#innovation

https://www.moneycontrol.com/europe/?url=https://www.moneycontrol.com/technology/ibm-announces-plan-to-skill-5-million-people-in-india-over-the-next-five-years-article-13733676.html

Oracle has effectively traded innovation for acquisitions, functioning more as an M&A machine than a tech pioneer. By buying products like WebLogic and Java instead of building them, the company has gutted its R&D and triggered a massive brain drain. Visionaries cash out, and top-tier engineers end up buried in a hierarchy where they’re forced to babysit legacy products in maintenance mode rather than building the future.

The culture is currently defined by stagnation. We need a "meritocracy or exit" pipeline where upward movement is the standard; if a leader or employee isn't consistently contributing or growing, they shouldn't be occupying a seat. Instead, we see stagnant management protected while high-level individual contributors (IC 3–5) are hit by layoffs. This transactional, "cog-in-the-machine" mindset has to go. The left over managers just search talent needle in haystack with hackathons.

Even OCI feels like a reactive attempt to copy AWS, backed by massive data center spending that lacks a clear, long-term strategy. To turn this around, Oracle needs a total leadership overhaul. We must purge the non-technical bureaucracy and "people managers" to make room for visionaries who are ready to challenge the status quo and actually build something new.

Ford is copying what China has been delivered during that last 2 years. 600 to 800 miles range hybrids. Basically, hybrids with large hybrid battery that will provide at least 100 miles instead of 20 miles range. That is good that Ford is learning something good from China.

Everything that Ford announce yesterday is basically they will copy China automotive companies products. Farley's team been in China and they finally realized what they need to do to survive. Seeing what China already produced and successful, Ford will bench mark China.

Just watched Cory Doctorow with Jon Stewart on the ensh**ification of tech and it reminded me so much of 2U and its "pivots" over the years. Doctorow explained that pivot is actually doublespeak for panic. Now how do we pivot?

Is this place still a dumpster fire that creates a lot of work and pushes a lot of paper but doesn’t create any innovation?

The emperor's new clothes? Nope. The emperor's new car. Enough with the hype already when it comes to EVs amongst other things. Needs and wants. And fools. A fool and his money are soon parted? Nope. They are "always" parted. Depreciation for the sake of newness is a wonderful investment? I have a dime to sell you for a dollar. Why the weird look? It's a very special dime. It is a new dime. Now where did I put that 5 dollar bill. It's a special one. I will sell it to you for a thousand dollars. Not everyone can afford that. That makes you special. Oh look! I have a one hundred dollar bill. It's a very special one!

Several posts have criticized SAS leadership for not embracing Open Source. Successful companies such as Confluent and DataBricks have used Open Source as their foundation, and added their value on top.

But if SAS had taken that approach, its foundation would no longer be SAS data management and analytics — the core of the company’s revenues.

SAS thus faces the Innovator’s Dilemma. It seems to me that SAS leadership is not against the idea of Open Source in principle, but simply sees no way to embrace it without losing revenue.

Is there a way? How would you integrate SAS with Open Source?

"If your company isn’t keeping up with AI, let me give you the real reason:
You don’t have enough Jacks

You know exactly who “Jack” is:
the builder, the doer, the one who actually ships things while everyone else schedules another meeting to “align.”

But instead of hiring more Jacks, most companies do the opposite:

➡️ They create an “AI Center of Excellence.”
➡️ They hire a “Head of AI Strategy.”
➡️ They add two layers of managers… before writing a single line of code.

And then they wonder why innovation is slower than a Windows XP update….

The truth is simple:

Too much hierarchy ki-ls AI velocity.
Not because people are bad… but because every new manager means extra decks, extra approvals, extra reporting, extra politics and zero extra innovation.

If you have a team of strong senior builders, you don’t need ten managers.
You need to get out of their way and let them build.

This is why startups move at light speed
And enterprises move like they’re being pulled by a tired horse

If you want to win in AI, stop collecting titles…
and start collecting builders"

This could apply at FIS to AI, account management, cio, marketing, commercial management....
FIS keeps firing the builders and doers and adding more CEO minus two level chiefs, each of which then expand their empires and hiring, turf battles, demand more internal reporting....

Apparently AI is only used for booking trips and summarizing emails.

There’s more AI function in my tennis bag.

What are your thoughts on the SLT view on AI?

OMG. Ford is testing Energy storage system that Tesla implemented in 2012. Ford said that no one in the industry is doing this, so it's a lie. Well, I hope this will help Ford to make some money. Let's see if it's going to burn down any houses.

Heard a rumour that the whole all employee call this week is going to be created by AI to show everyone what it can do…can’t wait to see if this is true

Cigna has introduced Clearity, a new copay-only health plan designed to eliminate deductibles and coinsurance while giving members upfront prices and simpler navigation. The plan uses Cigna’s new AI tools to help users check coverage, estimate costs, and find care with verified reviews and transparent copay information.

Clearity offers five plan designs with tiered in-network copays and one out-of-network tier, all built on the Open Access Plus network to avoid narrowing access. Cigna says the model is meant to address consumer frustration with unpredictable bills and complex benefits, offering employers a more predictable option for workers who skip care due to high deductibles.

The plan pairs Cigna’s AI-powered virtual assistant, already in use for claims, benefits questions, and provider search, with natural-language “find care” tools that surface total out-of-pocket costs before the visit. Cigna positions Clearity as a simpler, more transparent alternative for consumers who want upfront pricing and fewer barriers to care.

“By combining our latest AI technology with simplified, transparent costs, we are helping employers offer innovative solutions that meet the diverse needs of their workforce. Clearity by Cigna Healthcare is more than a health plan – it’s a simpler, more predictable way for customers to get the health care they need.” – Eva Borden, chief product officer of Cigna Healthcare’s U.S. Employer business.

“We designed the Clearity plan to support a wide range of people who are looking for a simpler health insurance experience. From tech-savvy employees and healthy individuals who prefer pay-as-you-go options to those who may skip care due to high deductibles and financial barriers, Clearity by Cigna Healthcare offers a better path to care.” – Erin Lenox, president of national accounts for Cigna Healthcare’s U.S. Employer business.

https://coverager.com/cigna-launches-new-ai-powered-medical-plan/

In the 1970s, deep inside a research center in Palo Alto, a group of young Xerox engineers quietly built the future. They created a machine unlike anything the world had seen. A screen you could point at. A small device that let you move a cursor with your hand. Windows that opened and closed. Icons that behaved like real objects. Even the ethernet cables that would later connect the modern internet. It was called the Alto, and it was decades ahead of its time.
But inside Xerox headquarters, the company still viewed itself as a copier business. The innovations coming out of the research lab felt strange and experimental, far removed from office equipment and paper. Management could not see the commercial value of a graphical interface or a computer mouse. The Alto never reached the mass market, even though it held the blueprint of the personal computer revolution.
In December 1979, Steve Jobs visited Xerox PARC through a technology exchange agreement. Engineers showed him the graphical interface and the mouse. Jobs later said it was like seeing the future unfold in real time. He returned to Apple energized and committed to transforming these concepts into a consumer machine. The result was the Macintosh, launched in 1984, the first widely accessible computer with a graphical interface.
People often say Apple stole from Xerox. The truth is more complicated. Xerox had built extraordinary tools but did not move to commercialize them. Apple recognized their potential and reshaped them into products that could reach millions. The modern computer industry grew from that moment when one company overlooked its own inventions and another saw the opportunity clearly.
The story of Xerox PARC remains a reminder that innovation alone is not enough. Vision requires the ability to recognize value, invest wisely, and understand how transformative ideas can reshape the world.
Story based on historical records.

Unless you’re dancing with the cobras, your job is in jeopardy.

Offshoring is cheap now. But you get what you pay for. No innovation. No advancements. No improvements. There is an overall lack of understanding of US culture, well being, and best business practices. Metlife investors will suffer as the co continues to lose ground to competitors.

... Will be the punchline for this fuggin' bubble.

LMAO!!!

With GM now opening a Seattle Innovation Center, with Toronto coming into the picture, how long will the Austin Innovation Center Last?

Honest question:
Why is Nike now following trends and not setting them as they used to?

I see many of the completion shoe styles replicated by Nike designers across running and basketball. Apparel as well.

Show me one thing good that has come from sending jobs to India besides the cost of labor.....it isn't innovation. You all lying to yourselves. Goodluck with that.

There was the time that if you proposed downsizing Workforce and talent to increase Revenue you would be laughed out of the room and you'd probably be let go. These are easy solutions in our short-term gains for long-term sacrifices we used to run by the notion that if you lost somebody of 10 years it takes you 10 years or more to replace that person. Then we started analyzing to how long it takes to get somebody at a basic proficiency and that's what we're targeting we can't keep PSO Partners worth anything to turn over is insane the internals that we have of such a bad attitude and are unwilling to change tactics or develop new ones all we have little to no control over partners and what they do tarnishing our brand you're the most Innovative thing was 5G well the thing was there's four G's before it so it really wasn't Innovative at all it was like the 5th sequel to a movie now a lot of us have witnessed the growth of new cell phones and smartphones and they'll probably be like the biggest business growth that will ever see in our lives and what we did with that money was really stupid there's so much we can learn from it but to have someone new from the business try to change so much so quickly as just a disaster and it's insane that the board or the shareholders would trust somebody with billions of dollars within days like literally days of being appointed but we've seen this all before huge layoffs in the past year every single time what would happen before them are people who have been executive level and above resign or retire or move to a different position that's because what was being demanded was against their core values and if it's against the core values of extremely greedy people you know it's wrong even though it might be legal.

I know I'm kind of going all over the place just trying to say that times have changed it's sad to see The Innovation is dead. But I do foresee though is possible class action lawsuits for psychological trauma because everyone's psychological well-being has not been well taken care of during this situation this really should be something that's pursued I really highly recommend talking to an employment law attorney especially if you felt any anxiety or that you've had to take time off or that things have been really hard around the home or even if you include cost from seeking treatment and if you haven't definitely look into it because your mental well-being it's worth more than what any company could ever pay you

If only the CEO wishes he could click his heels and go back, monetise the GUI, mouse, ethernet and PC and things would be a whole lot different. 👠 👠

Quantum is not even close to commercial viability despite what AK likes to spout.

https://www.wsj.com/tech/quantum-could-be-techs-next-big-thing-but-for-investors-its-all-about-timing-aeebc9ff

Quantum computing has made big strides in recent years, but there’s danger in getting in too early

By: Asa Fitch
Nov. 7, 2025 5:30 am ET

Quantum computing is drawing renewed attention owing to a recent advance from Google and talk of the U.S. government taking stakes in companies working on the technology. But the industry has a way to go before the rewards for investors outweigh some glaring risks.

Most U.S.-listed quantum stocks have risen sharply in recent months, including IonQ IONQ which has nearly doubled in the past six months, and D-Wave Quantum QBTS which has more than quadrupled.

That enthusiasm reflects budding interest in an industry that, like artificial intelligence, may become a crux of geopolitical competition that the U.S. seeks to dominate. But it also reflects quantum computing’s significant underlying promise.

Quantum computers make calculations differently than conventional computers. Instead of representing data with bits that can be either one or zero, quantum computers harness the quantum-mechanical properties of so-called qubits that can be a combination of the two at the same time.

That tweak allows quantum computers to juggle more possibilities at once, opening the way for solutions to problems that would take conventional computers a near eternity. A powerful quantum computer, for example, could test complex molecular combinations quickly, potentially leading to the rapid discovery of new dr-gs. Already, scientists have used quantum computers to identify materials that could make solar cells more efficient, simulate Airbus’s aircraft performance and optimize power grids.

But performance is uneven. Even today’s most advanced quantum computers for the most part don’t outperform regular computers in arenas where quantum computing should excel. That is mostly because today’s quantum computers don’t have electronic brains that are large enough and don’t fix calculation errors reliably enough.

And it has proven extremely difficult to build large and error-free quantum computers. Many of them have components that need to be cooled to near absolute zero for quantum effects to become usable. They are often physically large and delicate. International Business Machines IBM has been at it for about a decade and produces some of the most powerful quantum computers, but its most advanced system has just 156 qubits.

Analysts say quantum computers will need much larger numbers of qubits to tackle many problems ordinary computers can’t. IBM released a road map this year that lays out a path to 2,000 qubits in 2033. Google, the other Big Tech company considered a leader in the arena, has a quantum chip with 105 qubits and is aiming to hit a milestone of 1,000 qubits, although its timeline is less clear.

Google last month said its chip could make certain computations 13,000 times as fast as an ordinary computer, providing a taste of the advances that quantum computing could bring.

“Scalability is the primary question as you look from now to the next five years or the end of the decade,” said Wamsi Mohan, an analyst at Bank of America who covers the quantum computing industry. “If you can make them scalable then the usefulness of this technology really becomes quite significant.”

Who will win the scaling-up battle is far from clear. While IBM and Google have poured in money, so have their Big Tech rivals Amazon AMZN and Microsoft MSFT. One of the smaller listed quantum-computing players could also come in from below and prevail in the market. Or it could be a startup like PsiQuantum, which is building large-scale quantum computers in Australia and in Chicago, where it broke ground in September.

Quantum computing is so nascent that it isn’t even clear which basic technical approach to it will scale up best. Some companies, like IBM and Google, use materials cooled to near absolute zero. Others—including IonQ—use charged particles trapped and suspended in space. PsiQuantum uses the quantum properties of light.

For potential investors—including the Trump administration, which has denied The Wall Street Journal’s reporting late last month that it is considering taking stakes in companies including IonQ and D-Wave—there is therefore no lane for exposure to the quantum-computing phenomenon that doesn’t entail a big dose of risk. Any of today’s approaches could easily fail, just as Betamax lost out to VHS in the videotape format war decades ago. Early-stage government backing of one approach over another could also have the perverse impact of holding back the industry if the state bets on the wrong horse.

How long it will take to shake out is also uncertain. BNP Paribas analyst David O’Connor said in a recent note that quantum computing was now less of a science experiment than an engineering problem involving how to make computers bigger. That could take three or four years to work out, he estimates.

Whether that holds is hard to predict. But it seems likely that quantum computing will grow fast and generate significant returns for investors if those challenges get worked out. Mohan estimates quantum-computing revenue could reach $4.25 billion by 2030. That isn’t an incredible amount, but also nothing to laugh at: It is about what Nvidia NVDA was pulling in about a decade ago.

The question now is more one of when, not if, quantum computing becomes a technology worth investing in. And that could be a while.

It's frustrating when the leaders responsible for AI implementation are completely out of touch. The folks actually building the solutions are not the ones attending major industry AI events.

Instead, we get VPs and CDOs who secured their positions through politics, not expertise. They talk big about "AI models" and use all the buzzwords in meetings, but have zero technical background and have never written a line of AI code.

The gap between leadership talk and ground-level reality is HUGE. This is why we struggle to innovate. Stop promoting boot-lickers and start promoting builders! Reduce slide preparations and do actual work.

If Dan really wants AI to transform, remove all top level execs from AI&D/EDAI team and replace with real folks who has some background in this space. Otherwise, this will remain as myth.

The fanatical obsession with meeting next quarter's numbers to mollify Wall Street is diametrically opposed to being a strong innovation company. The linkage between end customers and CRL and Divisions was very strong for decades. It covered all businesses. Major advances in road sign and road paint to improve nighttime visibility was a classic win-win. Think how many lives have been saved. Just pulled my winter gloves out for the first real cold blast of early Winter and love seeing Thinsulate.

Desi may have been a so-so CEO and perhaps a good example of Peter Principle, but the innovation didn't die with him. The problem began with James McNerney. He's the one who decided the penny-wise pound-foolish strategy of starving CRL to pay for bigger dividends or buying back shares was a winning strategy. WS loved the guy. Employees not so. Other than a 20% boost in 3M share price the week he was announced in 2000, the share price didn't beat the SP500 by much for the rest of his failed tenure. Inge borrowing billions to buyback shares and scare off activist investors saved his and Mike's job but left the company starved of new blockbusters.

Like Field of Dreams (build it and he will come), for CRL is needs to be "invent it and customers will come" - BBs obsession with NPIs only breeds game-playing (how about a peach colored sticky note, any one?). When Desi pushed for 30% of sales from new products, he at least fully funded CRL. BB, nope!

Just happy I somehow made it to the right age/experience to get pension and retiree medical support (although BB is sc--wing people over to be "competitive"). I see no future left with this place. Just pump it full of painkiller and break it off into pieces and hope the divisions don't end up with a Bryan Hanson 40 million dollar man doing what he's doing to wreck SOLV.

Perfectly said, @z9+1k9bbemrv.

“In 2025, Verizon launched an innovative upgrade to its customer service program. Deriving its name from its June 24 launch date, Project 624 is only the first step in Verizon’s ambitions of being “the best applied AI company in the world.” The new product utilizes AI-driven tools to enhance the services provided by human agents, significantly upgrading the telecom giant’s customer experience platform and freeing up agents’ time significantly.”

Link:
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/driving-growth-innovation-leading-telco?fbclid=IwZnRzaAOFQj1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5CGNhbGxzaXRlAjI1AAEerLAVPW9q5eP8p9m1WxxdwDETCbPZ7W2aPMXdKgGm30Sv_0fhZNjv6QzaNAc_aem_NdzCqx7G2lXzCBabvBgtpg

Jim Farley was surprised to see how much less components and wiring in the Tesla and Chinese EV. Ford did the tear down of the Model Y in 2021 and it shows how superior Tesla vehicle design is. Farley had no idea and Ford vehicle design stayed the same as it was for 100 years. What a joke.

It's really telling to see an industry article on Medtronic and what do they chose to highlight? Micra! They have to go back 10 years to find a great success story - and all the leaders who said YES to micra before the project even had a name, or who pushed to got it though to market are long gone, who remains behind are people that are content to ride the coattails of that original work, keep patting themselves on the back about how innovative we are, but meanwhile fall behind the competition as they watch their quarterly earnings and their MIP targets. This used to be such an ambitious company and now its totally acceptable to be "meh".

http://techrights.org/n/2025/11/13/Under_IBM_Red_Hat_Isn_t_a_Linux_Company_It_s_Sold_to_Clients_as.shtml

As a dedicated employee with over two decades of service in Verizon's Global Technology Services (GTS), I've weathered countless layoffs and economic shifts, proving my commitment and resilience. I'm no benchwarmer—I've poured my energy into this company, and it's heartbreaking to watch talented, hardworking colleagues depart year after year. My own time may come soon, but I'm not deterred; I'll land on my feet with a great opportunity. What truly saddens me is the thought of leaving Verizon in its current state, as I'm deeply passionate about our customers and the potential we hold.
Through my experiences, I've observed patterns in leadership that undermine our strength. When leaders aren't rooted in this country—even if they're citizens—they often lack a deep connection to its values and economy. They surround themselves with like-minded individuals who prioritize loyalty over innovation, creating echo chambers of "yes-men" rather than diverse, challenging teams. In GTS, the prevailing strategy seems limited to layoffs and rebadging, with little investment in developing talent here in the U.S. While global recruitment for top skills is essential, it shouldn't come at the expense of local communities. You hire an American employee,he buys car in local dealship who in turn buy Verizon services. True economic growth thrives on a cycle: Hire locally, and those employees become customers who fuel the business.
The principle is simple: Be local and stay local. If we're expanding hiring in India, we must pair it with strategies to grow revenue there—selling services and building markets to create a balanced, self-sustaining ecosystem. Unfortunately, this shortsighted approach is spreading beyond GTS into our Business Organization, where Indian leaders are bringing in H1B visa holders as Directors and Senior Directors from VDSI India. Many of these appointees lack strong technical expertise or effective communication skills, yet they rise due to unquestioning allegiance rather than merit.
I hope this trend reverses. Our CEO has the opportunity to champion a bold vision: Prioritizing American talent, fostering genuine diversity, and investing in people who drive innovation. With or without me, Verizon can emerge stronger. I love my job and this company dearly—let's rally behind leaders who can guide us out of this mess and toward a brighter future.

https://wccftech.com/nvidia-ceo-pushes-back-on-elon-bold-plans-to-build-a-chip-fab/

The manufacturing landscape will experience paradigm shifts as Elon makes moves that are incomprehensible from your narrowly defined viewpoints

First ATT has the left over timewarner so called leaders that made a bad decision got stock , bonuses and millions. Second many in power have less than I say 8 years but more like 5 years with ATT. Third they broke the foundation that made ATT work meaning the New bee executives to the point that Innovation is now creeping along because the hours from managers are now focused on 8hrs only. Fourth the BIG mistake was instead of hurting the company which they are doing likely listening to a consultant company on RTO( same as our executives going to a psychiatrist) follow their advise. Fifth MAKES sense newly hired 5 days and in a hub. Existing managers remain as they were especially if status has been for 20 years. Sixth and final do Hybrid 3 days office, 5 days remain for marketing and sales. Those at ATT handle break and fix and part of the guarantee flow a few days a month office……I think spot on, oh by the way just fire the ones everyone knows that have nothing to do and don’t use color, ethnic, or male/female/ confused as an excuse
Recently T-Mobile and Verizon booted their CEO is ours next?

How many years before they're not needed?

Founded in 1993 by Jensen Huang, Chris Malachowsky, and Curtis Priem, NVIDIA began as a graphics processing company focused on improving video game visuals. Its breakthrough came in 1999 with the launch of the GeForce 256, the world’s first GPU, revolutionizing computer graphics and parallel computing. Over the next two decades, NVIDIA expanded beyond gaming into high-performance computing, data centers, and artificial intelligence. Its CUDA platform, introduced in 2006, enabled GPUs to accelerate AI and scientific workloads, cementing NVIDIA’s role at the heart of the AI revolution. Today, NVIDIA is a global leader in GPUs, AI chips, and data center solutions, shaping industries from gaming to autonomous vehicles and generative AI.

I've not found even one good use case so far in my line of application engineering. What are people's opinions on how much of the current "AI will change the world like steam engine" sentiment is reality vs marketing?

AI Ambassador does what?

https://www.livescience.com/technology/communications/science-history-first-computer-to-computer-message-lays-the-foundation-for-the-internet-but-it-crashes-halfway-through-oct-29-1969

This is a time I wish I could have been a part of. It started out as 4 nodes. Had I been a bit older I would have been a part of the beginning. It was 6 years later that I did become a part of implementing the ARPANET which would become the internet. It's likely most on this board weren't even born yet.

Fortran is a computer language that is for the most part ridiculed (unjustly) now, however it was used to get us to the moon and back, and was used to implement the first packet switching.

"From there, the military agency funded a project to create such a network. For the system to work, it needed a way to break up messages from a sender into smaller portions that were then reassembled at the destination. Boehm and Baran simulated this process, which would eventually become known as packet switching, using a program written in the computer language Fortran."

Those were exciting times never to be had again.

Dan is big proponent of AI. We need to create a of excellence for AI. Whoever is going to win AI war is going to be the next leader in this space.

This seems to be a brilliant strategy. If we can pull it off it could be a game changer. There is a HUGE financial commitment to make it happen. I hope it does. 🙏

with the latest AI tools, people can develop a payments application in 10 minutes...
How do they explain having so many people in the office 24 x7 , and supporting old terrible products for years. any logical explanation?

They block all these AI tools from office laptops!