> Except when the company buying the parts == the company making the parts.
Well, but what does happen in this case? Either the demand remains unmet, or else the company has to do whatever it can to increase supply, which typically involves more expenditure.
Not necessarily true. Determination of dumping is based upon "fair market value". Fair market value is complex and can be computed many ways. One possible way to compute fair market value is to look at the costs of delivering a product to market (production costs included).
Because fair market value is such a hazy term based on many variables, lots of lawyers have jobs.
For the PS2, Sony initially partnered with Toshiba to produce the main chips. They formed a joint venture called Oita TS Semiconductor Corp. Only in 2001 did they get their own fab producing chips at decent capacity (see http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20011025S0066).
It's arguable whether or not having your own fabs is a better business model. Fabs are horrendously expensive investments, and upgrading them to newer technologies (maintenance) is also extremely expensive.
If you are in a position where you can be assured of selling millions and millions of a product over many years, a fab may be a reasonable investment. If there's a possibility of demand slacking off, it's far better to outsource your chip production, as idle fab lines are a huge cost to bear.
> The dumping laws only care whether the product is sold at a drastically lower price in one country versus another.
To be "dumping", a product must be sold in a foreign market at a price that is below the "fair market value" of that product.
Determination of "fair market value" can be difficult, however. One basis for comparison is often the market price of the item in its home market. Sometimes fair market value is determined by the manufacturing costs (and other costs such as shipping). Currency valuation differences and government subsidies can also play a big role.
In any case, I don't think that traditional dumping laws apply to goods sold in their home market. There may be other fair commerce laws that apply in that case.
Of course it's easiest just to believe that any information counter to your beliefs is wrong. To question your beliefs would be much more work!
Microprocessor Report didn't just spring up out of nowhere and come up with this cost model. They've been analyzing CPUs for years, and they have a track record.
Furthermore, even if you totally disbelieve Microprocessor Report, you yourself can find out data about processors produced in early 1999. Remember that the Sony chips were larger than most all of them.
This is false, but I doubt you'll listen to reason.
When the PS2 came out, the CPU and graphics chip were manufactured using a 0.25 micron process. The chips were 240 mm^2 and 279 mm^2 respectively. Microprocessor Report, a specialized publication that studies VLSI electronics very intensely, used a cost model that suggested the PS2 CPU costs $100 to manufacture at these specifications. Here's a quote:
"The EE and GS die sizes are frightening; vendors of PC processors break out in a cold sweat at the mere thought of a die larger than about 180 mm^2."
So if you can figure out how to take more than $200 worth of chips, add that to the rest of what's in a PS2 package, and sell it at a profit for $300, I'm sure Sony would like to hire you.
Now, eventually of course Sony did move the chips to a.18 micron process, and eventually they did combine both chips onto a single die. These and many other cost-savings moves I'm sure have brought the PS2 to a point where they can sell it at a profit.
But anyone who just looks at the current picture and assumes it's been that way all along is an idiot.
Reflective displays can use front-lighting instead of backlighting. Basically, light shines in through the side of an etched transmissive medium (glass or plastic), placed on top of the display, that directs the light downward.
Probably they can (also) get gradiations the same way other digital light technologies do: pulse-width modulation. Turn the elements on and off rapidly, and vary the on:off time ratio.
The TI micro-mirror-based video projectors also have tiny metal parts that bend back and forth very rapidly all the time. (These are also called "DLPs" for digital-light projectors.)
Each pixel color component is basically a tiny metal mirror, with two opposite corners extended outwards to form mounting points. Metal plates under the two other corners can be charged up to force the mirror to pivot.
The thing is, the mounting points are just thin solid metal that bends. There's no fancy joints there.
And since the pivot control is binary, you have to use pulse-width modulation techniques to get various color intensities out of it. This means the mirrors need to pivot full extent very rapidly.
Sometimes a signal device is multiplexed for displaying all 3 primary colors, so it's working 3 times as fast.
Yet somehow, I've not heard about lots of failures of these device. Usually the light bulbs go out first.
Like the other poster said, this is already being done. I've seen a demo at Siggraph a few years back (the actual display volume was tiny, on the order of ~1.5" cubed).
The problem with this method is the same with most 3D displays: everything is transparent, so it's hard to visualize stuff with multiple layers or complex 3D structure.
I can't envision any way to create a true holodeck, since not only do you want to control, for every point in space, the frequency and direction of the emitted photons, but also how far the photons go before being absorbed. (Kind of like the light saber problem, I suppose.)
So far the only good way to do this in 3D is to set up actual lights and objects. Very realistic, but also difficult to set up and animate, and usually very costly as well.
The current business models for all consoles sold these days is to develop a product which, at the technology available at launch time, will likely sell at a loss, but through cost reductions made possible by advancing technology, will end up being sold at a profit.
Console makers _must_ push the technology as far as possible when designing a new console, because by the time it is released, it is nearly obsolete (in a sense). But using the latest technology costs a lot of money. Yet as time goes by, that same technology can be cost reduced a lot (thanks to Moore's "Law").
People often seem to forget the important role of advancing technology when talking about "consoles sold at a loss".
Nintendo is only different in that Sony and Microsoft have been much more daring than Nintendo in terms of how much initial loss they will bear on the consoles before profitibility comes about.
Sounds like the same type of connector as used on certain European car radios (such as Blaupunkt) for the speaker connectors. Try asking at a car audio installation place.
Next thing you know, the RIAA will sue the ocean for carrying ships full of counterfeit merchandise to our shores. It makes about as much sense as what they're trying to do now.
Re:Unfortunately hard to get excited about
on
IMSAI Series Two
·
· Score: 1
I always wanted the Processor Technology Sol. The blue metal integrated case & keyboard, the wood-grain sides. This thing had style when everything else was just a box. Of course, it only held a few S100 slots, and the horizontal mounting could lead to heat problems. But it looked cool!
So I distinctly remember a black box that was being sold (perhaps through DAK) that was called a Demon Dialer. This was a box that would do automatic redial for you. You plugged it inline between your phone and your phone line and accessed it using touch tones.
So which came first, this (mass market, consumer) box, the program, or some phreak version of this box?
But you seemed to have missed the point that Cg and OpenGL 2.0 (shading language) are trying to do the same thing. Why try creating yet another new standard? How about just compiling OpenGL 2.0 shader programs into DirectX?
So did I. I was sitting in the front section. I saw pixels. Big pixels. It was noticeable anywhere there were high-contrast edges (especially during titles and credits). I think digital needs higher resolution before it takes the place of film.
Slashdot Mirror
> Except when the company buying the parts == the company making the parts.
Well, but what does happen in this case? Either the demand remains unmet, or else the company has to do whatever it can to increase supply, which typically involves more expenditure.
Now if you read the Gord article carefully, you'll find flaws in his reasoning that destroy all of his so-called proof.
Yes, but his reasoning is also based upon very faulty assumptions.
Read it carefully and see if you can find them.
Actually, not all information posted on the net is true. Do your own research, and find out why Gord is wrong.
> Sony NEVER EVER sold their consoles at a loss.
Flat out wrong.
Sony's first PS2's costs much more than $300 to make. Sony's current PS'2 are sold at a profit.
It's not a static picture, folks. Do some research rather than just stating your beliefs.
If you want more facts, look at my other posts here.
> IT HAS ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS OF MANUFACTURING
Not necessarily true. Determination of dumping is based upon "fair market value". Fair market value is complex and can be computed many ways. One possible way to compute fair market value is to look at the costs of delivering a product to market (production costs included).
Because fair market value is such a hazy term based on many variables, lots of lawyers have jobs.
For the PS2, Sony initially partnered with Toshiba to produce the main chips. They formed a joint venture called Oita TS Semiconductor Corp. Only in 2001 did they get their own fab producing chips at decent capacity (see http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20011025S0066).
It's arguable whether or not having your own fabs is a better business model. Fabs are horrendously expensive investments, and upgrading them to newer technologies (maintenance) is also extremely expensive.
If you are in a position where you can be assured of selling millions and millions of a product over many years, a fab may be a reasonable investment. If there's a possibility of demand slacking off, it's far better to outsource your chip production, as idle fab lines are a huge cost to bear.
> The dumping laws only care whether the product is sold at a drastically lower price in one country versus another.
To be "dumping", a product must be sold in a foreign market at a price that is below the "fair market value" of that product.
Determination of "fair market value" can be difficult, however. One basis for comparison is often the market price of the item in its home market. Sometimes fair market value is determined by the manufacturing costs (and other costs such as shipping). Currency valuation differences and government subsidies can also play a big role.
In any case, I don't think that traditional dumping laws apply to goods sold in their home market. There may be other fair commerce laws that apply in that case.
Of course it's easiest just to believe that any information counter to your beliefs is wrong. To question your beliefs would be much more work!
Microprocessor Report didn't just spring up out of nowhere and come up with this cost model. They've been analyzing CPUs for years, and they have a track record.
Furthermore, even if you totally disbelieve Microprocessor Report, you yourself can find out data about processors produced in early 1999. Remember that the Sony chips were larger than most all of them.
> No, Sony does not and never has sold at a loss.
.18 micron process, and eventually they did combine both chips onto a single die. These and many other cost-savings moves I'm sure have brought the PS2 to a point where they can sell it at a profit.
This is false, but I doubt you'll listen to reason.
When the PS2 came out, the CPU and graphics chip were manufactured using a 0.25 micron process. The chips were 240 mm^2 and 279 mm^2 respectively. Microprocessor Report, a specialized publication that studies VLSI electronics very intensely, used a cost model that suggested the PS2 CPU costs $100 to manufacture at these specifications. Here's a quote:
"The EE and GS die sizes are frightening; vendors of PC processors break out in a cold sweat at the mere thought of a die larger than about 180 mm^2."
So if you can figure out how to take more than $200 worth of chips, add that to the rest of what's in a PS2 package, and sell it at a profit for $300, I'm sure Sony would like to hire you.
Now, eventually of course Sony did move the chips to a
But anyone who just looks at the current picture and assumes it's been that way all along is an idiot.
The movement in transistors is electrons, not atoms or molecules. So it's not a valid comparison.
Reflective displays can use front-lighting instead of backlighting. Basically, light shines in through the side of an etched transmissive medium (glass or plastic), placed on top of the display, that directs the light downward.
Probably they can (also) get gradiations the same way other digital light technologies do: pulse-width modulation. Turn the elements on and off rapidly, and vary the on:off time ratio.
Of course, this tosses the power savings away...
If people could drive their blenders, road rage would be taken to a whole new level...
The TI micro-mirror-based video projectors also have tiny metal parts that bend back and forth very rapidly all the time. (These are also called "DLPs" for digital-light projectors.)
Each pixel color component is basically a tiny metal mirror, with two opposite corners extended outwards to form mounting points. Metal plates under the two other corners can be charged up to force the mirror to pivot.
The thing is, the mounting points are just thin solid metal that bends. There's no fancy joints there.
And since the pivot control is binary, you have to use pulse-width modulation techniques to get various color intensities out of it. This means the mirrors need to pivot full extent very rapidly.
Sometimes a signal device is multiplexed for displaying all 3 primary colors, so it's working 3 times as fast.
Yet somehow, I've not heard about lots of failures of these device. Usually the light bulbs go out first.
I'll second that. There's definitely something extra sexy about a charming woman who is both interested in and understands how stuff works.
Add to that a foreign accent and she's a knockout.
Like the other poster said, this is already being done. I've seen a demo at Siggraph a few years back (the actual display volume was tiny, on the order of ~1.5" cubed).
The problem with this method is the same with most 3D displays: everything is transparent, so it's hard to visualize stuff with multiple layers or complex 3D structure.
I can't envision any way to create a true holodeck, since not only do you want to control, for every point in space, the frequency and direction of the emitted photons, but also how far the photons go before being absorbed. (Kind of like the light saber problem, I suppose.)
So far the only good way to do this in 3D is to set up actual lights and objects. Very realistic, but also difficult to set up and animate, and usually very costly as well.
The current business models for all consoles sold these days is to develop a product which, at the technology available at launch time, will likely sell at a loss, but through cost reductions made possible by advancing technology, will end up being sold at a profit.
Console makers _must_ push the technology as far as possible when designing a new console, because by the time it is released, it is nearly obsolete (in a sense). But using the latest technology costs a lot of money. Yet as time goes by, that same technology can be cost reduced a lot (thanks to Moore's "Law").
People often seem to forget the important role of advancing technology when talking about "consoles sold at a loss".
Nintendo is only different in that Sony and Microsoft have been much more daring than Nintendo in terms of how much initial loss they will bear on the consoles before profitibility comes about.
Sounds like the same type of connector as used on certain European car radios (such as Blaupunkt) for the speaker connectors. Try asking at a car audio installation place.
Next thing you know, the RIAA will sue the ocean for carrying ships full of counterfeit merchandise to our shores. It makes about as much sense as what they're trying to do now.
I always wanted the Processor Technology Sol. The blue metal integrated case & keyboard, the wood-grain sides. This thing had style when everything else was just a box. Of course, it only held a few S100 slots, and the horizontal mounting could lead to heat problems. But it looked cool!
So I distinctly remember a black box that was being sold (perhaps through DAK) that was called a Demon Dialer. This was a box that would do automatic redial for you. You plugged it inline between your phone and your phone line and accessed it using touch tones.
So which came first, this (mass market, consumer) box, the program, or some phreak version of this box?
But you seemed to have missed the point that Cg and OpenGL 2.0 (shading language) are trying to do the same thing. Why try creating yet another new standard? How about just compiling OpenGL 2.0 shader programs into DirectX?
I said front section, not front row. As in the first half of the theater, not the second half. Probably about 8-10 rows back from the very front.
Even so, it did require some neck motion to read the opening text just as it appeared (you know, that yellow text that recedes into infinity).
So did I. I was sitting in the front section. I saw pixels. Big pixels. It was noticeable anywhere there were high-contrast edges (especially during titles and credits). I think digital needs higher resolution before it takes the place of film.