Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel follows the margin

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 3:13:34 AM

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.ht...

<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

More about : intel margin

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 11:27:29 AM

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.ht...
>
>
> 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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 6:09:12 PM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 7:20:05 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 8:43:33 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 12, 2004 2:31:54 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 12, 2004 7:59:23 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 12, 2004 11:39:13 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 12, 2004 4:54:35 PM

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."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 12, 2004 5:22:09 PM

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."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 12, 2004 9:17:13 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 12, 2004 10:53:52 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2004 11:11:53 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2004 12:29:25 PM

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? :p 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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2004 3:10:18 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2004 5:40:25 PM

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
May 13, 2004 5:40:26 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2004 4:52:41 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2004 4:52:41 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2004 4:52:42 AM

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."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2004 12:31:17 PM

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...
May 14, 2004 9:21:21 PM

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 ? :D 
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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2004 9:21:22 PM

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 ? :D 
> 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."
May 14, 2004 9:21:24 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2004 11:19:48 PM

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 ? :D 
> 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
May 15, 2004 12:47:31 AM

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

"Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:hkdan1xjc1.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
> 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.

I find it hard to believe that all those engineers are really as dumb as the
products their companies produce, rather their companies are playing dumb in
order to milk
the cash cow. My perspective is that for-profit companies produce for profit
exclusively
("doing it for the money") RATHER THAN producing "the right thing" when they
aren't forced to.
It's like pulling teeth to get a phone company to give you just basic
service, for example, and they
try to hide the basic package and sell you another unnecessary feature-laden
package. Examples
abound: MS taking their sweet lil ol time to create an OS of appropriateness
and quality
is one, CD/DVD "standards" fiasco another. Cars probably don't have to be so
proprietary
and expensive either, greed makes them so.

I think the solution might be to create not-for-profit-like companies to
produce all the
well-known and understood technologies for masses of consumers at true
commodity
prices. How novel: commodities at commodity prices! Buy only what you want
and need
rather than what is made available by money-only-driven companies.

Tony
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2004 12:47:32 AM

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips tony <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I think the solution might be to create not-for-profit-like companies to
> produce all the well-known and understood technologies for masses of
> consumers at true commodity prices. How novel: commodities at commodity
> prices! Buy only what you want and need rather than what is made available
> by money-only-driven companies.

Hey, if you can compete in the market-place as a not for profit, go for it.
Or if you can make a profit, while adhering to such things.

It does work sometimes; take a look at SCO's desperate attempts to stem the
tide of open source.

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

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
May 15, 2004 1:29:30 AM

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

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:5ui8a05kcc5nadut7ncqcvp9f54v9goda9@4ax.com...
> 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.

That's what they'd want you to believe anyway. I see mostly evidence that
that is not true and that producing under that model is always a long and
arduous process.

> 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.

That WOULD be pushing technology forward! But for the practical uses
rather than just for the sake of technological "achievement". The quest for
technology achievement and the marketing of MHz got us Prescott (another
fiasco?).
Argh.

>The $100 PC of yesterday would be no faster today.

Creating low cost and practical products doesn't mean stagnating technology.

>So while we've paid
> more for PCs over the years, we've gotten more as a result.

Doubtful, since the control of ideas was localized in very few companies.
Who
knows what might have been with widespread development.

>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.

That's an unqualified and unprovable opinion. And that's not to say that we
wouldn't have some better overall. For instance, better software! Many
scenarios are possible. The current goal seems to be the prevention of
commoditization (not good, but all that can be expected from money-first
companies?).

> 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!

Without going off on that always controversial tangent, capitalism is just
like one of those products that you're force to live with for lack of the
better/right thing. It's so far off the mark it's not funny (it's the
Windoze of
economic paradigms). It succeeds because most people don't think
about it, and hence are taken advantage of by it. (IMO).

Tony
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2004 6:14:11 AM

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

On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:55:44 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
wrote:
>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.

Hmm.. guess that must be one of those odd-ball Canadian-only cars.
Kinda makes sense I guess, the Civic is a VERY popular car in Canada
(most popular car for something like 10 years running), while I
understand it never quite reached the same level of popularity in the
US.

> 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.

Even with the current models you can often find fairly similar setups
in the Honda line-up though, albeit often with fairly important
differences. ie the TSX being a Honda Accord (European body) with a
beefed up version of the 2.4L N.A. Accord engine.

>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

<gasp> An *automatic* transmission on an Acura RSX?!? What were you
thinking?!? :>

>2L rather than the 1.7L engine and 30 more horsepower than the EX VTEC
>(can't remember what the Si makes)

The Civic Si (or SiR for Canadian readers) uses the exact same 2.0L
engine of the RSX, 160HP (though not the 200HP engine of the RSX Type
S). Of course, European parts are probably a different story
altogether.

>> 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.

Yup. Cars are an area where a name brand only gets you so far. Roles
Royces and Bentley may consistently be able to get huge prices for
their name, but few others can. Even companies like BMW and Mercedes
can't go on name alone, especially with the likes of Lexus, Audi and
Infiniti eating away at their marketshare (at least in this neck of
the woods).

Similar deal goes for most computer companies. People like Asus may
be able to charge a bit more for motherboards, but not by very much
when companies like MSI and Gigabyte will undercut their prices. Same
goes for Intel vs. AMD. Intel can still command a bit of a price
advantage, but not much of one (especially not with the Opteron vs.
Xeon)... Err.. at least I think that's how this whole discussion
started... though at this point we've drifted sufficiently far away
that I can't quite remember! :>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2004 6:14:12 AM

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

On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:21:21 +0000 (UTC), 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 ? :D 

Could be made damn near anywhere, depending on where you bought the
car. I think in North America (the only place to use the "Echo" name
AFAIK) they are produced in the US.

FWIW in most of Europe the "Echo" is sold as the "Yaris", though I
never saw any of the coupe or sedan versions of the Echo over there
(the only Yaris' I saw were 3-door hatchbacks).

>1992 Corolla I had was 'made in Japan', and that single handed make this
>car worth the money.

For much of North America the Corollas are produced in Canada
(Cambridge to be exact, I've driven past the plant on many occasions).
I think they also have a plant or two down in California that also
turns out Corollas. Not only does the place of manufacture vary
depending on where you bought the car, but the specs vary a fair bit
and even the names are sometimes different. For example, a European
Corolla comes standard with a 1.4L engine, while in North America the
only engine option available is a 1.8L i4.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2004 6:35:11 AM

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 Thu, 13 May 2004 22:55:44 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Hmm.. guess that must be one of those odd-ball Canadian-only cars.
> Kinda makes sense I guess, the Civic is a VERY popular car in Canada
> (most popular car for something like 10 years running), while I
> understand it never quite reached the same level of popularity in the
> US.

I'm not sure what you mean; as smaller cars go, the Civic is about as
popular as they come, short of the VW Beetle in it's day. I think very small
cars (as the Civic used to be; it's it's gotten bigger each generation, I
think it's merely "small" now) are not as popular in the US in general.

> >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.
>
> Even with the current models you can often find fairly similar setups
> in the Honda line-up though, albeit often with fairly important
> differences. ie the TSX being a Honda Accord (European body) with a
> beefed up version of the 2.4L N.A. Accord engine.

The TSX is a notable exception, although I think it's a 2.3L not 2.4 -- in
any case, it does seem remarkably like the 4cyl Accord.

But last I looked (prior body to the new one this year) the TL and CL have
their own (shared) 3.2L engines, vs. the 3.0L in the Accord.

> >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
>
> <gasp> An *automatic* transmission on an Acura RSX?!? What were you
> thinking?!? :>

I commute in heavy traffic; I'd love to have the manual if it was only for
weekend driving, but Bay Area traffic being what it is it would drive me
nuts in short order.

> >2L rather than the 1.7L engine and 30 more horsepower than the EX VTEC
> >(can't remember what the Si makes)
>
> The Civic Si (or SiR for Canadian readers) uses the exact same 2.0L
> engine of the RSX, 160HP (though not the 200HP engine of the RSX Type
> S). Of course, European parts are probably a different story
> altogether.

Ah, interesting. I though the Si had a more highly tuned 1.7L, not the same
2.0L... never followed it, as once

> their name, but few others can. Even companies like BMW and Mercedes
> can't go on name alone, especially with the likes of Lexus, Audi and
> Infiniti eating away at their marketshare (at least in this neck of
> the woods).

Same here in the states, insofar as the market niches' overlap... and to
some extent, I think they overlap by cost segment rather than size class.
For example, I don't know many people who've shopped for 7-series BMWs, but
I know quite a number who looked at both LS430s (errr, actually I think it
was still LS400, then -- during the bubble) and 5-series BMWs, despite the
5-series being a good bit smaller.

> Similar deal goes for most computer companies. People like Asus may
> be able to charge a bit more for motherboards, but not by very much
> when companies like MSI and Gigabyte will undercut their prices.

Will undercut their price with (probably) equal quality; there's not nearly
the same degree of competition with the bottom-feeder manufacturers.

> Same goes for Intel vs. AMD. Intel can still command a bit of a price
> advantage, but not much of one (especially not with the Opteron vs.
> Xeon)...

Well, except for the Itanics, and there the competition still isn't (yet)
AMD, but rather what's left of the RISC chip market, right?

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

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
May 15, 2004 11:14:46 AM

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

Tony Hill (hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca) wrote:
:
: For much of North America the Corollas are produced in Canada
: (Cambridge to be exact, I've driven past the plant on many occasions).
: I think they also have a plant or two down in California that also
: turns out Corollas.
:

http://www.nummi.com/
Welcome to NUMMI.com

NUMMI now makes the Toyota Corolla, Toyota Tacoma, and Pontiac Vibe

--Jerry Leslie
Note: leslie@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2004 12:36:50 PM

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

On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:55:44 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:

>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)

The current Civic Si(Si-R in Canada) has basically the same engine as your
RSX - the new K-Series i-VTEC engine with chain driven camshafts. I expect
Honda to gradually phase out the Civic SOHC engine in various markets as
they feel the need and replace with the K-Series eventually. In some Asian
markets there is a Thailand built Civic Coupe EX with the K-Series, IIRC.
With Honda currently in deep sales caca, it may make sense to do the
changeover sooner rather than later... the "need" is here.:-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2004 12:36:51 PM

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

On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:29:30 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>
>"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>news:5ui8a05kcc5nadut7ncqcvp9f54v9goda9@4ax.com...

>> 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.
>
>That's what they'd want you to believe anyway. I see mostly evidence that
>that is not true and that producing under that model is always a long and
>arduous process.

As far as turning innovation into useful product in a timely manner
efficiently, no country in the world has come close to the U.S. capitalist
model... if that's what you mean by "producing".

>> 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.
>
>That WOULD be pushing technology forward! But for the practical uses
>rather than just for the sake of technological "achievement". The quest for
>technology achievement and the marketing of MHz got us Prescott (another
>fiasco?).
>Argh.
>
>>The $100 PC of yesterday would be no faster today.
>
>Creating low cost and practical products doesn't mean stagnating technology.

Examples??

>>So while we've paid
>> more for PCs over the years, we've gotten more as a result.
>
>Doubtful, since the control of ideas was localized in very few companies.
>Who
>knows what might have been with widespread development.

You cannot produce the technology required unless you have the
infrastructure and capital depth necessary for the implementation and
marketing. The garage days were over the minute Jobs and Wozniak moved
into a "building". Since then, umpteen large companies have tried to
challenge to be the commodity microprocessor-based system supplier - most
have failed.<shrug>

>> 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!
>
>Without going off on that always controversial tangent, capitalism is just
>like one of those products that you're force to live with for lack of the
>better/right thing. It's so far off the mark it's not funny (it's the
>Windoze of
>economic paradigms). It succeeds because most people don't think
>about it, and hence are taken advantage of by it. (IMO).

Again, different "systems" have been tried - they don't work. If you
expect an apparatchik in some govt. owned or sponsored institution to not
behave like a capitalist, you are not paying attention.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2004 9:32:50 PM

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

Nate Edel <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill
> <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:55:44 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
>> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Hmm.. guess that must be one of those odd-ball Canadian-only cars.
>> Kinda makes sense I guess, the Civic is a VERY popular car in Canada
>> (most popular car for something like 10 years running), while I
>> understand it never quite reached the same level of popularity in the
>> US.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean; as smaller cars go, the Civic is about as
> popular as they come, short of the VW Beetle in it's day. I think
> very small cars (as the Civic used to be; it's it's gotten bigger
> each generation, I think it's merely "small" now) are not as popular
> in the US in general.

Say do they sell this model of Chevrolet in the US, the Aveo? I've never
seen such a small Chevy ever being sold before, I wonder if its a
Canada-only product?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G38352F48

I think it's a remarketed version of Suzuki's (also part of GM) Swift model:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B312F48

Small cars are in general much more popular up here in Canada, probably
mainly due to the wage disparity vs. the US. I don't know if either of those
cars are even familiar to Americans.

>> their name, but few others can. Even companies like BMW and Mercedes
>> can't go on name alone, especially with the likes of Lexus, Audi and
>> Infiniti eating away at their marketshare (at least in this neck of
>> the woods).
>
> Same here in the states, insofar as the market niches' overlap... and
> to some extent, I think they overlap by cost segment rather than size
> class. For example, I don't know many people who've shopped for
> 7-series BMWs, but I know quite a number who looked at both LS430s
> (errr, actually I think it was still LS400, then -- during the
> bubble) and 5-series BMWs, despite the 5-series being a good bit
> smaller.

The German cars are also plagued by poor quality vs. their Japanese
competition. Although you won't ever get a die-hard Deutsche-phile to ever
admit to it, German cars tend to have a lot of gremlins -- wierd little
problems with minor components, such as the electrical system or maybe air
conditioning, heating, etc. You won't notice it too much when you drive them
around warm climates like California, but take them out into a Canadian
winter, you'll know quickly where the real quality lies.

>> Similar deal goes for most computer companies. People like Asus may
>> be able to charge a bit more for motherboards, but not by very much
>> when companies like MSI and Gigabyte will undercut their prices.
>
> Will undercut their price with (probably) equal quality; there's not
> nearly the same degree of competition with the bottom-feeder
> manufacturers.

I've had the capacitors blow out on Asus motherboards, and I've replaced
them with a much cheaper ECS mobo, which is still going strong after four
years. The Asus lasted barely two years.

>> Same goes for Intel vs. AMD. Intel can still command a bit of a price
>> advantage, but not much of one (especially not with the Opteron vs.
>> Xeon)...
>
> Well, except for the Itanics, and there the competition still isn't
> (yet) AMD, but rather what's left of the RISC chip market, right?

I've said this in another thread on comp.arch, but I'll say it again. The
Opterons only compete against the Xeons, not the Itanics. However, the
entire segment that Opterons and Xeons occupy are a competitive threat
against the entire segment that Itanics and RISCs occupy.

You used to see a lot of websites running on Sun Sparc hardware at one time.
You used to see RISCs acting as file servers at one time too. In a few
years, you may have to say that "you used to see a lot of relational
databases running on RISC hardware too".

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2004 9:32:51 PM

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:
> Say do they sell this model of Chevrolet in the US, the Aveo? I've never
> seen such a small Chevy ever being sold before, I wonder if its a
> Canada-only product?
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?G38352F48

They do now, apparantly. I've yet to see one on the street. It looks like
it's the replacement for the Chevy (formerly Geo) Metro (and before that,
Chevy Sprint), which was also a model shared with an older Suzuki Swift
(though I'm not sure if it was just rebadged, or a shared model with a
separate plant.)

> I think it's a remarketed version of Suzuki's (also part of GM) Swift model:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B312F48

No Swift down here any more, though other than the ugly sheetmetal on our
Suzuki Aerio it looks like it might be the very much the same car.

> Small cars are in general much more popular up here in Canada, probably
> mainly due to the wage disparity vs. the US. I don't know if either of those
> cars are even familiar to Americans.

The Aveo is too new, but the Metro was quite familiar -- primarily as a
bottom of the line rental for its last years. It was a popular first car for
very broke young people before the Korean makes really broke into the
market.

Suzuki hasn't ever been a big import name down here, and their best known
models recently have been their small SUVs rather than their cars. I think
the Swift had actually been off the market in the US for a couple of years
before the Aerio came back but it may have simply seemed like it.

> The German cars are also plagued by poor quality vs. their Japanese
> competition.
<...>
> You won't notice it too much when you drive them around warm climates like
> California, but take them out into a Canadian winter, you'll know quickly
> where the real quality lies.

Likely true enough; most of the Beemer-owners I know are pretty happy with
the quality. I don't know any Mercedes owners who bought new, but the older
ones (newest being late 80s I think) were pretty bulletproof.

> > Well, except for the Itanics, and there the competition still isn't
> > (yet) AMD, but rather what's left of the RISC chip market, right?
>
> I've said this in another thread on comp.arch, but I'll say it again. The
> Opterons only compete against the Xeons, not the Itanics.

*nod* makes sense.

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

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2004 1:06:04 AM

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

Can I ask an on topic off topic question?

Why do u guys alwiz end up talking about cars no matter what was the
original disagreement??? :p PpPppP

--
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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2004 1:06:05 AM

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

The little lost angel wrote:
> Can I ask an on topic off topic question?
>
> Why do u guys alwiz end up talking about cars no matter what was the
> original disagreement??? :p PpPppP
>

Its because someone always introduces a car analogy that
is supposedly to help others understand something vaguely
chips related, then everyone starts picking aparting the
analogy by focusing on the cars and forgetting about the
chips. I often killfill the thread as soon as the car
analogies start.
May 16, 2004 1:09:36 AM

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

"Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:l60gn1x3ij.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips tony <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> > I think the solution might be to create not-for-profit-like companies to
> > produce all the well-known and understood technologies for masses of
> > consumers at true commodity prices. How novel: commodities at commodity
> > prices! Buy only what you want and need rather than what is made
available
> > by money-only-driven companies.
>
> Hey, if you can compete in the market-place as a not for profit, go for
it.
> Or if you can make a profit, while adhering to such things.

How could I lose? My prices would be lower! Potentially MUCH lower.
"At cost" almost (have to cover risks).

Tony
May 16, 2004 1:30:56 AM

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

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:ma2ca0t55ddqajgdll5rvip2o994hedoen@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:29:30 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> >news:5ui8a05kcc5nadut7ncqcvp9f54v9goda9@4ax.com...
>
> >> 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.
> >
> >That's what they'd want you to believe anyway. I see mostly evidence that
> >that is not true and that producing under that model is always a long and
> >arduous process.
>
> As far as turning innovation into useful product in a timely manner
> efficiently, no country in the world has come close to the U.S. capitalist
> model... if that's what you mean by "producing".

That's not the point even if it is true. The point is: Can it be better? And
how
far from "optimum" are we given all the criteria rather than just one
contrivation
such as GNP. Or even further, are people KNOWINGLY suppressing "progress"
to make a buck? I think it happens all the time!

> >> 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.
> >
> >That WOULD be pushing technology forward! But for the practical uses
> >rather than just for the sake of technological "achievement". The quest
for
> >technology achievement and the marketing of MHz got us Prescott (another
> >fiasco?).
> >Argh.
> >
> >>The $100 PC of yesterday would be no faster today.
> >
> >Creating low cost and practical products doesn't mean stagnating
technology.
>
> Examples??

Why would _I_ be the one to give an example when _I'm_ the one who thinks
most companies DON'T operate in this manner? My point was that I think they
SHOULD and COULD if they wanted to.

> >>So while we've paid
> >> more for PCs over the years, we've gotten more as a result.
> >
> >Doubtful, since the control of ideas was localized in very few companies.
> >Who
> >knows what might have been with widespread development.
>
> You cannot produce the technology required unless you have the
> infrastructure and capital depth necessary for the implementation and
> marketing. The garage days were over the minute Jobs and Wozniak moved
> into a "building". Since then, umpteen large companies have tried to
> challenge to be the commodity microprocessor-based system supplier - most
> have failed.<shrug>

The scenario I had in mind is where there wasn't
the big company with ultra-marketing power etc to deal with because the
technology
available would have evolved differently for the better rather than one
company
taking advantage of whatever (marketing power, proprietary technology..).
The call was for "social responsibility" by the existing behemouths rather
than
for the garage-shop startups to turn the tables (not that I think that
couldn't easily
happen though too as the same ol strategy wears thin and becomes a bit long
in
the tooth for the consumer and areas of practical innovation are not seen or
ignored by the behemouths inside their thinking boxes). :) 

>
> >> 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!
> >
> >Without going off on that always controversial tangent, capitalism is
just
> >like one of those products that you're force to live with for lack of the
> >better/right thing. It's so far off the mark it's not funny (it's the
> >Windoze of
> >economic paradigms). It succeeds because most people don't think
> >about it, and hence are taken advantage of by it. (IMO).
>
> Again, different "systems" have been tried - they don't work.

That's starting that same old discussion that I want to avoid (especially
when
you presented the same irrelevant argument). You seem to be caught up
in the known and don't consider beyond or synthesize info (?).

> If you
> expect an apparatchik in some govt. owned or sponsored institution to not
> behave like a capitalist, you are not paying attention.

Well we agree then that the money system IS the problem. I guess "my case"
rests. :) 

Tony
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2004 1:59:38 AM

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

On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:35:11 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:55:44 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
>> wrote:
>> Hmm.. guess that must be one of those odd-ball Canadian-only cars.
>> Kinda makes sense I guess, the Civic is a VERY popular car in Canada
>> (most popular car for something like 10 years running), while I
>> understand it never quite reached the same level of popularity in the
>> US.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean; as smaller cars go, the Civic is about as
>popular as they come, short of the VW Beetle in it's day. I think very small
>cars (as the Civic used to be; it's it's gotten bigger each generation, I
>think it's merely "small" now) are not as popular in the US in general.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. I think it's largely an
economics thing and in particular connected to the cost of gas. Gas
has always been more expensive north of the border, so we tend to buy
somewhat more fuel-efficient cars. Not as much as Europe though, were
the very expensive gas has tended to lead to smaller and even more
fuel efficient cars. Perhaps the recent price increase in gas in the
States will tend to increase the popularity of smaller cars there?

>> Even with the current models you can often find fairly similar setups
>> in the Honda line-up though, albeit often with fairly important
>> differences. ie the TSX being a Honda Accord (European body) with a
>> beefed up version of the 2.4L N.A. Accord engine.
>
>The TSX is a notable exception, although I think it's a 2.3L not 2.4 -- in
>any case, it does seem remarkably like the 4cyl Accord.
>
>But last I looked (prior body to the new one this year) the TL and CL have
>their own (shared) 3.2L engines, vs. the 3.0L in the Accord.

Yup, those two use their own engines, but the 2.0L engine from the RSX
and the 2.4L engine from the TSX (just checked Acura's website,
definitely listed as 2.4L) have been reused, albeit sometimes in a
lower performance base version, in Honda marque cars. A quick look
through Honda's website does tend to suggest that the Acura TSX has
just a performance-tuned version of the same engine that is used in
the i4 Accord, the CR-V and the Element.

>> <gasp> An *automatic* transmission on an Acura RSX?!? What were you
>> thinking?!? :>
>
>I commute in heavy traffic; I'd love to have the manual if it was only for
>weekend driving, but Bay Area traffic being what it is it would drive me
>nuts in short order.

Hehe, I'm just giving you a hard time. Personally I think Bay Area
traffic would drive me nuts in short order regardless of whether I
were driving a manual or automatic or anything else! :>

>> The Civic Si (or SiR for Canadian readers) uses the exact same 2.0L
>> engine of the RSX, 160HP (though not the 200HP engine of the RSX Type
>> S). Of course, European parts are probably a different story
>> altogether.
>
>Ah, interesting. I though the Si had a more highly tuned 1.7L, not the same
>2.0L... never followed it, as once

Older models may have, these things change from time to time.

>> their name, but few others can. Even companies like BMW and Mercedes
>> can't go on name alone, especially with the likes of Lexus, Audi and
>> Infiniti eating away at their marketshare (at least in this neck of
>> the woods).
>
>Same here in the states, insofar as the market niches' overlap... and to
>some extent, I think they overlap by cost segment rather than size class.
>For example, I don't know many people who've shopped for 7-series BMWs, but
>I know quite a number who looked at both LS430s (errr, actually I think it
>was still LS400, then -- during the bubble) and 5-series BMWs, despite the
>5-series being a good bit smaller.

Yup, and that's probably the way it should be. Value for money.

>> Similar deal goes for most computer companies. People like Asus may
>> be able to charge a bit more for motherboards, but not by very much
>> when companies like MSI and Gigabyte will undercut their prices.
>
>Will undercut their price with (probably) equal quality; there's not nearly
>the same degree of competition with the bottom-feeder manufacturers.

Exactly. If you're going to charge a higher price you had better
offer better quality to back it up, because a name doesn't carry you
all that far most of the time.

>> Same goes for Intel vs. AMD. Intel can still command a bit of a price
>> advantage, but not much of one (especially not with the Opteron vs.
>> Xeon)...
>
>Well, except for the Itanics, and there the competition still isn't (yet)
>AMD, but rather what's left of the RISC chip market, right?

Sort of, though in a way the biggest competition to the Itanium is
Intel's own Xeon (and, by connection, AMD's Opteron) line. The
problem with the chip is that it's competing a market that has been
slowly but surely replaced by lower-end machines and chips.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2004 1:59:38 AM

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

On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:06:04 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:
>Can I ask an on topic off topic question?
>
>Why do u guys alwiz end up talking about cars no matter what was the
>original disagreement??? :p PpPppP

Because we are boys... err.. I mean, *men*! :>

Doesn't everything somehow revolve around cars, sports and beer? Ohh,
and women! :>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2004 2:41:49 AM

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips tony <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote:
> > tony <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > I think the solution might be to create not-for-profit-like companies
> > > to produce all the well-known and understood technologies for masses
> > > of consumers at true commodity prices. How novel: commodities at
> > > commodity prices! Buy only what you want and need rather than what is
> > > made available by money-only-driven companies.
> >
> > Hey, if you can compete in the market-place as a not for profit, go for
> > it. Or if you can make a profit, while adhering to such things.
>
> How could I lose? My prices would be lower! Potentially MUCH lower.
> "At cost" almost (have to cover risks).

And investment in future technology (R&D, etc...)

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

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2004 11:10:15 AM

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

On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:06:04 GMT, a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com
(The little lost angel) wrote:

>Can I ask an on topic off topic question?
>
>Why do u guys alwiz end up talking about cars no matter what was the
>original disagreement??? :p PpPppP

Here's one for you:
http://www.autointell-news.com/european_companies/volvo...

Whaddya think? Apparently women are split on opinions here: some think
"it's about time", while others are insulted at the suggestion that women
need special cars and will buy based on handbag space, pedals which
accomodate "heels" and living-room upholstery, etc.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2004 11:10:15 AM

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

On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:59:38 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:35:11 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
>wrote:

>>I'm not sure what you mean; as smaller cars go, the Civic is about as
>>popular as they come, short of the VW Beetle in it's day. I think very small
>>cars (as the Civic used to be; it's it's gotten bigger each generation, I
>>think it's merely "small" now) are not as popular in the US in general.
>
>That's pretty much what I was getting at. I think it's largely an
>economics thing and in particular connected to the cost of gas. Gas
>has always been more expensive north of the border, so we tend to buy
>somewhat more fuel-efficient cars. Not as much as Europe though, were
>the very expensive gas has tended to lead to smaller and even more
>fuel efficient cars. Perhaps the recent price increase in gas in the
>States will tend to increase the popularity of smaller cars there?

With any luck, the increasing price of gas -- regular in NJ is poised to
hit $2./gal; premium and plus have already passed it -- will lead to the
demise of the SUV. Well I can wish anyway.:-)

>>> Even with the current models you can often find fairly similar setups
>>> in the Honda line-up though, albeit often with fairly important
>>> differences. ie the TSX being a Honda Accord (European body) with a
>>> beefed up version of the 2.4L N.A. Accord engine.
>>
>>The TSX is a notable exception, although I think it's a 2.3L not 2.4 -- in
>>any case, it does seem remarkably like the 4cyl Accord.
>>
>>But last I looked (prior body to the new one this year) the TL and CL have
>>their own (shared) 3.2L engines, vs. the 3.0L in the Accord.
>
>Yup, those two use their own engines, but the 2.0L engine from the RSX
>and the 2.4L engine from the TSX (just checked Acura's website,
>definitely listed as 2.4L) have been reused, albeit sometimes in a
>lower performance base version, in Honda marque cars. A quick look
>through Honda's website does tend to suggest that the Acura TSX has
>just a performance-tuned version of the same engine that is used in
>the i4 Accord, the CR-V and the Element.

I believe the TSX has a different cylinder head with full VTEC on inlet
*and* exhaust camshafts as well as a 6-speed box. It is a K-series engine,
which is Honda's new 4-banger, but considerably modified over what's in the
regular Accord. The car is basically a relabeled European Accord Type-S
which has a smaller body than the U.S. Accords.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2004 11:10:15 AM

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

On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:30:56 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>
>"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
>news:ma2ca0t55ddqajgdll5rvip2o994hedoen@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:29:30 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:5ui8a05kcc5nadut7ncqcvp9f54v9goda9@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >That's what they'd want you to believe anyway. I see mostly evidence that
>> >that is not true and that producing under that model is always a long and
>> >arduous process.
>>
>> As far as turning innovation into useful product in a timely manner
>> efficiently, no country in the world has come close to the U.S. capitalist
>> model... if that's what you mean by "producing".
>
>That's not the point even if it is true. The point is: Can it be better? And
>how
>far from "optimum" are we given all the criteria rather than just one
>contrivation
>such as GNP. Or even further, are people KNOWINGLY suppressing "progress"
>to make a buck? I think it happens all the time!

You'd have to define optimum... differently from what is the current norm.
I'm not sure you'll find a lot of support for your personal idea of
optimum... whatever that is. While industry has been known to divert
innovation which is not in "its best interest", I seriously doubt that
there is any earth-shattering technology which has been allowed to fester
in oblivion. The laws of science are umm known and are exploited to their
err, optimum as far as possible in business right now.

>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >That WOULD be pushing technology forward! But for the practical uses
>> >rather than just for the sake of technological "achievement". The quest
>for
>> >technology achievement and the marketing of MHz got us Prescott (another
>> >fiasco?).
>> >Argh.
>> >
>> >>The $100 PC of yesterday would be no faster today.
>> >
>> >Creating low cost and practical products doesn't mean stagnating
>technology.
>>
>> Examples??
>
>Why would _I_ be the one to give an example when _I'm_ the one who thinks
>most companies DON'T operate in this manner? My point was that I think they
>SHOULD and COULD if they wanted to.

But you're the one that wants to change things. In general, innovation,
implementation and marketing are expensive operations and benefit from
economies of scale. If there is indeed some better way, there should be
examples of it... where it has succeeded or possibly failed due to corrupt
exogenous forces.

>> >>So while we've paid
>> >> more for PCs over the years, we've gotten more as a result.
>> >
>> >Doubtful, since the control of ideas was localized in very few companies.
>> >Who
>> >knows what might have been with widespread development.
>>
>> You cannot produce the technology required unless you have the
>> infrastructure and capital depth necessary for the implementation and
>> marketing. The garage days were over the minute Jobs and Wozniak moved
>> into a "building". Since then, umpteen large companies have tried to
>> challenge to be the commodity microprocessor-based system supplier - most
>> have failed.<shrug>
>
>The scenario I had in mind is where there wasn't
>the big company with ultra-marketing power etc to deal with because the
>technology
>available would have evolved differently for the better rather than one
>company
>taking advantage of whatever (marketing power, proprietary technology..).
>The call was for "social responsibility" by the existing behemouths rather
>than
>for the garage-shop startups to turn the tables (not that I think that
>couldn't easily
>happen though too as the same ol strategy wears thin and becomes a bit long
>in
>the tooth for the consumer and areas of practical innovation are not seen or
>ignored by the behemouths inside their thinking boxes). :) 

I've no idea what you mean by "social resposibility" nor even what kind of
product you're referring to... or if you're limiting things to the
electronics/computer industry. Things are the way they are for efficiency
within the scope of an innate desire for progress and economic stability.

>> >> 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!
>> >
>> >Without going off on that always controversial tangent, capitalism is
>just
>> >like one of those products that you're force to live with for lack of the
>> >better/right thing. It's so far off the mark it's not funny (it's the
>> >Windoze of
>> >economic paradigms). It succeeds because most people don't think
>> >about it, and hence are taken advantage of by it. (IMO).
>>
>> Again, different "systems" have been tried - they don't work.
>
>That's starting that same old discussion that I want to avoid (especially
>when
>you presented the same irrelevant argument). You seem to be caught up
>in the known and don't consider beyond or synthesize info (?).

What is it that you want? Alternative socio-economic systems *have* been
tried - no disputing that - and they *were* "unknown" before their
existence. We didn't get to where we are by some random permutation.

>> If you
>> expect an apparatchik in some govt. owned or sponsored institution to not
>> behave like a capitalist, you are not paying attention.
>
>Well we agree then that the money system IS the problem. I guess "my case"
>rests. :) 

Money is only the means. The bottom line is power and control - humans
strive for it.

BTW, please configure your newsreader so it doesn't mangle your posts -
extremely difficult to follow.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2004 4:33:46 PM

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

In article <ofbea0pek0cmq0kli6v8pjs1dc289q182v@4ax.com>,
fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:59:38 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:35:11 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
> >wrote:
>
> >>I'm not sure what you mean; as smaller cars go, the Civic is about as
> >>popular as they come, short of the VW Beetle in it's day. I think very small
> >>cars (as the Civic used to be; it's it's gotten bigger each generation, I
> >>think it's merely "small" now) are not as popular in the US in general.
> >
> >That's pretty much what I was getting at. I think it's largely an
> >economics thing and in particular connected to the cost of gas. Gas
> >has always been more expensive north of the border, so we tend to buy
> >somewhat more fuel-efficient cars. Not as much as Europe though, were
> >the very expensive gas has tended to lead to smaller and even more
> >fuel efficient cars. Perhaps the recent price increase in gas in the
> >States will tend to increase the popularity of smaller cars there?
>
> With any luck, the increasing price of gas -- regular in NJ is poised to
> hit $2./gal; premium and plus have already passed it -- will lead to the
> demise of the SUV. Well I can wish anyway.:-)

Nah, maybe it'll get all them poor-folk and welfare-moms in their
runty little cars off the street so I can have the *whole* road
for my Navigator! What's $2 gas compared to a $60K SUV! ;-)

Seriously, the rise in gas prices over the past year costs me
perhaps $500/yr. My cable bill is three times that (and is more
likely to be canceled than my vehicles are to be replaced with
econo-boxes). ...and don't even start with taxes. Gas is still
cheap, though cheaper is always better.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2004 4:36:47 PM

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

In article <gocea0ptpui1ei4q33e7na5gg36c6hglkf@4ax.com>,
fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:06:04 GMT, a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com
> (The little lost angel) wrote:
>
> >Can I ask an on topic off topic question?
> >
> >Why do u guys alwiz end up talking about cars no matter what was the
> >original disagreement??? :p PpPppP
>
> Here's one for you:
> http://www.autointell-news.com/european_companies/volvo...
>
> Whaddya think? Apparently women are split on opinions here: some think
> "it's about time", while others are insulted at the suggestion that women
> need special cars and will buy based on handbag space, pedals which
> accomodate "heels" and living-room upholstery, etc.

That thing looks like it'll *fly* (ref: bottom of the series of
car pictures). ;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2004 4:47:41 PM

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

In article <5ui8a05kcc5nadut7ncqcvp9f54v9goda9@4ax.com>,
hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca says...
> 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!

I don't think I've ever called you a commie before this thread.
....a francophile ...a Saddam-loving Euro-weenie wannabe ... a
north of the border (south of many) American-hating granola
crunching Cannuk, sure. ...but not a commie! ;-)

Though you've certainly espoused (exposed) some rather pink
pajamas in this thread.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2004 4:56:30 PM

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

In article <MPG.1b116517de0ffa7d98989d@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
krw@att.biz says...
> In article <5ui8a05kcc5nadut7ncqcvp9f54v9goda9@4ax.com>,
> hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca says...
>
> Though you've certainly espoused (exposed) some rather pink
> pajamas in this thread.

Whoops! I just realized that you aren't tony. I've only been
able to read a few posts at a time (busy painting and such) and
didn't realize there were *two* until you were going after each
other. I had to go back and sort out my confusion. Your PJs are
fine. ;-)
!