eevBLAB 94 - Why Dont Companies DO THIS Anymore?
Thanks for making the video, and bringing this subject area, to lots of peoples attention.
Disclaimer: I'm only one individual, and my observations, are limited (statistically), in some cases subjective (possibly very, also mistaken), and anyway, may not apply to the industries (within electronics, or wherever) and/or subject areas, that other people are involved/interested in.
As a result of this video/thread, I had a look to see if myself (rather unlikely) and/or people/company(s) I have been very significantly involved with, were photographed and/or mentioned and/or had made article(s), in journals and things like that. To my surprise, there have been many such articles. So as a result, I can use those findings, to possibly give something closer to first-hand experience, than an unconnected observer, as to what might have been going on, at least in the past.
The impression I get, is that it is when there are, usually two (but there can be more), somewhat similar companies, trying to compete in their industries, against one another. Think Sony vs Panasonic, Intel vs AMD, Microchip vs Atmel (in the past), Toyota vs Honda, Ford vs General Motors, HP (previous name) vs Tektronix, IBM vs Cray Research.
It seems that those companies, especially at certain points during the battle between the companies. Wanted to make journals (and other things), to increase the respective industries respect, perceptions and expectations, in areas like innovation, quality, best in class, great employer to work for, market leader, most futuristic, and many other similar qualities.
tl;dr They (the companies) want to be considered the
NUMBER-ONE in their respective industry.
So I suppose, I'm saying it is part of the marketing exercise for the respective companies. The better a job they do of marketing the company in journals, the greater the respect and more well known the company becomes in their industries (within the sub-fields of electronics, or non-electronics related fields).
That would then typically, create higher perceived quality/value/desirability for their brand, which can hence increase sales, acceptable maximum selling price, profitability, make the high achievers in the respective industries want to work for them, improve/maintain good investor relationships, make very big customers happier (and hence increase sales), and other benefits.
From the reports I've seen, which I have a lot of 'inside' information about. They seem to be generally written/created by people who are employed as the industrial market expert, advanced research, department person(s), but in some cases, it is just employees who do other things. A lot of what goes into the journals (that I significantly know about), seems to either be, something that an expert in that industry would already know (so not deemed a risk, as competitors will see it) and sometimes has report(s), which already existed internally. But are either seen as not being of a commercially sensitive nature and/or has been significantly edited, to remove any sections which they wouldn't want competitors (and even their suppliers), to know about.
tl;dr It's to gain a relatively cheap, competitive advantage, which increases sales, gets more/better employees on board and helps gain investment for their company.
When you have access to the real unedited (uncensored), full reports, usually only accessible by people very significantly connected to the company. It can be quite an eye-opener, as to the real reasons, why certain ways of doing things are done, and other ways are abandoned or not used.
Hypothetical examples:
Worries on the continued availability, perceived lack of reliability or support, other issues. That might make their component(s), be designed out of, or not used in future products.
Moving into certain markets that are predicted to show significant growth/profit in the future. Not moving into areas, which are predicted to be too small, declining or unviable, especially as regards profitability.
