Originally posted by bxf
When it comes down to a big (or even small business) imho there is no "too serious".
When I invest in a local startup and see such mistakes I talk to them and advice them on how to get this perfected or at least where they might find information to find a working solution for themselves (I do realize that our solution is not the right for everyone and as long as the result is there in the end I do not care at all how it is achieved). When I see a lot of such mistakes happen and no improvement, I stop my financal support to cut my risk of financal losses. If this is the right thing to do or not, others do the same, also on big scales.
If a brand has been sold twice within a couple of years and is in a declining market with small share there is simply no space for stupid mistakes and if I were a big shareholder this might influence my decission if I invest or not. Again: It is not about a roadmap being updated in time or not. It is about a company/brand that needs to work in a efficiant way leaving as little room for human error as possible. This means they need to have a workflow pipeline and in this case it is faulty or non existent, the later being worse.
---------- Post added 02-11-20 at 07:46 AM ----------
Originally posted by Kunzite Yeah, right - they could make 3 complete mirrorless lines, gain 110% market share in both DSLRs and MILCs, and solve the global warming in the time it takes to plan the products.
(What did I say earlier?)
In what way does this make any sense as a response to what I wrote?
The original statement to which I replied was that they may not update the roadmap because they need to make consientious backchecking with the actual development. Between the roadmap versions a lot of stuff changed (change from 70-200 to 70-210 as a recent example). If this would have all been points carefully evaluated the evaluation would have been corrected many times which means a way to nonlinear development. This is something that would mean a loss of ressources on projects without outcome and would be bad for business. I do not think this is the case, hopefully not. This however means that there is no "waiting for development and carefully checking if the new roadmap information will be exactly true".