Intel follows the margin

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 04:18:15 GMT, "tony"
wrote:


"David Schwartz" wrote in message
...

"tony" wrote in message
y.com...

Actually, I was saying that a non-for-profit (or akin to) would have moved
us along faster and more appropriately. For-profits don't innovate (they
can't)
unless pressured. Free, inspired, creative minds OTOH do that naturally.
But you
won't find much of that in Behemoth. All the brain power in Behemoth goes
into
how to make things proprietary. If profit were not the primary motive,
focus
would
be on building the right thing instead. But I've said this enough times
now, so
let's
just drop it.

For profits do whatever they think makes them the most profit. You
either have to argue that they're too stupid to figure out what would make
profit or argue that would they 'should' be doing isn't profitable. The
pressure that forces for-profit companies to innovate is that their rewards
are based upon how much profit they make.

The problem with that theory is that innovation can't be forced. So in the
long spans of time without any lightbulbs going off, they just milk the cash
cow, and introduce "new and improved" at the most profitable rate, and
make things proprietary to lock into their brand etc. The tricks are numerous.
But that's what you get with a crappy money-based system. Argh.

So why are you embarrassed to tell us what your non-money based system is
called and how it works. Since I do not see anything else and you did not
answer previously, I'll ask again: is it Shariah, or Scientology?... or
some other cult?

As for innovation, the PC industry has been a principal driving force of
one of the most innovative periods in human existence and for establishing
freely available (i.e. subscription-based == near-free $$) industry,
non-proprietary, standards. It's also my belief that the PC+communications
(read Internet for the latter if you like) was one of the main factors in
the fall of oppressive governments and the liberation of millions of
people... a work still in progress.

The "lightbulbs" are going off all the time - in a free system there's
bound to be a few hiccups... long-term solutions are not always obvious so
you'll get short-term burps, reversals and redirections. Competition will
sometimes provoke such diversions but when it does, there's often an
alternative product which err, was the cause of the detour in the first
place.

OK, I'm all catharted now I think.

You're all something but nobody can figure out what it is.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 04:18:15 GMT, "tony"
wrote:


"David Schwartz" wrote in message
...

"tony" wrote in message
y.com...

Actually, I was saying that a non-for-profit (or akin to)
would have moved us along faster and more appropriately.
For-profits don't innovate (they can't)
unless pressured. Free, inspired, creative minds OTOH do that
naturally. But you
won't find much of that in Behemoth. All the brain power in
Behemoth goes into
how to make things proprietary. If profit were not the primary
motive, focus
would
be on building the right thing instead. But I've said this
enough times now, so
let's
just drop it.

For profits do whatever they think makes them the most
profit. You
either have to argue that they're too stupid to figure out what
would make profit or argue that would they 'should' be doing
isn't profitable. The pressure that forces for-profit companies
to innovate is that their rewards are based upon how much profit
they make.

The problem with that theory is that innovation can't be forced.
So in the long spans of time without any lightbulbs going off,
they just milk the cash cow, and introduce "new and improved" at
the most profitable rate, and make things proprietary to lock into
their brand etc. The tricks are numerous. But that's what you get
with a crappy money-based system. Argh.

So why are you embarrassed to tell us what your non-money based
system is
called and how it works. Since I do not see anything else and you
did not
answer previously, I'll ask again: is it Shariah, or
Scientology?... or some other cult?

^money = ^Scientology ;modus tolens ;-)

As for innovation, the PC industry has been a principal driving
force of one of the most innovative periods in human existence and
for establishing freely available (i.e. subscription-based ==
near-free $$) industry,
non-proprietary, standards. It's also my belief that the
PC+communications (read Internet for the latter if you like) was
one of the main factors in the fall of oppressive governments and
the liberation of millions of people... a work still in progress.

I wonder what "tony" has in mind as an example of a more innovative,
faster-paced industry than the computer industry. Of course evil
money has nothing to do with that.

The "lightbulbs" are going off all the time - in a free system
there's bound to be a few hiccups... long-term solutions are not
always obvious so
you'll get short-term burps, reversals and redirections.

....because all the answers aren't spelled out in the stars, we mere
mortals will make mistakes finding our way to true inner peace, and
a kick-ass processor. ;-)

Competition will sometimes provoke such diversions but when it
does, there's often an alternative product which err, was the
cause of the detour in the first place.

OK, I'm all catharted now I think.

You're all something but nobody can figure out what it is.

But it sure is fun trying to kick whatever "it is" out of him. ;-)

--
Keith

K Williams wrote:

snip


Evolution is *far* more powerful than revolution.


There was a period (pre-end-of-history, of course) where the
revolutionary approach of the US aerospace industry was compared
unfavorably to the more evolutionary approach of the Soviet aerospace
industry. US entries to high-stakes military aircraft design
competitions started with a blank piece of paper and ended by promising
the world. Fighter aircraft were evolving to a level of cost and
complexity where military planners began to joke about an Air Force with
one fighter. The Soviets didn't have the money for that sort of
foolishness, and they did tend to get a great deal done with smaller
resources. I'll leave it for afficionados of aerial combat to argue
over which cockpit they would rather have occupied in a confrontation.

Then there is the tale of Tadashi Sasaki at Sharp, or how Japan missed
the big one:

quote

Most of the engineers suggested an incremental increase in the overall
functionality of the calculators by taking advantage of the increasing
scale of integration to continue to put more on each chip.
Sasaki rejected this idea as simply the kind of conservative thinking
that is ingrained by the Japanese university system--to make
incremental extensions rather than technological leaps.

snip

Sasaki made his decision on the future research direction in a
customary Japanese way, on the basis of the majority opinion,
which he later acknowledged to be a mistake. He did arrange for the
company's shops to experiment with a program he called
Components on Silicon, but the major thrust of research was
along the lines of the majority opinion, without any particular
effort to build a complete central processing unit on a chip.

/quote

Sasaki took his requirement and his ideas for a calculator chip to
Intel, and the result was the 4004. The quote is from IEEE Annals of
the History of Computing, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1997, "The Intel 4004
Microprocessor: What Constituted Invention?" by William Aspray.

RM