Where Kittyhawk Failed The Case of Disruptive Technologies

Where Kittyhawk Failed The Case of Disruptive Technologies Disruptive technologies have always been a very dubious concept, clearly promoting further evolution of technological thought, on the one hand, and blocking the development of the current technological advances, on the other hand.Advertising We will write a custom case study sample on Where Kittyhawk Failed: The Case of Disruptive Technologies specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Perhaps, one of the most notorious cases of disruptive technologies affecting the current market and ruining the opportunities of promising technologies to be utilized in the corresponding field, the case of Kittyhawk deserves being analyzed. Despite the fact that the introduction of the Kittyhawk technology was bound to reinvent the then perspective of what information storage is supposed to be like, it failed because of the wrong timing, the faults in marketing and the lack of competitiveness, which Nintendo made efficient use of. However, the given failure doe s not diminish the merits of disruptive technology; instead, it shows that, to introduce a technology that will shake the entire world, one will have to think not only the technical aspects of the on-coming revolution, but also its economical and financial sides, keeping an eye on the competitors at the same time. It would be wrong to claim that the concept of Kittyhawk did not have any intrinsic value; quite on the contrary, the idea of introducing a 1.3-inch hard drive to the target market was way ahead of its time and could have resulted in a major success (Christensen 606). However, due to the faults in marketing, it became a giant flop, which the company swept under the rug as soon as the deal with Nintendo regarding its Nintendo 64 system with a slot for a 1.3† disk drive resulted in a financial discord. The very disruptive technology seemed to have had little to do with the given failure, though; instead, it can be seen as the result of the HP managers’ greed. Un less the company had demanded so much to be invested into the Kittyhawk technology, the latter might have seen the light of the day. Instead, the HP Company clearly decided to use their innovation as the means to make as much money as possible before the Kittyhawk innovation would be ousted by a more promising and efficient method of data storage.Advertising Looking for case study on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More In hindsight, the HP Company should have tried positioning the Kittyhawk technology in a less pompous way, so that it would not flop even after new and better information storage system would be introduced into the market. Thus, the company would have retained their target audience and make at least some money out of their concept, which, instead, turned into a giant disappointment. One of the most graphic cases when the attempt to introduce disruptive technologies ail, the example of the Kittyhawk data storage system developed by the HP provides a lot of food for thoughts, mainly concerning the factors that define the success of a disruptive technology. The given case shows clearly that developing a unique concept is obviously not the only step that it required to promote the given technology as a disruptive one; in addition to the careful consideration of the existing market, its demands, customers and competitors, it is highly recommended that the financial aspect of the promotion campaign should also be introduced into the mix. Despite having a number of chances to become one of the most efficient data storage systems for the time being, the Kittyhawk Project plummeted as the HP Company failed to reach compromise regarding the financial issue, therefore, making it clear that the art of creating disruptive technologies is more than being able to sell innovations. Christensen, Clayton M. Hewlett-Packard: The Flight of the Kittyhawk (A). Harvard, MA: Harvard Bu siness School. 2006. Print.

Yogh - A Letter of the Alphabet in Middle English

Yogh - A Letter of the Alphabet in Middle English Yogh  (Ê’)  was a  letter  of the alphabet in  Middle English. According to the editors of the American Heritage Dictionary, yogh was used to represent the sound (y) and the voiced and voiceless velar fricatives. Yogh can be found in the original manuscript of the late-14th-century romance Sir Gawain and the Green Knight [Sir Gawayn and à ¾e Grene KnyÈ t], but the letter  died out during the 15th century. Middle English yogh was derived from the insular g in  Old English.  As explained below, the letter was pronounced in different ways according to a number of factors. Although the yogh has no exact equivalent today, it can  correspond to Modern English y as in yet, Modern English gh as in light, and Scottish English  ch as in loch. Examples and Observations The yogh ... asks us to make the sound that most Germans make when they say ich, which most Scots people make when they say loch, which most Welsh people make when they say bach, and which some Liverpudlians make when they say back. As the Old English said this kind of sound a good deal, it was very useful to have a letter for it. They had the Roman g which we see in the first line of Beowulf. The yogh was used in the Middle English period (late 12th-15th centuries) to represent the ch sound, perhaps as g had other work to do.(Michael Rose, Alphabetical: How Every Letter Tells a Story. Counterpoint, 2015)Pronunciations of Yogh in Middle EnglishYogh (Ê’) was pronounced in several different ways, according to its position in the word. Initially, yogh was pronounced like y, as in Modern English yet. It had the same sound after the vowels e, i, or y, for example in the Middle English words yÊ’e (eye) and hiÊ’e (high), which unlike their Modern English counterparts were pronounce d with two syllables. Within words or at the ends of words, yogh or gh sometimes represented the sound of w, as in folÊ’ed (followed), or innoÊ’e (enough), which we know from its use in rhyme was pronounced enow rather than with an f sound as in Modern English enough. Before t and after e, i, or y, yogh or gh was pronounced like ch in German ich (for example, in the Middle English ryÊ’t, right); before t and after a and o it was pronounced like the ch in Scottish loch or German Bach (for example, in Middle English soÊ’te, sought). It had the same value word-finally in the word à ¾aÊ’, though. However, at the ends of words, it more often represented the unvoiced sound of s as in Modern English sillthough it may also at times have represented the ​voiced sound of z as in Modern English zeal (Vantuona 176).(David Gould,  Pearl of Great Price: A Literary Translation of the Middle English Pearl. University Press of America, 2012)   The gh Pronunciation of Yogh- [I]n Old English, ... one of the sound values of the letter yogh was /x/. ... Words like niÊ’t, hiÊ’, burÊ’, miÊ’t and thoÊ’ were respelled by French scribes with a gh, so we get night, high, burgh, might and though as common spellings for these words in early Middle English. To begin with, the gh continued to be pronounced. When we read in the opening lines of The Canterbury Tales about the little birds sleeping all through the nyght, we need to take that spelling at face value and read it as /nIxt/, with the ch sound of Scots loch or Welsh bach. But the /x/ disappeared from southern English during the 15th and 16th centuries. North of the border, and in some other provincial accents, it stayedhence modern Scots spellings such as moonlicht nicht.(David Crystal, Spell It Out. Picador, 2014)- [T]he breathy English g or y sound (once denoted by the English letter yogh) came to be spelled as GH. ... However, it was GHs bad luck to be left beh ind by subsequent, general changes in English pronunciation. Originally, in words like sight, although, cough, or enough, the Norman GH-spelling mirrored the medieval pronunciations. Yet these pronunciations later changed, variously, and today the whole family of English GH words is notoriously unphonetic in spellingto the frustration of purists. ...(David Sacks,  Letter Perfect: The A-to-Z History of Our Alphabet. Knopf, 2010)- The digraph gh causes difficulty. It is commonly a relic of a velar or palatal fricative that is preserved as a velar fricative /x/ in Scots, as in bricht night (bright night). (1) It is normally silent after u as in taught, drought, naughty, thought, though, through, thorough, bough, and after i as in straight, weight, height, high, light, night. (2) It is pronounced /f/ in a few words such as cough, enough, laugh, rough, tough. (3) In the following place-names in England, each gh is different: Slough (rhymes with how), Keighley (Keethley), Loughborough ( Luff-). (4)   In hiccough, the gh was substituted for p (hiccup) in the mistaken belief that the word derived from cough. (5) It has disappeared in AmE draft, plow (formerly also used in BrE) and in dry, fly, sly, although preserved in the related nouns drought, flight, sleight. (6) It sometimes alternates with ch in related words: straight/stretch, taught/teach.(Tom McArthur,  Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford University Press, 2005) From Yogh to Zee in Scottish EnglishThe yogh owes its origin to the Irish scribes who arrived in Saxon Britain in the 8th Century and began teaching the Anglo-Saxons to writebefore this, old English was written in runes ... .It fell out of favor with the Normans, whose scribes disliked non-Latin characters and replaced it with a y or g sound, and in the middle of words with gh. But the Scottish retained the yogh in personal and place names, albeit mutating into a z to please the typesetters of the day.Inevitably, however, the euphemistic z became a real z, in some quarters at least. The surname MacKenzie now almost universally takes the zee sound although it would have originally been pronounced MacKenyie.(Why is Menzies Pronounced Mingis? BBC News, January 10, 2006) Pronunciation: YOG or yoKH Also see: From A to Z: Quick Facts About the AlphabetKey Events in the History of the English LanguageSpelling