See Full Story
One of the biggest questions a person will deal with in his or her life, regardless of the career path, is ethics. We make trade-offs when we "borrow" a stapler from work, take a sick day to go fishing or play golf, and take credit for something that was done by someone else. In the wake of the Enron, WorldCom and even Martha Stewart scandals, maybe it's time we took a look at our own ethics and, by way of example, I'll focus this week on industry and IT analysts.
Do you really believe you have any standing or credibility to discuss ethics? Your own seem extrememly shaky to me.
You consistently use illegitamite debating tactics in an effort to distract from the truth.
You are consistently wrong with every position and every prediction.
Yet even when factually proven to be wrong with supporting documents, you merely change tactics to ad hominum attacks, changing the subject, or making irrelevant points.
You continually accuse other of what you yourself have just done, whatever it happens to be that day. You ignore the faults of allies and invent wrongdoings on the part of enemies.
And when called on insane ranting, as Joe Barr did with your keynote at SCO forum, you respond with more irrellevant attacks on their person.
This doesn't seem like a very ethical or professional way to conduct yourself to me.
This article is a joke considering it's coming from one of the most unethical analysts in the IT industry.
His SCO Forum comments were disingenuous at best. His rebuttal in last week's column was a feeble attempt to justify his dishonesty. His personal history sounds exagerrated (with over 26 years in IT, when in the world did he have time to be a sheriff and a judge-in-training?)
He has made claims that people have threatened him and his career, when in actuality, on more than one of these occasions, there was no threat.
It's high time for Technewsworld.com to drop this columnist.
It's not meant to be taken seriously, right? Or is this just another drama-queen moment? I would say he deserves an Oscar, but there are better actors...
Anyway, it comes as no surprise that Rob has trouble equating ethics and ethical behaviors. His answer has always been attack - not listening. That is his game.
Now that you know it - as Officer Barbrady says: "Nothing to see here, move along people."
That is my opinion, and it is free speech. Something I have been using for years, BTW.
Mr Enderle paints Apple as a company that may, at a given time, behave unethically. He has published predictions of Apple's imminent demise on many occasions and continues to diminish them by now saying they are changing into a producer of exclusively consumer electronics. From his pulpit comes a disproportionate amount of negative commentary about a company that he sees as not being cosequential in the larger marketplace. I suppose my question is, why all this axe grinding? With every third opportunity Enderle takes another crack at 2-4% of the market share and wastes another chance to practice what he preaches... the ethical analysis of the IT industry.
Was this little incident the root of the acrimony? Is the vast majority of the TechNewsWorld audience paying for Mr. Enderle's vitriol?
As time goes on it is becoming more and more clear where this anger might in-fact be coming from. Business, it seems, was led down the garden path, and Rob Enderle presumed to lead the way. Business would have been better served from the onset, with a thin client architecture. The cost of separate Windows licences, cpus, hard drives, and the cost to maintain have been huge and are getting bigger. Who is to blame? Why Apple of course. Microsoft's early call to "make it more like a Mac" has led the world into adoption of the desktop. ever since then great effort has gone into repairing and improving the wrong computing model for business.
The real irony is that the flakey and independent Mac users are being served perfectly well by their chosen platform.
So was Apples comment slanderous and unethical. No more so than Mr. Enderle's misuse of a public forum as a dumping ground for a disproportionate amount of anti-Apple rhetoric. Mr. Enderle flatters Apple with his attention and flatters them further with the notion that a petty exchange is any more than that.