LinkedIn Twitter
Well-known CRM analyst and thought leader, Denis has made contributions to our thinking about cloud computing, CRM, social media, analytics and mobility. He runs the Beagle Research Group, LLC and is the author of "Solve for the Customer", "You Can't Buy Customer Loyalty, But You Can Earn It", and recently, "The Age of Sustainability". He frequently contributes to this and other outlets. Check out, and

4 responses to “IPad, Mercantilism and the Chinese Plantation”

  1. L K Tucker

    Everybody wants to blame someone rather than stop the deaths at Foxconn.

    Where true sweatshop conditions exist, such as the garment industry in New York, there have never been suicides. Yet at France Telecom, with a 35 hour work week and union negotiated wages, there have been 60 attempts with a reported 30 deaths. That’s higher than Foxconn. Why is this never mentioned? It doesn’t fit the picture activists want to portray.

    In both countries pictures and video taken by TV news crews shows the problem is Subliminal Distraction exposure. Discovered when it caused mental breaks for knowledge workers in business offices the cubicle was designed to block peripheral vision for a concentrating worker to stop it by 1968. The picture used to illustrate this article shows the problem. Those workers should be turned 45 to 90 degrees so that the adjoining worker’s movement is not in peripheral vision.

    Foxconn uses cubicles in engineering offices in Korea but did not understand whey they must be used. They put concentrating assembly line workers too close together with out Cubicle Level Protection, a peripheral vision blocking scheme, between them.

    A pair of safety glasses with wide temple arms, opaque or blacked out, would stop the deaths for pennies in China.

    Pictures from both countries are linked at the top of the Home page, VisionAndPsychosis_Net.

  2. Scott Blair

    L K Tucker,

    Forgive me but you’re case looses a lot of validity when you send me to a site with no information but littered with ads and conspiracy theories. Since you’re to lazy to refer me to a peer reviewed study, I’m too lazy to go looking for one.

    1. Denis Pombriant

      Links seem to work. Try learning to spell.

      1. Scott Blair

        Sorry for the confusion. I found your article informative and I liked the links. My comment was aimed at the post directly above my own; the one written by L K Tucker, the person to whom I addressed my original post. As for his or her reference to “VisionAndPsychosis_Net,” I stand by my words.

        I’d also like to apologize for not proofing my post. I feel obligated to point out that everything in my original post is spelled correctly, even if I had the wrong words. “Looses” is a malapropism and “to” a homonym.