metalspring
Silver Member
well yes and no...the name "droid" may be a verizon branding, however maybe they just need to create their own name for it since they do come out with 1 a year i believe
DroidForums.net | Android Forum & News
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Motorola 'Reinventing Itself'; Cutting Staff and Concentrating on Fewer Devices
- Thread starter dgstorm
- Start date
well yes and no...the name "droid" may be a verizon branding, however maybe they just need to create their own name for it since they do come out with 1 a year i believe
I wish the stupid "Droid" branding would go away for good. The logical flaw people often make is one of my biggest tech pet-peeves (DROID = Android, therefore Android = DROID :icon_evil
. I think people are FINALLY coming around now, and the Droid fad might be dying. It may never go away, but with the Galaxy and Nexus devices taking over, this might finally be going away.The Razr is the Droid Razr...its part of the Droid line of phones. To date Motorola has not released an Android smartphone with Verizon that was not Droid branded.
Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
It's definetly bad to see people lose jobs, however this doesn't seem like a "we aren't making money so we're downsizing to make investors happy". It seems like they're actually changing to a more profitable business model, either way I hope they have a great departure plan (financially) for the newly unemployed.
Agreed, and frankly the talk of 4,000 jobs lost is really minuscule in the grand scheme of things. 4,000 total, but 1/3 in the US, means about 1,300 jobs in the states, and the other c. 2,700 jobs spread across Asia and India, where the populations of those countries combined is over 5.3 Billion. By contrast the US has about 311 Million. So, we're talking about .000004% of the US work force, and .0000005% of the combined populations of those other two global areas.
To put things in perspective, in May 2012 the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate (by Govt figures) is 8.2%. *Note; Don't get me started on the REAL unemployment rate which needs to account for all those who gave up long ago looking for a job and those who've exhausted their unemployment benefits, not to mention those who were ineligible and those who never applied. But to prove a point, assume that to lose 1,300 jobs here in the US would increase the unemployment figure to 8.2000004%. Now you see how insignificant it really is - it amounts to about 26 jobs in each state, if it were spread evenly across the country.
Where it hurts most is in the concentrated areas that the company has a presence, so please don't mistake my comments for being insensitive. Even one job lost is another one that has to be replaced, but in that same May, 2012, 69,000 new jobs were created, so the 1,333 lost is .193% of that figure. In the long run, it will be a positive for the company and the economy since as it gets stronger and grows, it will likely employ more, perhaps even hiring in total considerably more than it is letting go now. Also, most of the jobs cut were in upper management, so the benefit is that more lower-wage employment could open up. The downside risk of not cutting those jobs is that the company suffers even worse decline and is forced to lay off more. In December 2010 Motorola's employee force was 60,000, so you see it could be far worse.
To put things in perspective, in May 2012 the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate (by Govt figures) is 8.2%. *Note; Don't get me started on the REAL unemployment rate which needs to account for all those who gave up long ago looking for a job and those who've exhausted their unemployment benefits, not to mention those who were ineligible and those who never applied. But to prove a point, assume that to lose 1,300 jobs here in the US would increase the unemployment figure to 8.2000004%. Now you see how insignificant it really is - it amounts to about 26 jobs in each state, if it were spread evenly across the country.
Where it hurts most is in the concentrated areas that the company has a presence, so please don't mistake my comments for being insensitive. Even one job lost is another one that has to be replaced, but in that same May, 2012, 69,000 new jobs were created, so the 1,333 lost is .193% of that figure. In the long run, it will be a positive for the company and the economy since as it gets stronger and grows, it will likely employ more, perhaps even hiring in total considerably more than it is letting go now. Also, most of the jobs cut were in upper management, so the benefit is that more lower-wage employment could open up. The downside risk of not cutting those jobs is that the company suffers even worse decline and is forced to lay off more. In December 2010 Motorola's employee force was 60,000, so you see it could be far worse.
I know our company went through layoffs. All the people that they laid off were called back 2 months later. And now we are needing people. I hate that people lose their jobs but if left alone the economy normally will fix itself. Because companies are forced to evaluate and either come back stronger or another company picks up the slack.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2