Intel follows the margin

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Hey,

Anybody sobered up yet from the over-the-weekend I-told-you-so parties
yet? ;-).

Before you decide to load up any more than you already have on AMD and
to short any more than you already have on Intel, consider this:

http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2004/05/10/rtr1366203.html

<quote>

Intel brings in a better profit margin with Centrino, a bundle of three
chips, than it does on other mobile chips.

"Centrino commands a brand premium," said JMP Securities analyst Krishna
Shankar.

<snip>

With Centrino, Intel is trying to convince home laptop users that
portability is as essential as raw computing speed.

</quote>

So, here you are, you've got four lines: a "high-end" server line, a
real-world server line, a desktop line, and a portable line. Unlike
what some people think, your only goal in life is to make money, not to
dominate the world.

Your high end server line has had problems from every direction
practically from the beginning, and it becomes more clear all the time
that, if you ever do get there, the margins you expected probably won't
be. Your real-world server line and your desktop line are both under
price and performance pressure, probably both in niches with
monotonically-decaying margins. What do you do?

You convince the world that what they really need is what makes you the
most money, that's what you do. There are other reasons for Intel to
make some of the moves they've made, but they all just conveniently
point toward Intel selling more of what it makes the most money on.
It's probably not too late to get out of those positions you just took.
Most of the rest of the world still has a hangover. ;-).

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
> Anybody sobered up yet from the over-the-weekend I-told-you-so parties
> yet? ;-).
>
> Before you decide to load up any more than you already have on AMD and
> to short any more than you already have on Intel, consider this:
>
> http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2004/05/10/rtr1366203.html
>
>
> So, here you are, you've got four lines: a "high-end" server line, a
> real-world server line, a desktop line, and a portable line. Unlike
> what some people think, your only goal in life is to make money, not
> to dominate the world.
>
> Your high end server line has had problems from every direction
> practically from the beginning, and it becomes more clear all the time
> that, if you ever do get there, the margins you expected probably
> won't be. Your real-world server line and your desktop line are both
> under price and performance pressure, probably both in niches with
> monotonically-decaying margins. What do you do?
>
> You convince the world that what they really need is what makes you
> the most money, that's what you do. There are other reasons for
> Intel to make some of the moves they've made, but they all just
> conveniently point toward Intel selling more of what it makes the
> most money on. It's probably not too late to get out of those
> positions you just took. Most of the rest of the world still has a
> hangover. ;-).

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Are you saying that Intel makes more
money on Centrino than on any other line of processors? I don't think the
article says that, all it says is that it makes more money Centrino than on
any other line of *mobile* processors. I seriously doubt that Centrino is
carrying Intel's other lineups.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

<snip>

>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at? Are you saying that Intel makes more
> money on Centrino than on any other line of processors? I don't think the
> article says that, all it says is that it makes more money Centrino than on
> any other line of *mobile* processors. I seriously doubt that Centrino is
> carrying Intel's other lineups.
>

Grrr. Mumble. Grumble.

Which of Intel processors carries a "brand premium"? Itanium does, sort
of, but customers usually don't pay it with any sense that they're
getting what they want for their money. Xeon has a reasonably
profitable brand premium, for a while at least, but it's under serious
attack.

The only sense in which anybody who really matters at Intel cares about
competing with AMD would set much too low a standard: making money. The
competition with AMD for desktop/server business is important to the
present, but Intel would like it not to be for the future.

Intel has surveyed the prospects in the server and desktop processor
business and decided they aren't as good as they used to be, so they are
looking to make their future elsewhere to every extent possible. I can
find other articles, like the puff piece about Barrett in
_Business_Week_, that say the same thing in different ways: the future
is everything _but_ what desktop and server processors. Or, at least it
would be if Intel could make it so.

If anything, P4/Xeon is carrying Intel right now. That's not a good
spot for Intel to be in. Intel isn't going to defend P4 because it's a
losing battle. It has assiduously kept the Xeon brand independent of
architecture. Dump P4, attach the Xeon label to something else as
quickly as you can, and persuade everybody that what they really want is
a laptop.

It's natural for people in technical groups to think of technical issues
as driving business. If a particular technology takes a nosedive, so
will the previously wildly-successful careers of lots of
narrowly-focused techies. An individual technologist doesn't have to
think that way, and neither does a company. When confronted with an
unexpected challenge, you can bear down harder under the old rules, or
you can try to change the rules. Intel is trying to change the rules.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
> Which of Intel processors carries a "brand premium"? Itanium does,
> sort of, but customers usually don't pay it with any sense that
> they're getting what they want for their money. Xeon has a reasonably
> profitable brand premium, for a while at least, but it's under serious
> attack.
>
> The only sense in which anybody who really matters at Intel cares
> about competing with AMD would set much too low a standard: making
> money. The competition with AMD for desktop/server business is
> important to the present, but Intel would like it not to be for the
> future.
>
> Intel has surveyed the prospects in the server and desktop processor
> business and decided they aren't as good as they used to be, so they
> are looking to make their future elsewhere to every extent possible.
> I can find other articles, like the puff piece about Barrett in
> _Business_Week_, that say the same thing in different ways: the future
> is everything _but_ what desktop and server processors. Or, at least
> it would be if Intel could make it so.

Well yes, if Intel wants to avoid strong competition, then at the moment the
laptop market is where it is at right now. But that's just a temporary
thing. The other markets it's starting to look weak in nowadays were all at
one time some of its strongest cash cows: desktops and servers. How is Intel
going to avoid the same fate in the laptop market? The last thing Intel
wants to do is put all of its eggs into one basket (the laptop basket) and
then a few months down the road, price competition enters that market. The
laptop market right now is a relatively boutique business compared to the
desktop, so it's filled with rich people with more money than brains. But
once the mystique of laptops wears off (you still see people get all
googly-eyed when they see a laptop, like as if they've seen a Ferrari), the
only thing that will matter is price.

Right now people might be willing to pay the premium for a Centrino for its
cachet. But the Centrino is much more expensive than Celeron, and even
P4M's. Even if people don't migrate to Intel's competition, they just have
to look across the aisle at the other Intels, the P4 and Celeron laptops, to
see that laptops can be had for a lot less. When Pentium-M replaces the
Pentium-4 as the next mainstream processor, people will still see that price
is lower if you don't pay for the Centrino branding.

> If anything, P4/Xeon is carrying Intel right now. That's not a good
> spot for Intel to be in. Intel isn't going to defend P4 because it's
> a losing battle. It has assiduously kept the Xeon brand independent
> of architecture. Dump P4, attach the Xeon label to something else as
> quickly as you can, and persuade everybody that what they really want
> is a laptop.

Well the Pentium brandname itself is also quite independent of architecture.

> It's natural for people in technical groups to think of technical
> issues as driving business. If a particular technology takes a
> nosedive, so will the previously wildly-successful careers of lots of
> narrowly-focused techies. An individual technologist doesn't have to
> think that way, and neither does a company. When confronted with an
> unexpected challenge, you can bear down harder under the old rules, or
> you can try to change the rules. Intel is trying to change the rules.

Technical people look at the same factors as the general public, they just
have a lot more knowledge about the details.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

<snip>

>
> Well yes, if Intel wants to avoid strong competition, then at the moment the
> laptop market is where it is at right now. But that's just a temporary
> thing. The other markets it's starting to look weak in nowadays were all at
> one time some of its strongest cash cows: desktops and servers. How is Intel
> going to avoid the same fate in the laptop market? The last thing Intel
> wants to do is put all of its eggs into one basket (the laptop basket) and
> then a few months down the road, price competition enters that market.

It's a safe bet that Intel is not going to put all its eggs into one
basket if they have a choice.

> The laptop market right now is a relatively boutique business compared to the
> desktop,

A state of affairs that Intel apparently wants to change.

> so it's filled with rich people with more money than brains.

Just like gamers who will spend their last nickel to get that last bit
of performance, rich people with more money than brains are a market of
limited size. Intel probably understands that, too.

> But once the mystique of laptops wears off (you still see people get all
> googly-eyed when they see a laptop, like as if they've seen a Ferrari), the
> only thing that will matter is price.
>

Back to cars again, eh? Marketer story from a Bob Colwell (former Intel
Chief Architect) presentation:

"Everybody here who owns a Lexus raise your hand."

Hands go up.

"Why did you pay so much for a Toyota?"

<snip>

>
> Well the Pentium brandname itself is also quite independent of architecture.
>

Good thing, no? Celeron is architecture-independent, too. Not all
brands are positioned to command a price premium.

<snip>

>
> Technical people look at the same factors as the general public, they just
> have a lot more knowledge about the details.
>

If you find yourself away from an internet connection and the telephone
for a few minutes, maybe by a quiet lake on a sunny day in mid-summer,
you might want to squander a bit of such a precious moment on examining
that assumption as carefully as you can.

Don't squander a really good moment on it, but you might also want to
consider this proposition as if it were a subject for college debate:
RESOLVED: "A good brand name is more valuable than a good architecture."
Don't jump to conclusions. Try both sides of the argument.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The laptop market right now is a relatively boutique business
>> compared to the desktop,
>
> A state of affairs that Intel apparently wants to change.

Which if they succeed, will end up opening them up to pricing competition.

>> But once the mystique of laptops wears off (you still see people get
>> all googly-eyed when they see a laptop, like as if they've seen a
>> Ferrari), the only thing that will matter is price.
>>
>
> Back to cars again, eh? Marketer story from a Bob Colwell (former
> Intel Chief Architect) presentation:
>
> "Everybody here who owns a Lexus raise your hand."
>
> Hands go up.
>
> "Why did you pay so much for a Toyota?"

Yes, that's a good quote. Here's another quote heard recently about Intel's
move to can Pentium 4 and replace it with Pentium M:

"All we hear are unsubstantiated promises about how intel is going to do so
well with its next series of blunders."


>> Technical people look at the same factors as the general public,
>> they just have a lot more knowledge about the details.
>>
>
> If you find yourself away from an internet connection and the
> telephone for a few minutes, maybe by a quiet lake on a sunny day in
> mid-summer, you might want to squander a bit of such a precious
> moment on examining that assumption as carefully as you can.

Remember I just got back from Bangladesh, where I had to do everything with
dialup and Google Groups. I qualify for having survived "roughing it".

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

<snip>

>
> Remember I just got back from Bangladesh, where I had to do everything with
> dialup and Google Groups. I qualify for having survived "roughing it".
>

That was the hardest part of your journey? Glad you're back safely.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

>> "Why did you pay so much for a Toyota?"
>
>Yes, that's a good quote.

But inappropriate and unnecessarily insulting. In the US, several
cars made by Toyota are only available under the Lexus nameplate.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> You could also sort of take it to a funny extreme:
> So who here has bought a Toyota Camry? Why did you pay so much for a
> Corolla?

Except, of course, that there are actual differences in the underlying car's
dimensions. Unlike, notably, the older ES300 models which were pretty much
exactly structurally and mechanically the same as the Camry V6 (although the
interior trim was nicer, and IIRC, they were supposed to have more sound
insulation.)

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.intel tony <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I think it's socially irresponsible and greedy for giant companies to not
> offer commodity products at commodity prices.

You know, if you were talking about the necessities of life, I'd agree with
you. But when the issue is higher-end computer equipment -- not a necessity
to begin with, and especially not a necessity with cheaper parts available
from other brands and perfectly adequate -- I don't think it's socially
irresponsible.

Greedy, sure, but that's capitalism for you. "Greed for lack of a better
word, is good" doncha know? Well, maybe not but it's the best economic
driving force on a large scale that we've found.

> standardization. It's like: "we CAN build technology for a perfectly
> adequate PC for the masses that would cost less than $100, but we WON'T
> cuz we can continue to milk consumers for money with this system".

But if it can be done, and Intel/ATI/whoever won't do it, Via will. Or any
of the other Asian manufacturers, which can do it more cheaply than Intel
anyway. Proprietary games, absent government monopoly protection or certain
cases of infrastructure, eventually fail. Even Microsoft is seeing that,
albeit slowly.

> Doing the right thing vs. doing the most profitable thing does not result
> in goods and services that optimally fulfill consumer wants and needs.

Optimally fulfill consumer wants and needs is in the long run the most
profitable thing to do. OTOH, doing so perfectly would require omniscience,
so there's a lot of guesswork involved and companies f___ up sometimes.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Remember I just got back from Bangladesh, where I had to do
>> everything with dialup and Google Groups. I qualify for having
>> survived "roughing it".
>>
>
> That was the hardest part of your journey? Glad you're back safely.

What you expected me to be robbed at gunpoint or something along the way?


Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>>>Remember I just got back from Bangladesh, where I had to do
>>>everything with dialup and Google Groups. I qualify for having
>>>survived "roughing it".
>>>
>>
>>That was the hardest part of your journey? Glad you're back safely.
>
>
> What you expected me to be robbed at gunpoint or something along the way?
>
>

Who knows. On the one hand, you see on the news cities in India going
through the same transformation that cities in New England have gone
through (mills to malls), only on an accelerated schedule, and
apparently with no greater pain--possibly even with less.

At the same time, it seems as if in some places in and around the Indian
subcontinent people with guns and other things are playing a bigger role
in life than would be implied by a transformation to a global service
economy. Very confusing. If the worst that life in Bangladesh entails
is no broadband, then maybe things are better than I might have thought.
.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
> At the same time, it seems as if in some places in and around the
> Indian subcontinent people with guns and other things are playing a
> bigger role in life than would be implied by a transformation to a
> global service economy. Very confusing. If the worst that life in
> Bangladesh entails is no broadband, then maybe things are better than
> I might have thought. .

Actually, the broadband simply wasn't available in my relative's house at
the time I was there. They just got it last week, though. I missed it by a
few weeks.

Actually, broadband over there doesn't mean cable or DSL. Over there it
means somebody in the neighbourhood with a VSAT connection strings up
Ethernet to your house.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 12 May 2004 17:17:13 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>> That was the hardest part of your journey? Glad you're back safely.
>
>What you expected me to be robbed at gunpoint or something along the way?
>

Ah, wrong expectations. Didn't u tell him that knives, parangs and
choppers are more the in thing in our region? pPp

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

>
> Actually, broadband over there doesn't mean cable or DSL. Over there it
> means somebody in the neighbourhood with a VSAT connection strings up
> Ethernet to your house.
>

There you go! The last mile problem is solved.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Actually, broadband over there doesn't mean cable or DSL. Over there
>> it means somebody in the neighbourhood with a VSAT connection
>> strings up Ethernet to your house.
>>
>
> There you go! The last mile problem is solved.

You should see some neighbourhoods, they got cable tv, telephone, and
ethernet all strung up on the phone poles from house to house. Then
sometimes a tall truck goes by and sometimes maybe snaps a cable or two.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Ed]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:40:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

>Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>> Actually, broadband over there doesn't mean cable or DSL. Over there
>>> it means somebody in the neighbourhood with a VSAT connection
>>> strings up Ethernet to your house.
>>>
>>
>> There you go! The last mile problem is solved.
>
>You should see some neighbourhoods, they got cable tv, telephone, and
>ethernet all strung up on the phone poles from house to house. Then
>sometimes a tall truck goes by and sometimes maybe snaps a cable or two.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

yep, I have a summer cottage and have no phone line or cable there, but
my neighbor has 3000/384 cable BB and a router. Some CAT5 and a case of
beer was all it took!

Ed

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:54:35 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>> You could also sort of take it to a funny extreme:
>> So who here has bought a Toyota Camry? Why did you pay so much for a
>> Corolla?
>
>Except, of course, that there are actual differences in the underlying car's
>dimensions. Unlike, notably, the older ES300 models which were pretty much
>exactly structurally and mechanically the same as the Camry V6 (although the
>interior trim was nicer, and IIRC, they were supposed to have more sound
>insulation.)

I don't know the specifics of that situation, but it sounds like the
Honda Civic vs. Acura EL series. Same engine, same chassis, same
transmission... So why do people pay more for the Acura?

Well, the brand name may be part of it, but when you get right down to
it, if you configure out a Civic with the same features (some of which
are only available as after-market parts) as that Acura 1.7EL you end
up with the same price point. I suspect that the situation was pretty
similar with the Lexus ES300 vs. the Camry V6. Once you start adding
in all the options, you aren't really paying much premium at all for
the Lexus name.


There are probably MUCH better examples that you could find that this.
The best are probably in the clothing industry, where you can pay $50
for a shirt because it has a particular designer label, and yet a
shirt that is otherwise identical and made in the same exact factory
but missing the designer label might only cost $15.

Yup, people will definitely pay for a designer label, but sometimes
you really do end up with what you pay for. With computers the extra
money you pay for a brand name usually isn't very significant,
especially if you add in the fuzzy costs associated with things like
technical support.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:39:00 GMT, "tony"
<tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I think it's socially irresponsible and greedy for giant companies to not
>offer commodity
>products at commodity prices. Ditto for proprietary games played in the name
>of profit
>in place of standardization. It's like: "we CAN build technology for a
>perfectly
>adequate PC for the masses that would cost less than $100, but we WON'T
>cuz we can continue to milk consumers for money with this system". Doing the
>right
>thing vs. doing the most profitable thing does not result in goods and
>services that
>optimally fulfill consumer wants and needs.

The capitalist model of society tends to demonstrate that doing the
most profitable thing often DOES result in the goods and services that
optimally fulfill the consumer wants and needs, at least in the long
run.

Sure, it might seem like a good idea to make a $100 PC for the masses,
but then there would be no incentive to push technology forward. The
$100 PC of yesterday would be no faster today. So while we've paid
more for PCs over the years, we've gotten more as a result. If
companies had been producing nothing but $100 PCs for the past 15
years, we would have MUCH slower machines that what you could get for
$100 (used) today.

While a lot of people in this newsgroup (*cough* Keith *ahem*) have
accused me of being some kind of pinko-commie, I'll be the first to
say that capitalism, despite it's faults, has shown itself to be a
reasonably successful economic model. Much more so than the
alternatives at least!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:54:35 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
> wrote:
> >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> >> You could also sort of take it to a funny extreme:
> >> So who here has bought a Toyota Camry? Why did you pay so much for a
> >> Corolla?
> >
> >Except, of course, that there are actual differences in the underlying car's
> >dimensions. Unlike, notably, the older ES300 models which were pretty much
> >exactly structurally and mechanically the same as the Camry V6 (although the
> >interior trim was nicer, and IIRC, they were supposed to have more sound
> >insulation.)

> I don't know the specifics of that situation, but it sounds like the
> Honda Civic vs. Acura EL series. Same engine, same chassis, same
> transmission... So why do people pay more for the Acura?

There is no Acura EL here in the states, so I don't know. Some of the older
Acuras were pretty redundant for the same reason, but the last couple of
generations they've been a good bit more different. Much nicer engines and
transmissions, for example.

I have an Acura RSX, which has a chassis derived from the Civic (as the
older Integra was), but a 5-speed automatic transmission rather than a 4, a
2L rather than the 1.7L engine and 30 more horsepower than the EX VTEC
(can't remember what the Si makes)

> Well, the brand name may be part of it, but when you get right down to
> it, if you configure out a Civic with the same features (some of which
> are only available as after-market parts) as that Acura 1.7EL you end
> up with the same price point.

*nod* another similar example is different lines from the American makes --
when I was looking a couple of years ago a fully optioned out Dodge Stratus
was more expensive than a comparably-equipped Chrysler Sebring.

> I suspect that the situation was pretty similar with the Lexus ES300 vs.
> the Camry V6. Once you start adding in all the options, you aren't really
> paying much premium at all for the Lexus name.

Very likely not more than a couple thousand for the ES300, yeah. And my
impression is that the newer ES330 is changed further from the Camry than
older ones were.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:

>Except, of course, that there are actual differences in the underlying car's
>dimensions. Unlike, notably, the older ES300 models which were pretty much
>exactly structurally and mechanically the same as the Camry V6 (although the
>interior trim was nicer, and IIRC, they were supposed to have more sound
>insulation.)

I recall going with my brother (and the salesman) on a test drive of
the first-gen ES300, and I said the "C word" (Camry), which did not
please the sales drone one bit. He defended the Lexus by claiming
that it shared only TWO components (chassis and powertrain) with the
Camry, while it had THOUSANDS of unique components.

Just "slightly" ludicrous, of course, to count the entire chassis and
powertrain as two components, yet still find "thousands" of other
components on the car...

 

[rush]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote :

> You could also sort of take it to a funny extreme:
>
> So who here has bought a Toyota Camry? Why did you pay so much for a
> Corolla?

I had Corolla.

> So who here has bought a Toyota Corolla? Why did you pay so much for an
> Echo?

well, where do the make those "Echo's" ? Korea ?
1992 Corolla I had was 'made in Japan', and that single handed make this
car worth the money.

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote:
> > So who here has bought a Toyota Corolla? Why did you pay so much for an
> > Echo?
>
> well, where do the make those "Echo's" ? Korea ?
> 1992 Corolla I had was 'made in Japan', and that single handed make this
> car worth the money.

I'm not sure where the Echo is made these days, but most US-market Corollas
are made in the USA and have been for about the last ten years -- I think
you narrowly missed it with your 1992.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."

 

[rush]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote :

> The capitalist model of society tends to demonstrate that doing the
> most profitable thing often DOES result in the goods and services
> that optimally fulfill the consumer wants and needs, at least in the
> long run.

you are talking Wallmart here, and what about the society ? society is
definitelly _not_ only about consumer

> I'll be the first to
> say that capitalism, despite it's faults, has shown itself to be a
> reasonably successful economic model. Much more so than the
> alternatives at least!

for whom ? corporations - yes, consumer - maybe/sometimes, average
family - NO


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote :
>
>> You could also sort of take it to a funny extreme:
>>
>> So who here has bought a Toyota Camry? Why did you pay so much for a
>> Corolla?
>
> I had Corolla.
>
>> So who here has bought a Toyota Corolla? Why did you pay so much for
>> an Echo?
>
> well, where do the make those "Echo's" ? Korea ?
> 1992 Corolla I had was 'made in Japan', and that single handed make
> this car worth the money.

I think they may call the Toyota Echos something different in your part of
the world. I think they may call it the Platz in other parts of the world.
See if these car looks familiar to you:

Echo sedan:
http://tinyurl.com/3bkm5

Echo hatchback:
http://tinyurl.com/32ynw

Yousuf Khan