Latest Nuance Word on DNS 10/EMR Contretemps
From David Pogue's Reader Complaints Mailbag (http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2008/08/21/technolo..., n.b.: its a subscription-only link):
"I am a doctor, but not a good typist, and I have found that Dragon NaturallySpeaking (DNS) is indispensable in making entries into my Electronic Medical Record (EMR) program; DNS has saved me literally thousands of hours in the last few years in updating my patients' records. But I purchased a copy of DNS version 10 as soon as it was available--and tried to begin dictating into my EMR. DNS stopped dead. A dialog box appeared stating that the only version of Naturally Speaking 10 that would dictate into an EMR was the Medical version of Dragon, which costs 10 times the price! Very sad that Nuance has chosen to take the low road in dealing with its new and established customers."
Nuance replies: "You are correct that we decided to remove EMR support from the non-Medical versions of Dragon. We found that some large hospitals were using the consumer editions of Dragon and not getting the accuracy, quality and manageability that would be achieved when using Dragon Medical. It is also a common practice in the software industry to create feature packages for several markets and sell them at different prices (e.g. Microsoft Office). That practice allows us to maintain a low consumer price for Dragon, while offering higher value solutions for our Medical customers.
"Having said that, please note that along with the launch of Dragon Medical 10 in September, we will announce attractive upgrade offers for customers who have been using non-medical Dragon versions in medical settings."
So there. Do you suppose Nuance sees the imminent end of their desktop and related uses market so they're trying to extract as much value as possible before the inevitable happens?
Bruce
With version 10 it requires
With version 10 it requires a fairly new processor as well. This hasn't really been talked about. They are willing to leave their customers with older machines in the archives as they won't be able to move up to DNS 10 in any edition.
The upshot is that all AMD CPUs prior to Athlon 64 (all socket A-based CPUs) and all Intel CPUs prior to Pentium 4 (plus a few others) won't run DNS10.
See: http://www.speechcomputing.com/node/2031#comment-8...
Thus a 1.2Ghz Pentium III or the AMD Athlon XP even though they run at 2Ghz won't run the code in DNS 10.
So for these people it requires the purchase of at least a new motherboard and CPU, more likely an entire new machine for most.
As a result, I doubt I'll be able to move to DNS 10.
To me this says "We don't want you unless you can afford the later machines". Along with the EMR requirements, it pretty well says they are moving towards higher income brackets for DNS. I would start expecting to see price increases in the product as a result.
To me it's like a tire company only making tires for a Lincoln Navigator.
Skip, Among all of the DNS
Skip,
Among all of the DNS users, those having these CPUs are in the minority. These CPUs haven't been distributed or sold for almost 4 years and any user using one of these has a machine that's at least 5 to 6 years old. These machines should be in museums.
Chuck Runquist
Former Dragon NaturallySpeaking SDK & Senior Technical Solutions PM for DNS
If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into a committee - that will do them in. - Bradley's Bromide
Chuck Runquist wrote: These
These machines should be in museums
I probably should have a room in a museum as well.
Skip, I think that I saw one
Skip,
I think that I saw one of these systems in the Smithsonian last week.
Chuck Runquist
Former Dragon NaturallySpeaking SDK & Senior Technical Solutions PM for DNS
If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into a committee - that will do them in. - Bradley's Bromide
BruceCyr wrote: It is also
It is also a common practice in the software industry to create feature packages for several markets and sell them at different prices (e.g. Microsoft Office).
Bruce
Um, yes. But correct me if I'm wrong. Microsoft's software doesn't cripple itself if you open a document with a questionable title or an email with a questionable subject line. Disabling select & say was one thing (and probably suitable enough) but the mic...??? I can go on about what I think ethics are. But it's only my point of view. So, I won't.
kremesch wrote: BruceCyr
It is also a common practice in the software industry to create feature packages for several markets and sell them at different prices (e.g. Microsoft Office).
Bruce
Um, yes. But correct me if I'm wrong.
OK, I'm correcting you, although I admit that if you read my post quickly it was confusing. I'm correcting your mistaken attribution of the comment you quote to me. That comment was actually made by Nuance in response to Mr. Pogue's query Re: his correspondent's complaint.
Yes, that should be perfectly clear now
BTW, while I think Nuance's action is cynical and self-serving, I don't think it unethical -- its very business-like, and we all know that in America its unethical to criticize business, at least for another five or six months
I think its perfectly legitimate, however, to accuse Nuance of unethical behavior because it expresses user discontent with its business policies. Whether it will be effective or not remains to be seen.
BTW #2, from what I've read elsewhere, this step might not be nearly so drastic nor harmful as the restriction to P4 or better CPU's with the SSE2 instruction set. I say this because apparently its fairly easy to circumvent the EMR crippling, but so far I haven't heard of a work-around for the SSE2 cripple.
Bruce
Not a problem. Or at least,
Not a problem. Or at least, I hope it's not. I didn't mean to make the quote come across as your own words - I understood it was direct from Nuance, and it simply birthed my opinion. But I can see how that mistake can be made from the way I posted it. I'll apologise for that, and I hope you didn't take it as anything personal.
Also, you may be correct about ethics, since ethics are pretty much in the same category as art these days (individual interpretation). Maybe distasteful would have been a better choice, or maybe not - it's hard to tell anymore (of course, that's a personal opinion - my own, and as far as I know, I'm still entitled to that).
Mind you, I'm not dissing the program, programmers, Nuance, or anyone else for that matter. I can come across wrong sometimes because I try to keep things short without too much explanation because I can be rather long winded if I don't. But back to my dissing:
it's not because it was a business choice of Nuance's that I made that comment. I understand the business world. It's the method. I just feel there were better ways to attempt to disable the use of EMR programs, or to entice the usage of DNS medical rather than disabling the mic. I see a problem here because of the fact that the program can misinterpret (there's the interpretation problem again) a user's intentions due to a simple innocence of someone who isn't even part of the medical community. However, the chances are probably slim.
It just strikes me as a mistake, albeit, a small one. Like you said, there were/have been worse mistakes.
Ah, maybe mistake is a better word...
Oh well, I doubt it's the end of the world.
Take care.
kremesch wrote: I
I understand the business world. It's the method. I just feel there were better ways to attempt to disable the use of EMR programs, or to entice the usage of DNS medical rather than disabling the mic.
I agree -- it seems both cold and sneaky the way they did it. Its not that Nuance or any other large corporation doesn't understand PR -- they have no problem flacking a new product or update. But this step came out under the table without any warning. Of course its dumb to do it that way, regardless of the advisibility of doing it.
So why not announce the change? Maybe because consumer outrage would lead to a flood of protests that any reasonable manager would find cogent. Still, I have trouble respecting any agent that tries to hide from public reaction to its actions -- all the more so because there is no safe way out. If a person acted like that, we'd shun him. In this case, we'll all choke down our anger to feed our memories.
Bruce
10 times more expensive?!
10 times more expensive?! No it's not - maybe 20% or so more, but not 10 times....
DNS 10 and EMR
I was surprised to see that Nuance disabled this functionality without announcing this in the intoductory E mails that were sent to DNS 9 users. I think it is unethical to disable a standard feature without infroming the users.
Dragon Medical 10 and the EMR
Previous versions of Dragon NaturallySpeaking did work with various Electronic Medical Record (EMR) programs (allowing physicians to dictate directly into the system). The decision to make EMR capabilities available in Dragon Medical only is threefold:
1). Our customers: While 70,000 caregivers use Dragon Medical speech recognition software to drive clinical documentation, there is a substantial clinical user population who use consumer versions of Dragon NaturallySpeaking in medical settings and simply do not achieve the accuracy, quality, profitably or usability that would be achieved with Dragon Medical. We have received negative feedback from clinicians about the performance of the consumer versions of Dragon in medical settings via KLAS (a research firm specializing in monitoring and reporting the performance of healthcare vendors) and from customers themselves.
2). What goes into Dragon Medical: Nuance has made a significant investment in building, tuning and distributing Dragon Medical for exclusive use by the healthcare industry. The integration and engineering required to deliver the ease-of-use of Dragon Medical with all major EMR vendors, including Allscripts™, Epic, Misys®, GE® Healthcare, NextGen®, Siemens, eClinicalWorks, Meditech, McKesson®, Cerner and Eclipsys®, requires a Herculean effort, comprising thousands of man hours in developing and testing. As one would expect, there is a premium associated with the delivery of this capability and the resources devoted to further hone and evolve the product to meet the specific needs of the medical end user.
3). The difference in solutions and cost: It is common practice in the software industry to set a price structure equal to the value of functionality that a solution offers and is consistent with other enterprise/professional vs. consumer software offerings (Microsoft’s Office Home = $100 vs. Microsoft Office Professional = $500). Dragon Medical 10 is the only Dragon solution that offers medical specific vocabularies and language models, optimizes accuracy for medical dictation and provides integrated EMR voice activated commands and documentation. The decision has been made to associate these specific medical features, along with other new version 10 functionality in Dragon Medical only.
We believe there is a sound and equitable business judgment underlying our decisions, yet we understand the frustration from some customers who have been using non-medial Dragon versions in medical settings. We are committed to extending the value and user base of all Dragon versions and will work with our customers to do so.
What is the likelihood
What is the likelihood of the microphone being shut off on a non-medical user due to a false positive on Dragon's part? What triggers the detection of an EMR being used I guess is another way to put it.
(In case anyone is interested, the post above IS from a Nuance account)
I read elsewhere that they
I read elsewhere that they code a list of "banned" EMR softwares into the product -- if DNS can identify such a software is running, the mike fails to turn on. But that's just hearsay, so I could be wrong. In any case, a false positive seems unlikely.
BTW, the Nuance post's airy preamble suggests that I'm not the only flatulent poster hereabouts. I think they have an excellent case, but rather than present it, they prefer to shoot themselves in all three of their feet at once
Bruce
BruceCyr wrote: BTW, the
BTW, the Nuance post's airy preamble suggests that I'm not the only flatulent poster hereabouts. I think they have an excellent case, but rather than present it, they prefer to shoot themselves in all three of their feet at once
Bruce
I agree with you to a degree, but why do you say that the Nuance poster has shot themselves in the foot, I can also see a side of their argument (a little bit).
dragonuser, 1. They
dragonuser,
1. They institute a major marketing change for the affected audience without any forewarning or rationalization. There are PR firms specializing in disaster management who would have averted that act of stupidity.
2. The posted notice lamely claims this change is for the good of the user, which is a blatant lie that the affected parties know and clearly resent. Nuance apparently hired a consulting firm to tell them what they wanted to hear -- which is typical of political regimes that have already decided on a policy that is detrimental to the affected parties. Why not let the affected parties sort it out themselves by making their own cost/benefit calculations? This notice demeans the competence of physicians by implicitly asserting they are are too stupid to determine their own best interests. Second act of stupidity.
This is clearly management incompetence not commensurate with the quality of the software.
Bruce
Solutions
We refer to this tactic as “White House Spin” but perhaps the following
will help:
If you are using an EMR application like eClinicalWorks with DNS Standard/Preferred/Professional/Legal
. To further rub salt into the wound, if someone sends you an
10, your microphone WILL turn itself off (no ifs, ands or buts) and dictation
will not be permitted until you physically move your cursor into another
application. You won't even be able to write macro to cut and paste text from
the Dictation Box or even Notepad into eClinicalWorks because the Nuance
developers saw that one coming and prevented it. This is just one of the ways they
are helping us
e-mail with the word “soap” in the subject line, you will probably not be able
to respond to them because NaturallySpeaking will likely mistake the word soap for
S.O.A.P. Notes. If you name a document (in any application) “NextGen” you won't
be able to dictate into it and if you visit the Amazing Charts website you may be able
to keep your microphone on for a short while but NaturallySpeaking will
eventually figure it out and you won't even be allowed to dictate onto the
Amazing Charts forum. This probably wasn't Nuance's intent but it's a problem
nevertheless.
Problem Defined: The problem is twofold. DNS looks for the name of the
application and the Window.
Solution: Our customers will not have to worry about this problem because it is
simple to implement non-EULA violating modifications to all EMR programs (not
NaturallySpeaking) to eliminate this problem. You will find additional information
on limiting EMR functionality on KnowBrainer
Speech Recognition Forums where the subject has been discussed in great
detail.
Lunis
Orcutt - Developer of KnowBrainer
&
Host of the
http://www.TheMicrophoneStore.com
Does Nuance only disable DNS10 preferred in EMR they optimized?
I would like to know if Nuance only disables DNS 10 preferred/pro in the EMRs where they have actually done "The integration and engineering required to deliver the ease-of-use of Dragon Medical...requires a Herculean effort, comprising thousands of man hours in developing and testing. As one would expect, there is a premium associated with the delivery of this capability and the resources devoted to further hone and evolve the product to meet the specific needs of the medical end user."
Or does Nuance disable DNS 10 preferred in EMRs which do not seamlessly support Dragon's advanced features?
I have just ordered the upgrade to Dragon Medical 10. I agree with Nuance's argument about value provided when it is being used by a physician to do dictation. (My template EMR does not integrate with DNS. If I click anywhere in the text box, I loose voice editing capability.) However, if I have an assistant who is doing tasks which are not primarily medical dictation, will Nuance let DNS 10 preferred work on her/his computer in non EMR applications if the EMR is also running on the computer in background?
If DNS preferred works, if they switch into the EMR to look up information, what will they have to do to reactivate the microphone when they switch back to the word processor? If Nuance truly understands our frustration and "are committed to extending the value", will they make it so the microphone only goes to sleep so we can use voice to reactivate it in the nonEMR application?
Everyone wants something for nothing
I understand people's feelings on this. If you have been using the Pref Ver instead of the Med Ver and have been doing so for a while - you are understandably upset about having to spend extra money if you want the (IMHO) better features and functionality that 10 provides.
People are that are discussing the ethics of this are probably the same people who also go to Ebay and buy a $29.95 copy of MS Windows and convince themselves it's really not an illegal Chinese copy.
Yes, Nuance could have rolled it out a little better. But take a look around - the bar is not too high in the U.S. or the world for that matter when it comes to corporate intelligence. (That should be an oxymoron).
If you're a physician or a nurse, and you cannot afford the medical version - you probably do not need to be practicing medicine. ( I actually have six family members that are nurses in different parts of the country - I know what they make. And they all do very well ) Also it really goes without saying that if you are using a PC that is more than 4 or 5 years old, spend the $400 and get a new one - you will be amazed how much faster it is.
If you are not disabled and are not a professional business person - medical or otherwise -you probably don't need highly specialized command and vocabulary sets. (You may want them - that's a different story). And you certainly don't need an EMR.
So if you're just using the wrong product since it's cheaper, exercise some of that "moral indignation" and get legally and ethically in sync with your values by using the correct product. It's called personal responsibility. And it is one of the values that used to set America apart from other nations.
PerfectOption wrote: I
I understand people's feelings on this. If you have been using the Pref Ver instead of the Med Ver and have been doing so for a while - you are understandably upset about having to spend extra money if you want the (IMHO) better features and functionality that 10 provides.
People are that are discussing the ethics of this are probably the same people who also go to Ebay and buy a $29.95 copy of MS Windows and convince themselves it's really not an illegal Chinese copy.
Yes, Nuance could have rolled it out a little better. But take a look around - the bar is not too high in the U.S. or the world for that matter when it comes to corporate intelligence. (That should be an oxymoron).
If you're a physician or a nurse, and you cannot afford the medical version - you probably do not need to be practicing medicine. ( I actually have six family members that are nurses in different parts of the country - I know what they make. And they all do very well ) Also it really goes without saying that if you are using a PC that is more than 4 or 5 years old, spend the $400 and get a new one - you will be amazed how much faster it is.
If you are not disabled and are not a professional business person - medical or otherwise -you probably don't need highly specialized command and vocabulary sets. (You may want them - that's a different story). And you certainly don't need an EMR.
So if you're just using the wrong product since it's cheaper, exercise some of that "moral indignation" and get legally and ethically in sync with your values by using the correct product. It's called personal responsibility. And it is one of the values that used to set America apart from other nations.
I'm glad to see that I'm not alone. Thank you. I agree completely.
I also agree that it could've been handled differently. Nuance does have a tendency to make PR mistakes and not always think everything through clearly before releasing these kinds of changes.
You sound like someone who has read Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged).
Chuck Runquist
GEMCCON - The Choice of Intelligence
Speech Recognition Consulting and Training
"America was founded on a philosophy of individual rights, not group rights." - Clarence Thomas
Ahhh - a reasonable individual
I read - a lot. I am not happy where this country is headed right now. A 250 billion dollar welfare plan disguised as a tax cut. Nationalization of the banking system. Printing money in order to encourage excessive spending, which was one of the behaviors that put us into this mess in the first place. (I plead guilty here along with everyone else.) These are not behaviors that will fix this economy.
Don't get me wrong, I want good regulation, and also I want everyone to have a shot at the American Dream. I just want it to be their own dream, not what someone else thinks they should dream.
Entitlement attitudes like what is displayed in this thread is also a cause of our current (and our future) problems.
And yes, I am Nuance shareholder. Nuance has made a lot (a whole lot) of corporate mistakes. This one doesn't even register on the scale, quite honestly. If they were as good as integrating companies as they are about buying them, they'd be the new Apple by now.
And If I were a great stock picker, or had foresight as good as my hindsight is, I'd do psychic readings instead of working for a living.
In any case, thanks for the support, I'm glad to see that common sense and technical chops can still peacefully co-exist in one person.
Disclaimer
I didn't mean to go off here. If I overly offended anyone, then you are probably too sensitive. If I made anyone think a little, then that makes me happy. If there is too little to read concerning Dragon in this post - I apologize.
No need to apologize to
No need to apologize to anyone.
Chuck Runquist
Owner, GEMCCON - The Choice of Intelligence
Speech Recognition Consulting and Training
We've gotten to the point where everybody's got a right and nobody's got a responsibility. - Newton Minow (FCC chairman)
PerfectOption
Printing money in order to encourage excessive spending, which was one of the behaviors that put us into this mess in the first place. (I plead guilty here along with everyone else.) These are not behaviors that will fix this economy.
When I think of the US Government here of late, it makes me think of the old blonde joke "I'm not broke, I still have checks!"
Need I really say more?
PerfectOption
Disclaimer
I didn't mean to go off here. If I overly offended anyone, then you are probably too sensitive. If I made anyone think a little, then that makes me happy. If there is too little to read concerning Dragon in this post - I apologize.
Let me get this straight: Whatever you say, no matter how ill-reasoned or biased or value-loaded, it straight poop, and anyone who takes exception is "too sensitive"? So that makes you "tough", "logical", and "authoritative"?
Bruce
PS: Sorry for any inexplicable dictatos -- its hard to dictate straight when you're ROFLAO. My position is you say what you say and then you take your hits like a man (or well-spoken woman). Only the psychological limp wrists reflexively try to defuse response to their off-the-wall bushwa with such school yard tactics.
"off the wall bushwa"?
Disclaimer
I didn't mean to go off here. If I overly offended anyone, then you are probably too sensitive. If I made anyone think a little, then that makes me happy. If there is too little to read concerning Dragon in this post - I apologize.
Let me get this straight: Whatever you say, no matter how ill-reasoned or biased or value-loaded, it straight poop, and anyone who takes exception is "too sensitive"? So that makes you "tough", "logical", and "authoritative"?
Bruce
PS: Sorry for any inexplicable dictatos -- its hard to dictate straight when you're ROFLAO. My position is you say what you say and then you take your hits like a man (or well-spoken woman). Only the psychological limp wrists reflexively try to defuse response to their off-the-wall bushwa with such school yard tactics.
I am not sure what kind of psychobabble theories you subscribe to, but I do like to inject humor and sarcasm into my posts. I have found that people who take themselves too seriously often miss my points.
As for "value loaded" - that sounds a lot like liberal-speak for being anti-christian. Yes I have values, and I try to live them. Many so called christian values are actually humanistic values, and transcend religious and cultural difference. I supposed if you are intolerant of others, you would feel threatened and dismiss "value-loaded" comments as ill-reasoned and biased.
I don't know how "tough" I am. That is certainly relative.
I do know I am a very "logical" person, and I assume I may appear "authoritative" on what I speak of, because of my experience and knowledge.
Apparently you disagree with what I have written, which is of course, your prerogative. Apparently you don't believe Nuance has a right to do what they want to with their own intellectual property. Whether they made a bad, or a good business decision, they will have to assume the consequences either way.
"It's not what happens to you, it's what you do about what happens to you that matters". (www.wmitchell.com)
PerfectOption wrote: I
I understand people's feelings on this.
...
So if you're just using the wrong product since it's cheaper, exercise some of that "moral indignation" and get legally and ethically in sync with your values by using the correct product. It's called personal responsibility. And it is one of the values that used to set America apart from other nations.
Well I guess you miss my point -- Nuance is in a delicate position facing competition from a free, very competent product financed by the toughest, richest software company in the world, and they blow their credibility with an incredibly stupid, short-sighted phase-in of a radical repricing plan?
Its the stupid corporate managements that get wiped out in the competitive scheme of things, and Nuance's desktop (and medical) SR is a sitting duck. Management stupidity isn't a minor side-issue -- its the main story.
Look at what happened here: Nuance changed pricing without a word of explanation or a slight attempt to prepare the ground. Some, maybe most, of the affected users sucked it up eventually. But many of them remember their outrage and have begun looking into alternatives. Compound that single, egregious mistake by a long history of similar mistakes, and what emerges is the portrait of a short-sighted company that's seeking to score immediate profits by a slash-and-burn approach.
Look at it this way: Say you're right -- the main problem here is sissy customers who expect the world handed to them on a silver platter. Wouldn't a smart company have a handle on its customers and their thinking? Wouldn't it figure out how to implement this strategy with minimal disruption of the piggy customers swilling at the trough?
Contrast the slash-and-be-damned outlook with the cost of saying something like: "Gee, this is a big change. What can we do to mitigate its impact on users and keep them thinking we're there to help them no matter what?"
I say its a lot like the difference between GM, which like most American car makers can't look past next quarter's profits, and Toyota, which seems to think its in the business for the long haul and that managing customer relations is a big part of chief executive's responsibility to maximize long-term profit. Thus they "invest" billions in a risky, new, hybrid technology, including taking (its reported) a $3000-$4000 loss on the sale of each unit in order to figure out long-term cost-cutting manufacturing measures and prepare customers for the transition.
That is the difference between smart and stupid management -- GM is begging at the public trough for a bail out, while Toyota is holding its own. Can you not see at least the glimmer of some relevance to Nuance in this sad spectacle? I doubt it -- your vicious, invidious take on Nuance customers suggest you live in the same never-never land of no responsibilities, no consequences as Nuance's management. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear you have some business connection with Nuance, although that point is irrelevant -- what really critical is your shoddy, down-right nasty take on medical users of Nuance's product.
Bruce
BruceCyr
I understand people's feelings on this.
...
So if you're just using the wrong product since it's cheaper, exercise some of that "moral indignation" and get legally and ethically in sync with your values by using the correct product. It's called personal responsibility. And it is one of the values that used to set America apart from other nations.
Well I guess you miss my point -- Nuance is in a delicate position facing competition from a free, very competent product financed by the toughest, richest software company in the world, and they blow their credibility with an incredibly stupid, short-sighted phase-in of a radical repricing plan?
Its the stupid corporate managements that get wiped out in the competitive scheme of things, and Nuance's desktop (and medical) SR is a sitting duck. Management stupidity isn't a minor side-issue -- its the main story.
Look at what happened here: Nuance changed pricing without a word of explanation or a slight attempt to prepare the ground. Some, maybe most, of the affected users sucked it up eventually. But many of them remember their outrage and have begun looking into alternatives. Compound that single, egregious mistake by a long history of similar mistakes, and what emerges is the portrait of a short-sighted company that's seeking to score immediate profits by a slash-and-burn approach.
Look at it this way: Say you're right -- the main problem here is sissy customers who expect the world handed to them on a silver platter. Wouldn't a smart company have a handle on its customers and their thinking? Wouldn't it figure out how to implement this strategy with minimal disruption of the piggy customers swilling at the trough?
Contrast the slash-and-be-damned outlook with the cost of saying something like: "Gee, this is a big change. What can we do to mitigate its impact on users and keep them thinking we're there to help them no matter what?"
I say its a lot like the difference between GM, which like most American car makers can't look past next quarter's profits, and Toyota, which seems to think its in the business for the long haul and that managing customer relations is a big part of chief executive's responsibility to maximize long-term profit. Thus they "invest" billions in a risky, new, hybrid technology, including taking (its reported) a $3000-$4000 loss on the sale of each unit in order to figure out long-term cost-cutting manufacturing measures and prepare customers for the transition.
That is the difference between smart and stupid management -- GM is begging at the public trough for a bail out, while Toyota is holding its own. Can you not see at least the glimmer of some relevance to Nuance in this sad spectacle? I doubt it -- your vicious, invidious take on Nuance customers suggest you live in the same never-never land of no responsibilities, no consequences as Nuance's management. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear you have some business connection with Nuance, although that point is irrelevant -- what really critical is your shoddy, down-right nasty take on medical users of Nuance's product.
Bruce
Well, first I think you give MS far too much credit, the mistakes they have made literally fill books. And Dragon Medical, while it could be a much greater revenue source for Nuance if the right moves are made, will not make or break Nuance in the long run
As far as "management stupidity", from studying the free market, marketing, management, finance and other disciplines, it is my conclusion (shared by many others) that most businesses succeed in spite of themselves, their success due more to lucky circumstance than applied skill.
(This is most especially true of MS, if you know the entire corporate story.) In fact, less than 10% of all companies are well managed.
Yes, you are correct, Nuance does not have a customer centric attitude, and unlike many contemporary companies they don't even try to keep up a good facade.
You are equally correct in the fact that Toyota does a great job at what they do, but how many "Toyotas" are out there? I go back to the rule that they are the 1 in 10 that "get it" Maybe there are 2 - or 3 out of the 20 or so car companies worldwide.
I didn't think my take on Nuance's customers was "vicious", but that's your perception. I would categorize it as harsh, and blunt. And I was only referring to that small segment of customers that are complaining so vehemently about a basic business decision, whether it turns out to be right or wrong. Did Nuance stop anyone from using V9 any way they want to? No. Are they forcing anyone to upgrade to V10? No again. Now if they had done this (and there are many software companies out there that done that, by either policy or decree) then I'd say current users would have a beef. As it is, we have a choice. We may not like the choice, but we do have a choice.
And I do have a "business relationship" with Nuance. I'm a shareholder, one of the many ones that are currently "under water" so to speak, and I am keenly interested in all of their decisions because of that fact, much more so that most product users.
PerfectOption wrote: Well,
Well, first I think you give MS far too much credit, the mistakes they have made literally fill books. And Dragon Medical, while it could be a much greater revenue source for Nuance if the right moves are made, will not make or break Nuance in the long run
As far as "management stupidity", from studying the free market, marketing, management, finance and other disciplines, it is my conclusion (shared by many others) that most businesses succeed in spite of themselves, their success due more to lucky circumstance than applied skill.
(This is most especially true of MS, if you know the entire corporate story.) In fact, less than 10% of all companies are well managed.
Yes, you are correct, Nuance does not have a customer centric attitude, and unlike many contemporary companies they don't even try to keep up a good facade.
You are equally correct in the fact that Toyota does a great job at what they do, but how many "Toyotas" are out there? I go back to the rule that they are the 1 in 10 that "get it" Maybe there are 2 - or 3 out of the 20 or so car companies worldwide.
I didn't think my take on Nuance's customers was "vicious", but that's your perception. I would categorize it as harsh, and blunt. And I was only referring to that small segment of customers that are complaining so vehemently about a basic business decision, whether it turns out to be right or wrong. Did Nuance stop anyone from using V9 any way they want to? No. Are they forcing anyone to upgrade to V10? No again. Now if they had done this (and there are many software companies out there that done that, by either policy or decree) then I'd say current users would have a beef. As it is, we have a choice. We may not like the choice, but we do have a choice.
And I do have a "business relationship" with Nuance. I'm a shareholder, one of the many ones that are currently "under water" so to speak, and I am keenly interested in all of their decisions because of that fact, much more so that most product users.
Basically we disagree on a few points -- you prefer to castigate and belittle DNS Medical users who complained about an unannounced and unprepared pricing schedule. I see where you're coming from as a Nuance shareholder and as a certain personality type. You might be able to see where DNS users are coming from if you didn't have such a strong biasing interest in the issue. But your problem is shared by Nuance's management. In fact, you seem to be a perfect conduit for Nuance management's point of view, and it perfectly illustrates their biggest problem. You have the option to sever the relationship. Whether that makes financial sense is contingent on too many factors to discuss, but obviously your own situation is critical.
There's another perspective you seem to miss: The concept of tough love, which gets occasional play as a trendy Hollywood topic, but seems beyond your grasp.
Further, there is a streak of strong opinion unalloyed by so trivial a consideration as fact. For example, how do you come by the "authoritative" judgment there are "1 in 10 that 'get it'"? That's a subjective opinion that's not backed by any data, and indeed I'd wager its flat out wrong. I'd say its more like 8 in 10 "get it", except I'm not sure what you mean by "get it" -- surely, given your attempt at cloaking yourself religious mores you don't mean the common sexual connotation? This is just the most egregious example of unsubstantiated authoritative opinions that streak your statements. Actually I don't have any data either, but looking at all the businesses that generally work in my community and elsewhere, I think most business operators have the right amount of smarts for the jobs they have to do. What makes Nuance stand out so flamboyantly is how simple it would be for it to avoid any one of a long succession of customer relationship failures. Its not rocket science, its common sense.
Finally, you simply can't read what I wrote -- nowhere in my post did I "give" any credit to M$. Rather, I noted that they offer a competent (albeit still unpolished) alternative SR offering that comes gratis in their OS. The gravamen of my post concern Nuance's failure to address both the competitive market and customer relationships. So far, M$'s offering is NOT their major problem. To paraphrase Walt Kelly, "They have met the enemy, and they are them."
While I reject your post's claims, I'm sorry for your financial loss. I hope, despite its management's knotheadedness, that Nuance can recover. I think it can significantly increase its likelihood of recovering if it can only figure out how to benefit from its customers good will rather than blindly punishing them as if this is a zero-sum game for all parties. I can see how the stress of the situation would try anyone's judgment.
Bruce
BruceCyr wrote: Basically
Basically we disagree on a few points -- you prefer to castigate and belittle DNS Medical users who complained about an unannounced and unprepared pricing schedule. I see where you're coming from as a Nuance shareholder and as a certain personality type. You might be able to see where DNS users are coming from if you didn't have such a strong biasing interest in the issue. But your problem is shared by Nuance's management. In fact, you seem to be a perfect conduit for Nuance management's point of view, and it perfectly illustrates their biggest problem. You have the option to sever the relationship. Whether that makes financial sense is contingent on too many factors to discuss, but obviously your own situation is critical.
There's another perspective you seem to miss: The concept of tough love, which gets occasional play as a trendy Hollywood topic, but seems beyond your grasp.
Further, there is a streak of strong opinion unalloyed by so trivial a consideration as fact. For example, how do you come by the "authoritative" judgment there are "1 in 10 that 'get it'"? That's a subjective opinion that's not backed by any data, and indeed I'd wager its flat out wrong. I'd say its more like 8 in 10 "get it", except I'm not sure what you mean by "get it" -- surely, given your attempt at cloaking yourself religious mores you don't mean the common sexual connotation? This is just the most egregious example of unsubstantiated authoritative opinions that streak your statements. Actually I don't have any data either, but looking at all the businesses that generally work in my community and elsewhere, I think most business operators have the right amount of smarts for the jobs they have to do. What makes Nuance stand out so flamboyantly is how simple it would be for it to avoid any one of a long succession of customer relationship failures. Its not rocket science, its common sense.
Finally, you simply can't read what I wrote -- nowhere in my post did I "give" any credit to M$. Rather, I noted that they offer a competent (albeit still unpolished) alternative SR offering that comes gratis in their OS. The gravamen of my post concern Nuance's failure to address both the competitive market and customer relationships. So far, M$'s offering is NOT their major problem. To paraphrase Walt Kelly, "They have met the enemy, and they are them."
While I reject your post's claims, I'm sorry for your financial loss. I hope, despite its management's knotheadedness, that Nuance can recover. I think it can significantly increase its likelihood of recovering if it can only figure out how to benefit from its customers good will rather than blindly punishing them as if this is a zero-sum game for all parties. I can see how the stress of the situation would try anyone's judgment.
Bruce
Let me further clarify a few points for you:
1) I'm not belittling users reactions to a business decision that was not pre-announced, I'm saying that I'm sick of all the whining that been going on with a small minority of of a users over a pricing issue. Either the new product provides value for you (then buy it) or it does not (then don't). The beauty of our system is that you CAN vote with your pocketbook. Nuance has the right to make a decision. You have the right not to support it with your money. Simple. If a few hundred dollars is that big of a deal and you won't see any benefit from upgrading - then cut and paste and don't upgrade.
2) As far as being a shareholder, like most other investors, I'm underwater on 75% of my portfolio right now. I don't expect that to be the case in 5 years.
3) As far as my assertion that 1 - 10 companies "get it", by that I'm sure you must realize that I mean that 1 in 10 are run well, they way you would hope they would be run if you were an investor or stakeholder in them. How did I arrive at this number? Through years of common research, starting and interacting with several small to medium companies, working directly and indirectly for a number of well known corporations, and over 30 years of investing my own hard earned money. Real talent in business is thin, at best, and most corporate structures make it even harder for that talent to make a difference. Some people say it is as high as 20% (the universal 80-20 rule business rule that is often cited in various business and management texts). Most business consultants believe that 20% is the high side of the equation though. In a business climate of growth, such as we have enjoyed since the Reagan administration until recently (with a few downturns along the way) poor management could be easily masked. You will see a lot of failures of high profile companies over the next couple of years, as this current business climate is very unforgiving.
3) You cited MS as an example of a well run company. Certainly they are successful if you look at their cash flow and balance sheet. If you have never worked for them, along with them, or studied the company and the industry, you would never say they are, or have been a "well run" company though. They have made legendary business blunders, the latest one being the entire Vista debacle of the last 3 years. I don't have the time (or the voice) to detail that mess. I still own MS stock though, although more for it's dividend and safety than it's growth prospects. I'll be extremely surprised if they can gain any appreciable market share from Nuance without a lot of help from Nuance (which, as we have both pointed out, is a possibility).
4) I have my own core values, and yes they are Christian values. I believe in them, and I do my best to follow them in my own life. Since I live them, I would hope they are apparent to people I interact with. I am aware the mainstream media is anti-christian, as are most academic institutions these days. Frankly, that does not bother me. Other people have different beliefs, this is part of what makes this country strong. But many Christian core "values" are humanistic values, or just plain common sense. That is the beauty of Christianity. If you find those values offensive, as your dig about my religious mores implies, that speaks louder about you than me. If you want to read an inspirational story about one of my few heroes and core values, you can look here: www.wmitchell.com. You may not agree with his message, but possibly that will give you more insight as to why I find whining, no matter where or what it comes from, distasteful.
5) I am not aware if you work with Doctors without Borders, or any other charitable organizations. I also don't know if you are a full-time physician, or have another calling as well. I do not know know your particular circumstances, as you do not know mime. I have no idea how insular or your life is, or what expertise you have outside of your medical field, and Dragon. My main avocations (outside of family life) are business, marketing, community service and learning. I consume literally hundreds of periodicals, newsletters, financial, articles and publications per month. So when I do form an opinion, I believe it to well grounded.
PerfectOption wrote: Let me
Let me further clarify a few points for you:
That you have done, but not the ones you probably intended to clarify!
1) I'm not belittling users reactions to a business decision that was not pre-announced, I'm saying that I'm sick of all the whining that been going on with a small minority of of a users over a pricing issue.
I can tell you are a "Christian" because you're asking us to take on faith an unsubstantiated opinion. SFAIK, we haven't heard many whiners around here. If I've missed that, maybe you would provide links to topics on this forum where you detect signs of "whining".
2) As far as being a shareholder, like most other investors, I'm underwater on 75% of my portfolio right now. I don't expect that to be the case in 5 years.
So you aren't saying your Nuance stake has done especially worse than any other stock -- which is at variance with the impression I received from your prior post. I may have misread it. In any case, I wonder why you even bothered to mention your investment problems? I don't see how they are relevant to the discussion of Nuance's management competence?!
3) As far as my assertion that 1 - 10 companies "get it", by that I'm sure you must realize that I mean that 1 in 10 are run well, they way you would hope they would be run if you were an investor or stakeholder in them. How did I arrive at this number? Through years of common research, starting and interacting with several small to medium companies, working directly and indirectly for a number of well known corporations, and over 30 years of investing my own hard earned money. Real talent in business is thin, at best, and most corporate structures make it even harder for that talent to make a difference. Some people say it is as high as 20% (the universal 80-20 rule business rule that is often cited in various business and management texts). Most business consultants believe that 20% is the high side of the equation though. In a business climate of growth, such as we have enjoyed since the Reagan administration until recently (with a few downturns along the way) poor management could be easily masked. You will see a lot of failures of high profile companies over the next couple of years, as this current business climate is very unforgiving.
Yada-Yada-Ya regarding political administrations and business climates. I will say it is a common fallacy of business people to equate openness to business corruption and failure to regulate business and financial systems with political competence. Note that the Coolidge and Hoover administrations were amongst the most openly pro-business, yet the capitalist system yoyoed out of control and self-destructed under their aegis. Ditto the Reagan and Cheney/Bush people (who, unlike Coolidge/Hoover, were in my opinion both criminal and fundamentally evil). There wouldn't even be an entity recognizable as the USA today were it not for the tough love, ass-kicking approach of FDR (and WWII, which was what brought the country out of the last depression -- note that it was basically the biggest public works project in history, that is, a prototypical New Deal enterprise on a grander scale than the Congress would ever have allowed FDR to undertake on his own initiative).
But that point has nothing do with the issue of Nuance's management competence. Basically you had your say, and I countered it, but I don't see any point in continuing that discussion here. (I can't help adding, however, that as a Christian you presumably read the Bible, which makes it seem odd to me that business people, however "anti-intellectual" they may be, don't bother to read the Bible of capitalism, Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", which clearly prescribes a powerful role for government in controlling the depredations wracked by businesses and other commercial interests on society at large. Like the multi-billionaire George Soros, Smith thought that business was incompetent to regulate itself. Soros' view is even more nuanced: He argues that because of feed-back effects, the business cycle is inherently chaotic and prone to uncontrollable excesses. He denies the existence of fundamental economic values, citing the recent spate of unconventional financial inventions as devices that fundamentally altered participants' valuations of putatively fundamental real goods. In other words, rather than real goods independently determining values, peoples' judgments of the values of these real goods altered their perceived values, creating a vicious cycle of a perfect economic storm. Thus business cycles are prone to yoyo out of control. You might say that Soros is feared by academic economists because he exposes the failures of their economic fundamentalism:-)
3) You cited MS as an example of a well run company.
Bull shit! As a self-proclaimed consultant, you seem remarkably resistant to anything other than the meanderings of your own imagination. I DID NOT say that M$ is a well-run company -- it can't be simply because its a de facto monopoly, like AT&T before it -- they managed to manage themselves out of existence!
I suspected, based on your contributions thus far, that you can't keep straight who said what, and was almost willing to dismiss this error as an understandable mental lapse. BUT: It is suspicious that I can't find any trace of a claim by any contributor to this topic, that M$ is a well-managed company. Which is why I begin to wonder if you are practicing the BIG LIE strategy as a red-herring to cover your increasingly exposed bottom line
Certainly they are successful if you look at their cash flow and balance sheet. If you have never worked for them, along with them, or studied the company and the industry, you would never say they are, or have been a "well run" company though. They have made legendary business blunders, the latest one being the entire Vista debacle of the last 3 years. I don't have the time (or the voice) to detail that mess. I still own MS stock though, although more for it's dividend and safety than it's growth prospects. I'll be extremely surprised if they can gain any appreciable market share from Nuance without a lot of help from Nuance (which, as we have both pointed out, is a possibility).
4) I have my own core values, and yes they are Christian values. I believe in them, and I do my best to follow them in my own life. Since I live them, I would hope they are apparent to people I interact with. I am aware the mainstream media is anti-christian, as are most academic institutions these days. Frankly, that does not bother me. Other people have different beliefs, this is part of what makes this country strong. But many Christian core "values" are humanistic values, or just plain common sense. That is the beauty of Christianity. If you find those values offensive, as your dig about my religious mores implies, that speaks louder about you than me. If you want to read an inspirational story about one of my few heroes and core values, you can look here: www.wmitchell.com. You may not agree with his message, but possibly that will give you more insight as to why I find whining, no matter where or what it comes from, distasteful.
Quadruple Yada-Yada-Ya. Ho Hum -- who cares, and what do your "core values" have to do with the discussion? Nothing! Are you claiming businesses actually paid you money to help them figure out how to do business?! Maybe that was years ago when you were more focused.
5) I am not aware if you work with Doctors without Borders, or any other charitable organizations. I also don't know if you are a full-time physician, or have another calling as well. I do not know know your particular circumstances, as you do not know mime. I have no idea how insular or your life is, or what expertise you have outside of your medical field, and Dragon. My main avocations (outside of family life) are business, marketing, community service and learning. I consume literally hundreds of periodicals, newsletters, financial, articles and publications per month. So when I do form an opinion, I believe it to well grounded.
Thank God! At first I dreaded that you were going to claim some affiliation with this group, which I have supported for several decades. Now I see you seem to think its some sort of out-group, which makes me feel more comfortable with my support!
I ain't no freaking physician. What difference would it make if I were? I don't depend on external circumstances and superfluous braggadocio to back my arguments. I speak my piece, and it stands or falls on its own merits. Of course, in this case I don't think it was much of a contest
Bruce
I believe we've moved
I believe we've moved sufficiently far away from the topic to move this discussion to the "Nothing to do with SR" forum.
Thanks,
Skip
Acronyms
Is it possible for Bruce to stop using acronyms
I am fed up looking up Wikipedia to find out what Bruce was talking about, such as SFAIK. How many people know what he's talking about?
Quentin
Acronyms are pretty common
Acronyms are pretty common on forums from what I've seen. Perhaps we could get up a page of the common ones that can be referenced here. When I get some time I'll see what I can find.
crivon1 wrote: Is it
Is it possible for Bruce to stop using acronyms
I am fed up looking up Wikipedia to find out what Bruce was talking about, such as SFAIK. How many people know what he's talking about?
Quentin
Quentin,
So Far As I Know (SFAIK).
Chuck Runquist
GEMCCON - The Choice of Intelligence
Speech Recognition Consulting and Training
We would often be sorry if our wishes were gratified. - Aesop (620 BC - 700 BC)