View Your New Workstation as an Investment, Not a Liability

How does a business determine when to purchase a new workstation? What factors should be considered? Further, it is not uncommon for the finance department to ask, “Do we really need a new workstation?” The real question isn't do you need a new workstation, but can you afford not to have one. 

The foundation of a successful business depends on understanding and controlling Return on Investment. Simply put, technology is an investment and examining its ROI can help determine whether or not it’s time to purchase a new workstation.

Some Examples of ROI are:
Productivity: The mantra of time is money is still as valid as ever. When your performance is hindered by the bottle-neck of an outdated workstation, then it is time to purchase a new workstation. When you invest in a new workstation, you increase productivity, and an increase in productivity leads to growth in company profits.

Useful Life: While computers are more durable than ever, there will be a situation in which software or hardware will fall below minimum requirements; usually within 3-5 years. When this happens, its value becomes reduced, and a new workstation will need to be purchased. This is the reality of technology; it becomes obsolete; however, you can plan for the future. When purchasing a new workstation, ensure it has an upgrade path. An upgrade path will allow your new workstation to be viable longer and further increase your ROI.

By considering how technology can increase your ROI, as opposed to a drain on your resources, you can better decide when it is time to purchase a new workstation. A business which treats technology as an asset as opposed to a liability can leverage their IT department's wisdom to benefit the company's bottom line. 

Call us today at 607-287-5532, and we will work with your team to evaluate your hardware and software needs. Together we will develop a plan to transform your use of technology into an investment tool, leading to increased productivity and overall profits for your business. 

Why blog

In many marketing and communication seminars I attend, the first thing that is mentioned when discussing using web-based marketing is SEO. People spent a good portion of the meeting touting how much time they or their webmaster spends optimizing their sites for search. Yet, when they attempt to do a search live, their site doesn't come up on the first page of Google; often they don't come up at all.

The reason why of course, is because everyone else is optimizing their sites or worst paying for the 'right' to have their site come up first. You as a small business cannot compete with the bigger companies in purchasing services. No matter how dedicated you or your webmaster are, Walmart, McDonald's or whomever you wish to compete with will bury you.

However and this is key to any local or smaller business is that you have the ability to speak directly to your target audience. You have the flexibility to evolve to changes that are occurring in your community and offer personalized service to your community. This is something that larger companies cannot or will not do.

So how does that have to do with SEO and search in general? Google which is still the dominant force in search, is constantly changing how they rank importance. Gone are the day when you could 'hide' keywords on web pages and trick the crawler into listing your site.

First and foremost, a blog is anything you want it to be, from a journal of your daily events to the digital version of your great American novel. The blog is the latest example of what I consider to be attempts at the democratization of free speech by using everyman tech.

The word blog is slang created from the term weblog; a format that uses a web page to collect a series of posts and links, that digitally mimic a traditional written 'log'.  What is different about a blog and a traditional log, is that a blog can take advantage of the interactively of the internet. This gives it the ability to be multimedia savvy, as well as interactive.

You can post links to other web pages, insert audio, video and add photos. What makes it a true web 2.0 application is that it allows and encourages readers of the blog to contribute to it. The comments themselves can include links to other sites, blogs, audio, video, and photos. It is this cross-communication that makes a blog part of the Web 2.0 generation.

"But John, we already have free speech as part of our Constitution and it is a right..." You would be correct, in theory, but in practice is another thing. If we take a step back about 2 or 3 decades ago, we release how access to mass communication was limited to the very few. If you wanted to let your opinion be heard, how could the average person do it and this is key, retain control of their message?

A letter to the editor in the newspaper? Perhaps, but there was no guarantee it would be published or unaltered and of course your message was limited to the Newspaper's distribution limitations.You could, of course, use a mimeograph machine which was a low-cost method of making copies. Still, you have to have an effective means to reach the masses; how many places could you place your flyer at?

The next stage in mass communication history brought the Xerox machine into existence, which allowed for greater accessibility to produce copies, but suffered from the same distribution limitations of the mimeograph generation. You either had to mail them or find some way to physically get them into the hands of your target audience. Not an easy task, nor one that was sure to bring results. Things remained relatively stable for a generation or so, until the age of the affordable computer was born, relatively speaking of course.

This next generation of technology brought with it the potential to compete with the larger sources of information; it was the beginning of the Democratization of  free speech. For the first time, average people had the ability to create content that looked professional and couldn't be dismissed as the chicken scratchings of housewives. It was the age of Desktop Publishing.

What desktop publishing provided was a means for the average person to have access to the technology that was previously the domain of a specialized few. It reduced the cost of creating and producing content to the degree that average people had the ability to create, produce and distribute their content.  This content was primarily print: Newsletters, Newspapers, pamplets and many others. Later this included video, audio and the new medium; the internet. Using inexpensive computers, software, scanners and printers, the average person was finally able to create their content on their own terms.

However even with the advancements in technology, there was still a limitation on the ability to distribute to as many people as you desired. You still had to physically get it into the hands of the people.

This issue of distribution effectively ended with the birth of Web 1.0; the internet and its supporting technology. Email, BBS, various gateways such as America Online (AOL) and Compuserve opened the possibility for average people to communicate at a low cost and high volume.

Web 1.0 was another generational shift in the paradigm of how people communicate. People could now reach 100, 1000's eventually millions of people via email or websites, at a price that was affordable, but more importantly without the need of 'professionals'. The average user could fully create, control and distribute their content. They no longer had to rely on outside agencies such as printers, post office, and other delivery methods to have their message heard.

However the world of Web 1.0 was primarily one of content being provided, with little to no user interaction. That would slowly change and manifest itself in the form of Web 2.0.

In the world of Web 2.0, the focus is now on both the content provider and the client; they both share equally in the process of communication. Now it's time for an instructional video:

As we can see, the blog has the ability to be many things to many people. There are more than one type of blogs, such as photoblogs, videoblogs, amongst others. Podcasting can be considered a type blog and as of 16 February 2011 (2011 -02-16)^[update], there were over 156 million public blogs in existence.(BlogPulse 11)

The entire connected community of blogs is called the blogosphere. This new 'universe' exists due to the inter-connectivity of the internet, which blogs have inherited. In reinforces the belief and the goal to have all content connected and accessible, allowing for the free flow of ideas.

One of the groups that can take advantage of the somewhat collaborative nature of the blog is the educational community.

The blog in the educational community can serve many functions. It can serve as a means for students to share information with each other. Either in the form of a support system for students, allowing them to share information with one another, an informal current events platform or in the form of a traditional journal, chronicling their day to day interests.

However whichever format is used, the blog allows the student the one thing that traditional writing doesn't, the ability to have constant  and consistent interactive feedback from their peers and educators. It allows the student blogger the ability to find other students that have similar interests as they do. Also unlike the social networking sites, the blogger controls who and who cannot comment on their content. The risk of being bullied is less when not only are you the editor, but you also own the 'newspaper'.

 It was noted: The present study concerns the content of MySpace blogs and whether it differs from the blog style found on sites specifically designed for blogging. A content analysis of MySpace blogs was conducted to investigate trends in purpose, format, and style and to compare these across sex and age categories. Most blogs were written in a positive tone, and the main motivations for blogging appeared to be writing a diary and as an emotional outlet. Findings also indicate that while there were no significant sex differences, blog purpose and style differed across age groups; for example, bloggers over 50 were more likely to use the blog as an emotional outlet with a negative tone. Bloggers between 18 and 29 predominantly used a semiformal language style, whereas bloggers over 30 were equally as likely to use a semiformal or formal style. Results suggest that MySpace blogs are not dissimilar from other forms of blogging because they provide an important outlet for emotion and self-expression. (Fullwood 09)

The article notes that blogging can offer an outlet for emotion and self-expression, this in many ways can be great for students who lack self-esteem. Another impact is that it could bring students, staff and teachers together in a safe environment that could promote a higher level of understanding. In fact any medium that allows for greater and more concise communication should be encouraged.

The blog could be used by educators to fill in the finer points of a lesson, that required more depth than could be allowed in the regular school day. Once again the interactively could help the educator by allowing them to reinforce links and connections, by using the power of the internet.

However that freedom comes with a price. Students, but especially teachers must be careful about what they write. One of the side effects of Web 2.0, is the ability for everything you write to be searched for, examined and analyzed; unfortunately there is a potential for it to be used against you.

The characteristics of pharmacist blogs were examined. Methods. Internet search engines, blog aggregators, and blog rolls were used to identify pharmacist blogs. Six categories were developed to evaluate blogs, including practice-based topics, identifying information, positive language, critical language, professionalism, and miscellaneous. The most recent five posts on each pharmacist blog were reviewed. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the results. Results. A total of 117 blogs were identified, 44 of which were designated as pharmacist blogs. No blogs contained patient-identifying information. Anonymity was maintained by 68.2% of bloggers. Bloggers practiced in community (43.1%) and noncommunity (43.1%) settings. Pharmacists most commonly used positive language to describe the profession (32%), other health care professionals (25%), and patients (25%). The highest rates of critical language were found in descriptions of patients (57%) and other health care professionals (44%). Almost half of pharmacist blogs contained explicit or unprofessional language. Overall, community practitioner blogs were substantially more likely than noncommunity practitioner blogs to use unprofessional and critical language. Twenty-five percent of pharmacist bloggers also maintained a microblog (e.g., Twitter) account. Conclusion. A search using Internet search engines, blog aggregators, and blog rolls identified 117 blogs, 44 of which met the study criteria for designation as pharmacist blogs. The majority of pharmacist blogs included some type of discussion of pharmacologic therapies. Pharmacists most commonly used positive language to describe the profession, other health care professionals, and patients. The highest rates of critical language were found in descriptions of patients and other health care professionals.(Fullwood 09)

As noted, the pharmacists' blogs were examined for content and reviewed. This information could easily be used in matters of discipline, even if the pharmacist's blog was his personal thoughts and not part of the company. This could easily be applied to the educational community with serious damage to moral. 

As with most technology, there is also a dark side. One of the problems with everyone having the ability to have a voice, is determining whose voice should be listened to. I have noticed in the past few years a reliance by News organizations on 'citizen' journalists for content. The problem is that these new breed of journalists often don't understand the legal and ethical issues involved in reporting. Issues such as fact-checking, bias confirmations, using citations and all the other safe guards we have in place to prevent innocent people from having their lives ruined by rumour are often not on their priority list.

It is noted that: Blogs are on a continuously ascending trend. In the beginning, the bloggers took information (news) from the traditional media and commented it in their posts, but now the reversed tendency has appeared: journalists use blogs as news sources. Blogs seem to gain ground in their competition against traditional media regarding information. This article proves that blogs, as a news source for offline journalists remain bounded to their logic. In order for a blog post to become news, it needs to have the characteristics of any news. Furthermore, regular people have little chance of introducing their blog in the news flux, proving that this new communication instrument failed, at least for the moment, in the democratization of the media zone. (Durach 10)

I disagree with the author on his stance that since regular people can't introduce their blog into the news flux, the communication medium is a failure. The whole purpose of the blog wasn't to replace the existing news media, but to allow additional voices the opportunity to have their voices heard without the filter of the news media. In that regard, the blog certainly has succeeded.

There are 156 million blogs in existence today, in a time were news organizations are fighting to stay on the air and relevant. The author notes that the positions are now reversed, instead of the blog being a log of the news events, the blog is now the generator of many newscasts. While it is true the a person who is blogging about this birds, may not make the news; his blogging supports the blogging network that makes it possible for someone else to make the news.

Further in the case of countries that don't have a true freedom of the press, the blog as well as other forms of social media, twitter, facebook and sms; allow those people the ability to have their voices heard, regardless of whether or not the mainstream news picks up the story; someone, some average Joe will and that's all that matters.

One of the first things we have seen an Authoritarian regime do is close down the newspapers, radio and television networks; that was standard operating procedure: Control the message. Free speech, freedom of the press is a threat to them; now they kill the internet and cellular service too. They ban search engines and try to control an ever more difficult to control evolution of technology driven democracies. What does that tell us?

It tells us that they consider Web 2.0 technology to be as much a threat to them as the traditional methods of communication. That to me is clearly an example of the democratization of the media zone; it scares the tyrants, as all attempts to wield democratic power does.

Works Cited:    "BlogPulse". The Nielsen Company. February 16, 2011. http://www.blogpulse.com/. Retrieved 2011-02-17.   Durach, Flavia. "Blogs as Sources for Political News." Revista Romana de Comunicare si Relatii Publice 12.3 (2010): 33-46. SocINDEX with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

Fullwood, Chris, Natasha Sheehan, and Wendy Nicholls. "Blog Function Revisited: A Content Analysis of MySpace Blogs." CyberPsychology & Behavior 12.6 (2009): 685-689. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

Clauson, Kevin A., Justin Elkins, and Chilla E. Goncz. "Use of blogs by pharmacists." American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 67.23 (2010): 2043-2048. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

The company you keep.

I am by nature an online privacy advocate. I believe it is a fundamental right to keep whatever information you want about yourself, to yourself. Unfortunately, the average user doesn't understand what they give up when they enter the realm of social media. They believe that because they write their personal opinions, they can't be used against them.

They have in their heads that social media is like a private diary that no one dares open. What they fail to realize is that they themselves have opened their diary and printed out the contents for all to see.

It amazes me to my core, how much exposure people willingly and seemingly without a second thought, grant to outsiders. Now, this may be a generational or cultural shift in mores, but I grew up with the notion that no one is to know your business. Dirty laundry was kept well inside, never to see the light of day. 

I had an interesting conversation with a graduating college student the other day, who I knew was a big social media hound. I mentioned that employers are really getting into using social media as a screening tool and that she should really 'scrub' anything that seems inappropriate because you never know what metrics an HR person is going to use. However being on the conservative side is never a bad move. "Don't worry," she says, "I already did months ago...I read the news, too."

Really? Let's take a look, shall we....

We go to her Facebook page and she's right, it looks normal enough. She's very pleased with herself...until I start clicking on her friends. "Why are you doing that?", she asks. I tell her, "You know, we're all judged by the company we keep, so let's see who you keep company with."

I could tell by the look in her eye, she hadn't thought about her connections to other people. However that's what social media is designed to do; create, maintain and most importantly display connections. 

When you start friending, liking, tweeting et. al, you connect a link from you to the other person, creating a pattern; a trail of behavior that can be followed. That connection while virtual can still have tangible effects on you in the real world.

Your virtual life should reflect your physical one; the same rules should apply for the most part. As in the real world, you should only grant intimacy to people you have a real relationship with.

"Well, I don't know most of those people..", she says. Then why are you friends with them? 

She had so many 'friends', that she had no idea what content anyone had, who they were sharing it with and more importantly, what content they had on their pages.

So I start clicking and it wasn't long before I started finding content, that while certainly wasn't illegal and didn't belong to her directly, would give an HR person pause.

It was, of course, the usual stuff, people drinking and 'smoking' too much. People showing their tats, piercings, way too little clothing and unfortunately making inappropriate postings about race, gender, sexual orientation and the like. 

Now you can say its PC, but HR doesn't want to have to deal with a person who is going to go all 'klan' on them at the workplace. So if they see you are 'friends' with people who display this behavior, they are going to pass you by. They don't want to deal with functioning alcoholics or dopers and they certainly don't want to deal with sexual harassment issues. 

We all have friends and family that behave in a manner that we don't agree with, but we maintain a relationship with them anyway due to a variety of reasons. That's normal. The difference is, in the real world we don't expose those relationships to the public domain (unless you're a celeb). 

If Uncle Charlie says 'things' at Christmas, that's between you, Uncle Charlie and the Ghost of Christmas past. However if Uncle Charlie posts things on your wall, then it becomes part of the public discourse. Unfairly or not, your response or lack of one reflects upon you and sometimes your employer.

Yes, I agree, your personal life should be private, but once you post it, it no longer is. You have willingly given up your right to privacy and you no longer have control over it. It belongs to the public and you can and will be judged by it.

Control the message, control the brand; especially if the brand is you. This is a theme I'm going to hit on over and over when it comes to social media. You have to control your brand and you have to control how you present yourself to the world if you want the world to take you seriously.

When I was a kid, my grandfather always told me, "dress like a prospect, not a suspect". What he meant was despite people's best intentions, we often judge people by their outward appearance. The image you present, will be the one that is used to judge you.

This is even more valid in social media. Your history allows people to have an imitate look into your life. Not just by your words and deeds, but by the words and deeds of others you associate with and how you interact with them.

One more thing, this isn't a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech protects you from the government interfering with your right to speech. The government, not Facebook, your boss or anyone else. Your wall, tweets, flickr and everything else is free game to them to use for or against you as they please.

There is an increasing number of people who have lost their jobs because they believed they could post whatever they wanted and use the "it's my private thoughts..." excuse.

You have the right to post whatever you wish, but understand, public speech often has personal consequences. Consequences that can be avoided if we followed the rule we tell school kids these days...."Don't post anything, you wouldn't tell, show or give anyone in person".

If that advice is good enough for a third grader, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

The ability to be heard.

I am often asked why I think social media is a powerful medium, not only for marketing,  for advocacy and more importantly for the average end user. Part of the reason why I get this question is because many people still think of social media purely as a means to chat like high schoolers, show cute kitten photos or follow the ramblings of drunken celebs. It has grown into so much more than that.

In reality, social media has the potential to provide an outlet for the average person to communicate on an equal footing with any corporation. Let that sink in for a second. You don't need a bevy of lawyers, or a Madison Ave ad agency in order to have your point of view heard.

Social media breaks the lock on ideas and grants access to audiences that previously were only available to the mass communication outlets. You no longer have to rely on a  mass communication system that is owned, controlled and filtered by someone else.

Social media empowers the individual, the everyman. You can now not only be part of the process personally but also be the messenger and most importantly, control the message.

What do I mean by "control the message."? This is one of the truisms of life, if you don't define your message, then it will be defined for you. Often in ways that are not favorable to you or your cause.

Social media provides the opportunity to be 'pro-active, but this activity is a double-edged sword, it giveth and taketh away. You need to invest resources into monitoring and engaging your audience. If you see that someone has an issue, you need to respond to them. This isn't the old days when someone would write a letter to the editor or send one to Corporate, which would end up in the trash or be ignored. Now corporations have conversation managers who track every post and tweet, as a method to control their message. I have experienced this effect personally during the great GTab incident.

This generation's version of a letter to an editor is a tweet, a YouTube upload, blog or Facebook post has the potential to be seen by thousands, if not millions of people if it goes viral. Further, the internet never forgets. Somewhere that post will live on... forever.

However, if you lean into an issue and treat concerns with attention and respect, more often than not you will have a positive result. When you engage one person online, you are often speaking to many more 'lurkers'. Their opinion about your brand, cause or organization is as equally important as that of the squeaky wheel. Even if you can't satisfy the person with the original complaint, the rest of your audience will appreciate that you tried.

While social media can provide you access to an audience, your messaging must be of value.You just can't post 'stuff', it has to have a value to your audience or they won't return to your content. You can have all the likes you want, but unless you can convert those likes into action, what purpose do they serve except ego?

If you want them to support your cause, then you need to provide them a reason to do so. Your contact with them should be a call to action, it should build relationships and provide personalized attention. There's a reason why there's the 'social' attached to the media. It is a medium that by nature, thrives on personal interaction.

With personal interaction, comes the potential to have your voice not just heard, but listened to and ultimately that is all that the every man wants, the opportunity to be listened to.

The failure of Android

The failure of Android is upon us. No, not today or even tomorrow, but it will come, if Google and its partners continue to mismanage the adoption of it. Guys, when in doubt, think of the endusers; do what's best for them, you'll never go wrong.

The latest symptom of the disease was the announcement that Nvidia will not provide video drivers for the first generation of Android tablets using the Harmony based Tegra 2 chips. This decision has effectively put several devices, most notably, the Viewsonic gTablet , ViewPad7, Advent Vega, Toshiba Folio 100, and Notion Ink Adam on the fast track to EOL. What is unbelievable is that these devices are still in production and being sold to the public.

Let's be upfront here, none of those devices are ipad killers; in fact they all are very imperfect creatures; but they all have impressive internals. More importantly with the correct ROM, these devices absolutely can compete with what exists currently. They are all perfectly capable first generation android tablets, once you work on them. Of course you shouldn't have to work on them and that is a failure of the manufacturers. More on that later.

Why is this important? 
The first generation of tablets are running Froyo (Android 2.2), however because their hardware is still very good, they can also run Gingerbread and most likely Honeycomb when it's released.

In fact there are Gingerbread ROMs for many of these devices already. The problem is that in order for video hardware acceleration to function, the ROMs need access to the Nvidia video drivers. Without those, only software video acceleration is possible, which cause higher res video quality issues, such as stuttering, freezing, out of synch, etc; as well as issues with games.

Nvidia has stated that they will no longer be providing drivers for their Harmony Tegra2 chips. This decision effectively freezes any Harmony based tablet at Froyo. Despite their ability to use later versions of Android, such as Gingerbread.

The Nvidia flap started because of this post: Mar 16 2011 at 12:07 AM #1

NVIDIA is only supporting the Ventana platform for android releases going forward. At the moment we have released Froyo and Gingerbread OS images for Ventana and will release Honeycomb after Google has done so.

It took about a month for people to realize what this meant. Once the fires started to burn, we receive what on first blush looks like a nice bit of corporate double speak:

nvdru wrote:

UPDATE 12 APRIL 2011:
Sorry folks looks like I caused a bit of confusion. Since this is a developer forum my comments were targeted at Tegra Honeycomb developers and for this we’d like to focus on Ventana. For shipping or production products, customers should contact the device makers directly for OS support plans. They are responsible for the OS shipping on their device.
In relation to our linux kernel git repository, NVIDIA will continue to provide full open-source support for all of our kernel components and will push more of that upstream over time.

The next day we received more clarification:

Mar 16 2011 at 12:07 AM #1

UPDATE 13 APRIL 2011
A lot has been read into a very short post about a Tegra development kit. I'd like to clear up a few points.

First, nothing changes in what we’re delivering to the open source community or customers. NVIDIA will continue to post the Tegra kernel to kernel.org and publish our Android code to our public git servers. Additionally, we will continue to make our BSP (codecs, GPU driver etc) available to all our hardware partners. We will continue to do this and nothing about these processes has changed.

 For our partners' Android devices, NVIDIA provides support until the hardware partner chooses to no longer support the device. So, for instance, NVIDIA will support the Xoom on all versions of Android Motorola requests until Motorola ceases to support the Xoom. The same goes for ViewSonic with the G-Tablet, Notion Ink with the Adam, Acer with the Iconia, LG with the Optimus 2X and so on.

In relation to my original reply, that was a response to a specific question about a Tegra 250 Development Kit. Given the confusion, we will work with owners of Tegra 250 Development Kits individually to determine their needs. The term "Harmony" is an internal codename for the Tegra 250 Development Kit. It is not a tablet reference design. Each shipping tablet is a custom design with varying hardware components and requires a custom OS image from the OEM who made the tablet.

Finally, while we cannot support or give out third party peripheral drivers or provide the Android 3.0 source before Google does, we do want to explore whether we can assist the open source ROM makers. We will be reaching out to them today.

My cynical nature tells me that this is one of those cases where plausible deniablity is assured. "We wanted to give you the drivers, but ViewSonic hasn't requested them.." Assuming that Nvidia isn't just passing the buck in order to take the heat off themselves, where does that leave us? It leaves us stuck having to rely on companies that have already proven themselves unable to keep their servers online, are we to believe they can update their OS? Not after the hot, steaming mess that was TapNTap....

So what?
I know what you're thinking, technology is always moving forward and becomes obsolete and vendors often fail, that's the nature of the beast. That is perfectly valid position, however allow me to expand on that thought a bit.

The tablets are still being sold to thousands of unsuspecting endusers who have no idea that they are purchasing dead ended/crippled devices. I myself purchased a Gtab over a month ago and over 10,000 were purchased during several Woot events and many people are just receiving them.

What do they receive? A device that is running one of the worst designed android ROMs there is. There's a reason why this device and others like it were returned at staggering rates, when they were first introduced.

The good news is that ViewSonic realized how horrible their software was and upgraded it. The bad news is that their OTA server has been offline for nearly a week. Which means thousands of users are either returning their crippled devices or tearing their hair out trying to function with it. It is unacceptable that people are receiving their devices in this state with no 'official' method to update the software.

Is Google Right?
The issues with Nvidia and VeiwSonic illustrate that Google has a valid point about the risk to their brand, when devices are released in such poor condition or with tepid support. However I submit that Google's method of trying to control their fragmentation is akin to using a scatter-gun to kill a fly; more on that later.

Of course it doesn't have to be this way, ViewSonic could create a simple webpage with a link to download the update; so far they haven't managed to do even that. What is sad is that the unpaid, hobbyist devs at XDA, have managed to do just that. What does it say about a company, when average people without millions of dollars of resources are able to do, what you cannot?

I know, buyer beware... 
That is another valid position to hold. However how can the average enduser know that the only official method to upgrade their ROM to something that is usable is offline and has been for close to a week now? I personally enjoy my Gtab, but there is no way I would have kept it if I was limited to the stock ROM that came with it; unfortunately thousands of people currently are.

Fortunately I was able to change it for a usable ROM at XDA. However I certainly don't expect the average user to do that and I certainly don't expect  XDA to function as technical support for ViewSonic.

Unfortunately ViewSonic's support consists of pointing the end user to XDA for a ROM and then telling them that using an unauthorized ROM voids their warranty. Hobson's choice anyone?

Educate Yourself.
Yes various unofficial methods to upgrade do exist. However there is one thing we must always remember about the average enduser, they never touch their devices. They don't root them, they don't unlock them and they certainly don't change ROMs; nor should they have to. It is the responsibility of the vendor to provide a good user experience out of the box...stock. If they can't do that, that is a failure on their part, not the endusers.

Expecting the average user do to what we do, is not realistic. They rely on the vendors to provide support and when the vendors fail to do so, it is the responsibility of the informed minority to support the greater uninformed masses.

So let's see. The current generation of first adopters are having their devices EOLed before they even open their boxes and the manufacturers are unable to provide even basic support. The most important thing a company can do is set the tone for its first encounter with their customers. What tone is Google setting with Android? A very tone deaf one I would say.

How is this Google's fault?
This is how I see it: Google is rightly concerned that there are so many substandard devices running Android. That concern is affecting companies in a couple of ways. Imagine you're 1st or 2nd tier company and you have an 'unauthorized' device running a poorly coded version of android, what do you do?

1. Do you  invest resources to correct it and therefor create the image that you are a responsible company and worthy of consumer confidence and trust...even though Google won't support it? or....
   
2. Dump your devices into the 'job lot' resellers, while reducing support of the product to the bare minimum and focus your resources towards, 'approved' Android hardware ..i.e. Honeycomb?

Despite popular belief, customer satisfaction is still a valuable commodity. I think the user backlash against ViewSonic and to a lesser extent Nvidia proves that. In this regard I think the various manufacturers, including Google have failed to manage the expectations of the customers and that to me is the way to ruin.

ViewSonic is in many ways the poster child of what occurs with fragmentation. I don't expect some unknown brand from China to obey the rules, but I do expect a company like ViewSonic to. Their continuing failures do more damage to the Android brand, then they do to themselves.

Despite Android's popularity it is still a weak brand. For every Xoom and we all know the Xoom is under-performing right? There's a dozen devices like the MID M80003W.  When people buy these devices and realize that they have purchased an inferior product, they don't blame the manufacturer; they blame Android.

"But Everyman, doesn't that support Google's decision to control their Android brand?" 
Yes, but the question is how to best maintain the brand? According to Eweek, the Xoom has sold 100, 000 units since Feb. This is with all the commercials, the support of Google and Motorola. The ViewSonic G Tablet sold over 10,000 units in one day. I'll say it again, 10,000 units in one day. This is without the support of major marketing and quite frankly handicapped with a lot of not so great reviews.

If you're Google and you want to keep your Android brand strong, what do you do? Do you focus all your support on a product that has only sold 100,000 units in three months or do you also toss a little support in the direction of the first generations that clearly can sell? Devices that due to their price point and their demographics, have a more lasting first impression and an direct effect on your sales going forward?

These devices are still being sold, at the time of this writing Amazon has them for $299. Do you really believe the people who are just receiving their devices with little to no manufacturer support are going to buy another Android based product?

The first generation of mid-range Tablets are the primary means of contact many users will have with an Android based device. It is crucial that it is a successful one. The way things are, it will be anything but and will quite frankly lead to people walking away from the platform.

I don't blame them, the truth is despite my satisfaction with my GTab device, if I knew what I know now, I wouldn't have brought one or any Android product; nor would I recommend one.

The reason isn't because the device is disappointing (you do have to tweak it, but that's ViewSonic's fault), the reason is because the manufacturing support is simply lacking. The trio of Google, ViewSonic and Nvidia have managed to kill a device that is for intensive purposes; unkillable. I mean you can't brick this thing.

If Nvidia won't support their own chips in devices less than a year old, why should I trust them to support them in the Xoom or the next batch of devices a year from now? Yeah, yeah, I know, they'll provide drivers when the vendors request them.....

If ViewSonic isn't able to support their devices, why would I trust them when they release their next generation of devices or any other company for that matter?

If you look at the history of Android, you will see that it is littered with the remains of devices abandoned or crippled by their manufactures. I understand Google is trying to exert more control and I can understand the difficulty with the fly by night manufactures, however Nvidia, ViewSonic and the others are not unknown entities. Google should be able to influence them in order to protect the Android brand. If they can't, then Google should not pretend to be trying to reign in fragmentation, because clearly they can't do it.

If they can't, why would any consumer risk an Android purchase, when there are viable alternatives from Apple and Microsoft, who are able to exert control over the products that bear their brands?

How the first adopters are treated, will set the standard that Android will be held to going forward. If Google allows the first generation of Android tabs to be tossed away as so much disposable junk, then they have told the market that Android itself is disposable. That it, like that products it supports, is only good for a year at a time and that is no way to create a brand that will last.

Google and especially their manufacturers need to realize that they're not selling disposable phones anymore.