Tweet
Discussion for the editorial named above and found on www.murc.ws should be directed here.
Good very early morning to you MURC readers out there. After presenting the email down below in the news here, the forums and my inbox have been filled with everything from doom days are in the cards to VigilAnt has it all wrong. I am going to try to paint a more complete picture by keeping this story moving along and will continue to do so until who knows when.
First, I would like to open this editorial with an email that was sent to me. I will respond to the points made in the email with numerical notations in the email. Note the name of the sender has been left off intentionally for obvious reasons.
<I>VigilAnt,
*snip
In Matrox's defense their OGL programmers have created a very intresting way to manuver around the simple fact that the parhelia (like the g400 and previous matrox cards) do not support the simple feature of line stippling.
Line stippling masks out certain fragments produced by rasterization; those fragments will not be drawn. The masking is achieved by using three parameters: the 16-bit line stipple pattern pattern, the repeat count factor, and an integer stipple counter.
This is extremely important to 3D programs like Lightwave, Maya and 3D studio. Line stippling allows your model to look much higher poly then it actually is by stippling the lines between the points and giving you a curved surface. It uses GL_Bitmap and GL_Drawpixels to do this operation.
Problem is that the Open GL support on Parhelia doesn't support this at all where as every card going back beyond Geforce series, Radeon 8500 and 7500( previously cards from ATI did not support these features either, when
catalyst came around that all changed and we actually did see amazing hardware stippling on both of the cards).
They wrote this tricked out way to do it. He's using Open GL T & L to draw the dotted lines and allow for us to have line stipppling in hardware. Amazing sh*t if you ask me. It's like creating a radio out of a coconut.
(1)Take back your comment that the people writing the drivers don't know what they are doing. They work with what they have been given and they are doing
a hell of alot.
(2)MOre so, you should list these simple features that Matrox lacks to include in their card.
</I>
<UL>
First I would like to thank the person for responding to me, it takes guts to put yourself out there for all to see.
Okay, on to responding to the email:
1. I never commented or even suggested the programmers or driver writers don't know what they are doing. Further, I have not even made a single comment that alludes to Matrox employees being incapable of performing their jobs. Quite the contrary, I have always focused on the root of Matrox's woes by going after the heart of the matter. Management, specifically product management and marketing. They need to let their talents rise to the top and nuture them.
2. I think you have done a good job of listing a feature yourself. Why not take the time and list up some features you would like to see in the card and post them in this thread and send them to Matrox directly?
</UL>
Matrox has a lot going for it, but the powers that be aren't realizing what they have. Instead they are wasting their resources based on poor management decisions. Instead of holding on to the one asset that can grow a company into success, their very own personell, they instead opt to make it hard for them to want to stay and even create an environment where they want to leave. They need to keep the talent they have, and believe me when I say they still have great talent because they really do, and let them strut their stuff. It seems so obvious to the outside people, but for reasons unkown to the outside they continue to make the most basic management follies.
Onto the next email:
<I>Hi VigilAnt,
*Clip*
I just have one thing to say regarding the discussion
entitled "More On The State Of Matrox" currently on
the MatroxUsers home page. Wherever "marketing" is
written in that front page article, I would like you
to replace that with "management".
(1)There is a bit of a misconception both inside and
outside of Matrox. The misconception is that a
"marketing group" controls the direction of product
and feature launches, particularly when mistakes are
being made. This couldn't be futher from the truth.
(2)It is true that there is a marketing group. Although
the more accurate term would be web-marketing since
layoffs and attrition have depleted this group to such
an extent that it can really only support web
activities. But the belief that this web-marketing
group has any decision making power with regards to
Matrox products and features is completely false. Most
of the product ideas and startegies that this group
comes up with fall on deaf ears. The deaf ears of
management and ownership.
(3)So please, edit any future discussions accordnigly,
including those from Haig. *Blip*
(4)And who knows, maybe management isn't the culprit
either. Maybe they have more informaiton that I am not
privy to which would implicate another decision
maker??? But I'll let management stand up and speak
for themself if they wish. I'm just trying to defend
against the ongoing marketing bashing.
(5)Credit where credit is due and blame where blame is
due.
Thanks for your time.
</I>
<UL>
Thank you for taking the time to email me, it is greatly appreciated, and this type of interaction can only help everyone to get a clearer picture of what is going on.
1. I haven't really said that Marketing itself is responsible for making all the calls, but rather the management there is. Product management, the web marketing, PR, and tech marketing are all under the same management and the shots are called from there. Where those shots are called from above there is really a mystery to most including me. Whether it's the owners or a group of the management, nobody but they really know I suppose.
2. This is exactly the point I have been trying to get across from my very first editorial last year. Management there seems to be plagued with deaf ears. There are screams and pleas from those who should, and really do, know better as a collective, yet they are many times ignored for no real rhyme or reason.
3. I will try to make it clearer what I am referring to in the future, but I will call it as I see it regardless. That's why they call these things editorials
. As to Haig, I haven't been able to get permission to talk to him, so he is not the source of any of what you would call misconceptions. I think you are really looking at it from a different stand point than what many others in and out of your company see it now.
4. You may be very correct when considering this as a possibility, but beware that I am pointing to the top nonetheless. The people working there are not the problem in my eyes.
5. That's what I try to do every day.
</UL>
On to my VigilRant now. I apologize in advance if this gets side tracked or long winded.
Matrox Graphics has most of the right pieces in place for success. They have quality employees, even after the resignations, layoffs, and losses to other companies. They have a strong name recognition, some very bright owners, a
person running the game that knows an awful lot about graphics cards, two other successful divisions, a long standing name in the industry, some very ingenious technology, and a very loyal user base. What they need to do now is bring it all together for it to work. They need to focus on expanding and letting their resources work for them, infuse more resources if necessary, and reach for markets. Instead it seems they are narrowing their focus down to things that are a bit off the mark, focusing on shrinking, and removing the resources. They definitely aren't making good use of what they have available to them now. If Matrox came out with a line of cards tomorrow that would be even on a par with the top ATI card performance wise, kept their 2D in check, and focused on having the absolute best in terms of final product, they would have rave reviews from all over. There would be a line of customers wanting to put in even their lower end offerings. If they want to focus on the 3D workstation market, they are going about it all wrong if you ask me. Sure the triple head is great, but what good does it do if there is interference all over the displays when doing work? What good does it do if frames are rendered at a snail's pace? If they want to take a market, they need to go for the throat and give it their best shot. Instead, like the email from a few days ago said, they throw the dart then mark the target around it (make a card, see where the chips lay, then market around the flaws...even ignoring some glaring flaws in their product with regards to who they are marketing to). Wake up, smell the PCB and solder. Its time to put your minds to work and focus on what it is you want to achieve. Then let the productive minds there get to work on what you have decided on, and have vigilance in going after your intended audience when producing that product. That is what makes companies like Tyan, BMW, Infiniti, Mattell, Sony, MTV/viacom, etc so successful. They know who they are selling to, and they spare no expense in not only reaching out to their intended audience, but encouraging them to grow with them. Now it's your turn. If any of the folks at Matrox would like to respond, feel free. I am very interested in hearing what PR and the upper management have to say, I have a pretty good understanding of what those under them already have to say, but comments from all around are always welcome.
VigilAnt
Good very early morning to you MURC readers out there. After presenting the email down below in the news here, the forums and my inbox have been filled with everything from doom days are in the cards to VigilAnt has it all wrong. I am going to try to paint a more complete picture by keeping this story moving along and will continue to do so until who knows when.
First, I would like to open this editorial with an email that was sent to me. I will respond to the points made in the email with numerical notations in the email. Note the name of the sender has been left off intentionally for obvious reasons.
<I>VigilAnt,
*snip
In Matrox's defense their OGL programmers have created a very intresting way to manuver around the simple fact that the parhelia (like the g400 and previous matrox cards) do not support the simple feature of line stippling.
Line stippling masks out certain fragments produced by rasterization; those fragments will not be drawn. The masking is achieved by using three parameters: the 16-bit line stipple pattern pattern, the repeat count factor, and an integer stipple counter.
This is extremely important to 3D programs like Lightwave, Maya and 3D studio. Line stippling allows your model to look much higher poly then it actually is by stippling the lines between the points and giving you a curved surface. It uses GL_Bitmap and GL_Drawpixels to do this operation.
Problem is that the Open GL support on Parhelia doesn't support this at all where as every card going back beyond Geforce series, Radeon 8500 and 7500( previously cards from ATI did not support these features either, when
catalyst came around that all changed and we actually did see amazing hardware stippling on both of the cards).
They wrote this tricked out way to do it. He's using Open GL T & L to draw the dotted lines and allow for us to have line stipppling in hardware. Amazing sh*t if you ask me. It's like creating a radio out of a coconut.
(1)Take back your comment that the people writing the drivers don't know what they are doing. They work with what they have been given and they are doing
a hell of alot.
(2)MOre so, you should list these simple features that Matrox lacks to include in their card.
</I>
<UL>
First I would like to thank the person for responding to me, it takes guts to put yourself out there for all to see.
Okay, on to responding to the email:
1. I never commented or even suggested the programmers or driver writers don't know what they are doing. Further, I have not even made a single comment that alludes to Matrox employees being incapable of performing their jobs. Quite the contrary, I have always focused on the root of Matrox's woes by going after the heart of the matter. Management, specifically product management and marketing. They need to let their talents rise to the top and nuture them.
2. I think you have done a good job of listing a feature yourself. Why not take the time and list up some features you would like to see in the card and post them in this thread and send them to Matrox directly?
</UL>
Matrox has a lot going for it, but the powers that be aren't realizing what they have. Instead they are wasting their resources based on poor management decisions. Instead of holding on to the one asset that can grow a company into success, their very own personell, they instead opt to make it hard for them to want to stay and even create an environment where they want to leave. They need to keep the talent they have, and believe me when I say they still have great talent because they really do, and let them strut their stuff. It seems so obvious to the outside people, but for reasons unkown to the outside they continue to make the most basic management follies.
Onto the next email:
<I>Hi VigilAnt,
*Clip*
I just have one thing to say regarding the discussion
entitled "More On The State Of Matrox" currently on
the MatroxUsers home page. Wherever "marketing" is
written in that front page article, I would like you
to replace that with "management".
(1)There is a bit of a misconception both inside and
outside of Matrox. The misconception is that a
"marketing group" controls the direction of product
and feature launches, particularly when mistakes are
being made. This couldn't be futher from the truth.
(2)It is true that there is a marketing group. Although
the more accurate term would be web-marketing since
layoffs and attrition have depleted this group to such
an extent that it can really only support web
activities. But the belief that this web-marketing
group has any decision making power with regards to
Matrox products and features is completely false. Most
of the product ideas and startegies that this group
comes up with fall on deaf ears. The deaf ears of
management and ownership.
(3)So please, edit any future discussions accordnigly,
including those from Haig. *Blip*
(4)And who knows, maybe management isn't the culprit
either. Maybe they have more informaiton that I am not
privy to which would implicate another decision
maker??? But I'll let management stand up and speak
for themself if they wish. I'm just trying to defend
against the ongoing marketing bashing.
(5)Credit where credit is due and blame where blame is
due.
Thanks for your time.
</I>
<UL>
Thank you for taking the time to email me, it is greatly appreciated, and this type of interaction can only help everyone to get a clearer picture of what is going on.
1. I haven't really said that Marketing itself is responsible for making all the calls, but rather the management there is. Product management, the web marketing, PR, and tech marketing are all under the same management and the shots are called from there. Where those shots are called from above there is really a mystery to most including me. Whether it's the owners or a group of the management, nobody but they really know I suppose.
2. This is exactly the point I have been trying to get across from my very first editorial last year. Management there seems to be plagued with deaf ears. There are screams and pleas from those who should, and really do, know better as a collective, yet they are many times ignored for no real rhyme or reason.
3. I will try to make it clearer what I am referring to in the future, but I will call it as I see it regardless. That's why they call these things editorials
. As to Haig, I haven't been able to get permission to talk to him, so he is not the source of any of what you would call misconceptions. I think you are really looking at it from a different stand point than what many others in and out of your company see it now.4. You may be very correct when considering this as a possibility, but beware that I am pointing to the top nonetheless. The people working there are not the problem in my eyes.
5. That's what I try to do every day.
</UL>
On to my VigilRant now. I apologize in advance if this gets side tracked or long winded.
Matrox Graphics has most of the right pieces in place for success. They have quality employees, even after the resignations, layoffs, and losses to other companies. They have a strong name recognition, some very bright owners, a
person running the game that knows an awful lot about graphics cards, two other successful divisions, a long standing name in the industry, some very ingenious technology, and a very loyal user base. What they need to do now is bring it all together for it to work. They need to focus on expanding and letting their resources work for them, infuse more resources if necessary, and reach for markets. Instead it seems they are narrowing their focus down to things that are a bit off the mark, focusing on shrinking, and removing the resources. They definitely aren't making good use of what they have available to them now. If Matrox came out with a line of cards tomorrow that would be even on a par with the top ATI card performance wise, kept their 2D in check, and focused on having the absolute best in terms of final product, they would have rave reviews from all over. There would be a line of customers wanting to put in even their lower end offerings. If they want to focus on the 3D workstation market, they are going about it all wrong if you ask me. Sure the triple head is great, but what good does it do if there is interference all over the displays when doing work? What good does it do if frames are rendered at a snail's pace? If they want to take a market, they need to go for the throat and give it their best shot. Instead, like the email from a few days ago said, they throw the dart then mark the target around it (make a card, see where the chips lay, then market around the flaws...even ignoring some glaring flaws in their product with regards to who they are marketing to). Wake up, smell the PCB and solder. Its time to put your minds to work and focus on what it is you want to achieve. Then let the productive minds there get to work on what you have decided on, and have vigilance in going after your intended audience when producing that product. That is what makes companies like Tyan, BMW, Infiniti, Mattell, Sony, MTV/viacom, etc so successful. They know who they are selling to, and they spare no expense in not only reaching out to their intended audience, but encouraging them to grow with them. Now it's your turn. If any of the folks at Matrox would like to respond, feel free. I am very interested in hearing what PR and the upper management have to say, I have a pretty good understanding of what those under them already have to say, but comments from all around are always welcome.
VigilAnt
Comment