My mate Dave Ruby emailed me the above picture of the launch in the United States of the Madge CAU and LAM. The CAU and LAM operated as a token-ring hub. Dave is the guy in the middle becoming better acquainted with the cow. The Madge CAU was a solid bit of kit that rarely went titsup, and compared to the IBM CAU 8230, it was the bull's bollocks. When it came to IBM, we never turned the udder cheek!Eventually, Madge went titsup and IBM ratted out to Cisco.
There I was shooting the breeze with an old mate. The conversation turned to why Madge Networks which I wrote about here went titsup. My analysis is that Madge Networks had a solution and decided to go out and find a problem. They deferred to more incorrect strategic technology choices. The truth of the matter is that when something goes titsup, its not because of one reason only, but a myriad of them all contributing to the negative consequence. There are the immediate or visual ones, which are underpinned by intermediate ones and finally after digging right down, there are the root causes. There is never a singular root cause for anything but I'll present my opinion and encourage everyone else to chip in. All of them together are more likely the reason the company went titsup. As far as technology brainfarts go there is no better example than Kodak . They invented the digital camera that killed them. However, they were so focused on milking people in their leg