[TMC] Why ?

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Nickels" <ranickel at comcast.net>
To: <tmc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [TMC] Why ?


> On 12/8/2014 10:59 AM, Jim Haynes wrote:
>>
>> It almost seems like the companies that were successful 
>> in the vacuum tube
>> era were unable to make the switch to solid state.
>
> Those into business trends may recognize the name Clayton 
> Christensen of Harvard Business School, who has put forth 
> a solid explanation of this phenomenon across many 
> industries called "The Innovators Dilemma".   In essence, 
> he says that the incumbents are so preoccupied by the 
> demands of their existing customers and and products (and 
> are investing all available resources to those ends) that 
> they fail to take advantage of new technologies.   At the 
> same time, potential new competitors who have an eye on 
> the same customers DO invest in the "bleeding edge" 
> because innovation is their best strategy for penetrating 
> the established market. Christensen shows how the new 
> entrant initially underperforms, but continues to get 
> better until one day the new approach not only equals - 
> but surpasses the value proposition of the incumbent. 
> Once the balance begins to shift, it's usually too late 
> for the originally dominant company to catch up.
>
> Things are  never simple but the "Innovators Dilemma" 
> explains how disruptive technologies cause established 
> competitors to miss out on new innovative ideas and 
> ultimately fail, and I think the theory applies very well 
> to what happend to TMC and others in the communications 
> industry.    Ironically, the very thing that made them 
> successful in the first place (listening to and responding 
> to the needs of their customers) - ends up contributing to 
> their demise.
>
    I can see how this applies to many companies but I
wonder about others like Hewlett-Packard, who did keep up
with new technology, and for a time pushed it.  I think
sometimes the originators of a company bring something to it
that is not passed on to their successors.
    A note about broadcast equipment in response to another
post:
    Gates did not go out of business but was bought by
Harris and continued under that name.  The two major
suppliers in the earliest days were Western Electric and
RCA. Western Electric stopped making products for sale
outside of the Bell System or government contracts when it
was 100% acquired by AT&T around 1948.  The commercial and
broadcast products were spun off to independant companies,
for instance, Altec-Lansing and Westrex. I don't know who
got the transmitter line for support, perhaps Continental
since they built a very similar type transmitter.  RCA ran
into trouble with a series of poor products and because they
fell behind on new technology such as video tape recorders
and TV video switchers (in England called video mixers).
New companies like Ampex and Grass Valley took over this
business and there were several companies who were making
superior cameras.
    A study of the effect of the end of WW-2 on all sorts of
businesses is instructive. Many companies, both large and
small, operated mainly on military contracts and many,
especially the smaller and more specialized ones, didn't
survive the withdrawal of government business.  I think TMC
may be another example of a company formed to cater to a
specialized market who has problems surviving the loss of
that market.  The recent history of Eastman Kodak is a good
example. It has sort of survived but its monster market in
chemical photographic products has shrunk to the vanishing
point.


--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
dickburk at ix.netcom.com

> 73, Bob W9RAN
> ______________________________________________________________