showed two loosing quarters with no hope of improving, Harman dumped
them for 50 cents on the dollar. They have absolutely no loyality toward
the companies they own. Just look at their stock price over the last decade.
What other company in their wettest dreams could hope to appreciate
like that!
OK, more than a month has gone by since QNX
was sold. What do we know so far? What’s happening?
What’s improved? What’s become worse? Is any
sense of QNX’s long term plans emerging yet?
OK, more than a month has gone by since QNX
was sold. What do we know so far? What’s happening?
What’s improved? What’s become worse? Is any
sense of QNX’s long term plans emerging yet?
As a peon on the inside, as far as I can see, nothing has changed yet.
You could say that I wouldn’t be allowed to say anything (which would
be true), but I wouldn’t change my story.
It’s still early. But an acquisition isn’t a merger.
–
Chris Herborth (cherborth@qnx.com)
Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist.
OK, more than a month has gone by since QNX
was sold. What do we know so far? What’s happening?
What’s improved? What’s become worse? Is any
sense of QNX’s long term plans emerging yet?
CH > As a peon on the inside, as far as I can see, nothing has changed yet.
CH > You could say that I wouldn’t be allowed to say anything (which would
CH > be true), but I wouldn’t change my story.
CH > It’s still early. But an acquisition isn’t a merger.
As I said in my prior post, Harmon bought QNX strictly as an investment.
I.E. not to control them. As long as QNX is profitable for them, they
won’t get involved. If QNX starts loosing money, Harmon will dump them
for 50 cents on the dollar. They have No Loyality whatsoever for the
companies they own. I know, I worked for one.
As I said in my prior post, Harmon bought QNX strictly as an investment.
I.E. not to control them. As long as QNX is profitable for them, they
won’t get involved. If QNX starts loosing money, Harmon will dump them
for 50 cents on the dollar. They have No Loyality whatsoever for the
companies they own. I know, I worked for one.
Isn’t the point of investing to get a return on that investment? How do
you expect companies to behave? Public companies have absolutely no
incentive to “be nice” to anyone other than their shareholders.
Only time will tell.
–
Chris Herborth (cherborth@qnx.com)
Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist.
Bill Caroselli wrote:
As I said in my prior post, Harmon bought QNX strictly as an investment.
I.E. not to control them. As long as QNX is profitable for them, they
won’t get involved. If QNX starts loosing money, Harmon will dump them
for 50 cents on the dollar. They have No Loyality whatsoever for the
companies they own. I know, I worked for one.
Isn’t the point of investing to get a return on that investment? How do
you expect companies to behave? Public companies have absolutely no
incentive to “be nice” to anyone other than their shareholders.
Only time will tell.
This may be a good thing. Harmon must like what QNX does, since they
paid so much. I don’t believe they have any competing divisions to
interfere with what QNX does, so they may just want to keep things going
as they are. We all know here that QNX could be very profitable if it
just had lots of money
John Halpenny
A cluttered desk is the sign of a cluttered mind.
I’m so glad my desk isn’t empty.
Chris Herborth <> cherborth@qnx.com> > wrote:
CH > John Nagle wrote:
OK, more than a month has gone by since QNX
was sold. What do we know so far? What’s happening?
What’s improved? What’s become worse? Is any
sense of QNX’s long term plans emerging yet?
CH > As a peon on the inside, as far as I can see, nothing has changed
yet.
CH > You could say that I wouldn’t be allowed to say anything (which
would
CH > be true), but I wouldn’t change my story.
CH > It’s still early. But an acquisition isn’t a merger.
As I said in my prior post, Harmon bought QNX strictly as an investment.
I.E. not to control them. As long as QNX is profitable for them, they
won’t get involved. If QNX starts loosing money, Harmon will dump them
for 50 cents on the dollar. They have No Loyality whatsoever for the
companies they own. I know, I worked for one.
Maybe the one you worked for was not originally bought for 6x annual sales.
It’d be royally painful, since even at 50 cents per dollar, it would still
be overpriced. They’d need to go down to something like 25 cents per dollar
to make it attractive. That hurts self-esteem though
Don’t be so negative. Harman isn’t likely to stifle the development of
QNX, not after throwing so much money at it. And Dan is quoted as
saying the purpose of this is to accelerate things.
Reviving an older branch of the thread here; I have a question.
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that “Having Harman give QNX a whack
of cash will be good because…”
But I’m a little confused on this point – my understanding is that QNX didn’t get a whack of cash; Dan & Gord & some number of key
employees got a whack of cash.
How does giving those guys a whack of cash affect QNX’s ability to market,
or retain employees, or buy equipment, or anything??? Is Dan going to fund
QNX out of his own pocket?
Cheers,
-RK
–
[If replying via email, you’ll need to click on the URL that’s emailed to you
afterwards to forward the email to me – spam filters and all that]
Robert Krten, PDP minicomputer collector http://www.parse.com/~museum/
How does giving those guys a whack of cash affect QNX’s ability to market,
or retain employees, or buy equipment, or anything??? Is Dan going to fund
QNX out of his own pocket?
Excellent question! I have no idea.
I can only guess that it now provides them with a line of credit from the
“bank of Harman”. This might allow them to assign additional resources to
some areas of the business and product without worrying about financing it
100% from sales revenue.
That’s only speculation, but now that you have brought it up, I too am at
a bit of a quandry as to how the purchase helps anyone financially other
than the private shareholders that sold their stake to Harman. They might
work for QSS, but that doesn’t help QSS the corporation.
I have sad news. As much as I am pro QNX comunity, this is what I have
found.
First, of all, I am once again looking for employment. I have examined
every job posting in the internet with the three little letters “QNX”. Most
of these job postings are from companies that are moving away from QNX.
WHAT A MISTAKE THEY ARE MAKING!
But, I am still a true believer. I hope that Harmen purchasing QSSL is a
sign that I won’t end up going down with the ship.
I found this int he eclipse.tools.cdt They are looking for someone that
can program.
Bests…
Miguel.
“Re: Looking for Mid to Senior SW Engineer”
Dan Bourque wrote:
Hi all,
Cisco Systems is looking for a software engineer in the San Jose, CA
area preferably with Eclipse plugin development experience. If you’re
interested, or know someone that might be, here’s the description:
Mid to Senior software engineer to help develop an Integrated
Development Environment (IDE) for an advanced packet processor. Strong
Java, tool, and IDE development background required. Plugin development
in Eclipse and/or the CDT a plus.
I have sad news. As much as I am pro QNX comunity, this is what I have
found.
First, of all, I am once again looking for employment. I have examined
every job posting in the internet with the three little letters “QNX”. Most
of these job postings are from companies that are moving away from QNX.
WHAT A MISTAKE THEY ARE MAKING!
But, I am still a true believer. I hope that Harmen purchasing QSSL is a
sign that I won’t end up going down with the ship.
