According to an article yesterday in InfoWorld Microsoft already has employed over 700 staff in Hyderabad, India and will be hiring hundreds more new developers. Steve Ballmer, attending the inauguration of their nice new campus in Manikonda India happily declared that development and support operations in India would not lead to a loss of jobs in the USA. Now excuse me Mr. Ballmer, but it seems to make sense that if you are employing all those in India then there are that many that are NOT being employed by Microsoft in the USA, right? Duh!
In my opinion consumers should have a right to be informed on all packaging where that product or service is from – just like we see on food products. If you were considering buying a software package from Microsoft (India) or a competitor (USA), both packages being equivalent, which would you prefer? If this is the future for the American consumer perhaps it would be best if schools start teaching Sanskrit as a second language?
InfoWorld Article
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
reality check. employing people in india would mean establishing a market in india, which means you get more indian buyers. now since the indian programmers are working to satisfy the indian market, shouldn't that leave room for MORE american programmers to satisfy the american market?
if microsoft is smart, it'll rise to the demands of the local market and make more jobs in the states. otherwise they'll be losing sight of their first priority, which is placating the american consumers with the greater purchasing power, who think their jobs are being stolen from under their noses.
also, identifying a country of origin encourages discrimination, though reading through this post, it seems that's what you want. whichever piece of software you buy, regardless of country of origin, -the money goes to microsoft-. it won't discourage offshore outsourcing, because there are just THAT many brilliant software workers all over the world, and it would be stupid not to take advantage of that. neither would it make the US poorer, because microsoft pays taxes and sustains the government. the more money microsoft makes, the more money it gives back to the US.
for the record, here's a correction: india-based programmers coordinate with US-based programmers on software development projects. so there is hardly a "made in India" or "made in the US" issue when it comes to software.
Yes, I'm sure cheaper labor has nothing to do with Microsoft's choice. Me? I'd rather talk to someone in my own country about the any problems.
informationweek research: cost no longer prime motivator to outsource.
if you want someone from your own country to talk to, set a date with your next-door neighbor. if you want someone to help you at the same time, you better hope your neighbor knows how to fix your tech problems, because people everywhere else in the world sure do.
Think you better let Steve Ballmer know this, since it was he that remarked on the complaints from people about the cost of MS software being too expensive. He tried to turn it around and blame others like hackers and pirates, etc. You really expect people to believe your statement that companies are only interested in the best qualified and it just happens that they are cheaper? You really expect people to believe there are no qualified people in the USA? You are obviously from a company that outsources or maybe from India?
i never said cost WASN'T a reason to outsource, i only say that fewer businesspeople give it the highest priority now.
and i never said there wasn't any talent in the US, i'm only saying not ALL the talent is in the US, so you should open your mind to the idea that other people can do the job, AND deserve to be given more purchasing power, without jobs having to be taken away from the US.
hmm... i need to read up on that, but it's strange that mr. ballmer would blame the rising cost of software on hackers and pirates when even without them, software would be damned expensive anyway. actually no it's not strange, it's just a CEO trying to cover his company's ass(ets). so it's like, an executive non sequitur. i wouldn't listen to that kind of crap if i were you.
i'd say i wasn't from an outsourcing company just to spite your obvious bias, but i won't. i'll just say i'm not indian.
I see valid points in all of the comments here. A business will not survive if the focus was not on the bottom line. There are many factors that will affect that bottom line, often more than just immediate costs. For example, hiring cheaper product support options will not guarantee a worse bottom line due to higher customer dissatisfaction. Business solutions are not always so obvious. The post was really to suggest that the location of a products creation (and even where subsequent support in some cases) be known to the consumer. I believe consumers should have such knowledge available to them before they make a purchase. I just wonder if companies would be willing to give consumers that knowledge - if not, why would they choose to hide it.
Post a Comment