I believe its the case that there's a cost issue with gaining access to source code (and presumably the 500 hours of support), which means that things aren't level.
Access to the source code is an issue separate to access to the documents and the 500 hours of support. The EU has to approve any and all fees involved with liscensing the documentation, and thus far the EU has not issued an objection on that front.
I've not seen the documentation myself so I can't comment. So either it was good documentation, bad documentation, or something in the middle. If it was bad documenation, would it take longer to establish this? Maybe not. Maybe it would be obvious it was bad.
Perhaps. Given the lack of transparency and the EU's refusal to actually state what their issue is with the documentation (other than it is "unworkable"), and given that I have a hard time accepting that 12,000 pages of documentation on dozens of complex subjects can be fairly evaluated in a 48 hour period, I doubt it.
But at the end of the day, who's judging this?
A judge in a court of law serving the interests of justice.
Its not like the parties get to throw their evidence on the table and ask the public to take a vote!
As a member of the public, I get to decide how much weight I give the result. If Microsoft wins its appeal on this, would you feel better about it knowing that they really did do the right thing, or would you rather not know?
I can't understand how you can patent an idea like e-mail / txt through a wireless device..
They didn't patent such a broad idea. They did however patent stuff related to how RIM chose to deliver email (a push method instead of a poll) to its wireless device.
Yeah, but not without strings! So it doesn't exactly level the playing field.
Nothing is without "strings"; go into McDonalds and order a hamburger -- they'll tell you that you have to pay for it before they'll give you one.
What specifically do you object to?
I believe that the problem is that the documentation is in some way lacking! That being the case (and I agree, it is subjective), then the EU would be correct in declaring is insufficient, since thats the whole point!
Their "expert" took 48 hours to evaluate the 12,000 pages of documentation. Part of that evaluation included attempting to duplicate some portion of the specification.
Yes, that's right. They tried to write some massively complicated piece of code from scratch with no background or knowledge of the problem in 48 hours, failed, and then claimed the documentation was insufficient as a result.
Yeah, whatever. And... uh... its quite clear to me that, er, Microsoft wants to screw around in order to maintain their monopoly. Uh!
At least Microsoft's screwing is transparent. The comission's screwing happens behind closed doors.
You can run.Net 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 code side by side without breaking compatibility. Instead of dealing with the version hell associated with subtle changes in API behaviors or optimizations (see MFC*.dll), they fork everything when releasing a new version -- logic being you can't break anything if you don't change it.
"The WPA system checks ten categories of hardware: * Display Adapter * SCSI Adapter * IDE Adapter (effectively the motherboard) * Network Adapter (NIC) and its MAC Address * RAM Amount Range (i.e., 0-64mb, 64-128mb, etc.) * Processor Type * Processor Serial Number * Hard Drive Device * Hard Drive Volume Serial Number (VSN) * CD-ROM / CD-RW / DVD-ROM
It then calculates and records a number based on the first device of each type that was found during setup, and stores this number on your hard drive. Initially, this is sent to Microsoft in an automatic dial-up, together with the Product ID number derived from the 25-character unique Product Key used in setting up Windows.
If Service Pack 1 has been installed, the entire Product Key is also transmitted: This can then be checked against a list of known pirated keys
The hardware is checked each time Windows boots, to ensure that it is still on the same machine. Also, if you subsequently perform a complete format and reinstall of Windows, Microsoft's activation center will have to be contacted again because the information held on the machine itself (the number previously written to your hard drive) will have been wiped out by reformatting the hard drive. If your hardware is substantially the same, this will be done by an automated call without your needing to talk to anyone.
What does 'substantially the same' mean? WPA asks for 'votes' from each of these ten categories: 'Is the same device still around, or has there never been one?' Seven Yes votes means all is well -- and a NIC, present originally and not changed, counts for three yes votes! Minor cards, like sound cards, don't come into the mix at all. If you keep the motherboard, with the same amount of RAM and processor, and an always present cheap NIC (available for $10 or less), you can change everything else as much as you like.
If you change the device in any category, you have lost that Yes vote -- but will not lose it any more thereafter if you make changes in that category again. So, for example, you can install a new video display card every month for as long as you like.
Note that it appears that if you boot with a device disabled (disabled -- not removed), the device is not found in the enumeration -- so if, say, you disable a network connection which uses the NIC and then reboot, you may be missing its three votes and find that a new activation is needed."
[...] Another reason for objecting to the subpoena, Google says in its brief authored by Al Gidari and Lisa Delehunt at the law firm of Perkins Coie, is that government lawyers might share the information with the FBI for criminal prosecution--say, of people who typed in search terms like "marijuana cultivation" or "directv hacking." [...]
Even more than that, I see the DoJ using this information to go after "subversives", just like Nixon did.
Anonymous data will not provide a link to the people who entered those queries, nor would a phrase entered into a Google search be sufficient probable cause to have a court issue a subpoena in a criminal investigation.
Arguing that you are afraid that you may be served with a second subpoena isn't sufficient cause to quash the original subpoena: it does not further the arguement that the subpoena is an abuse of the court's process, it does not further the arguement that the information requested is not relevent to the stated purpose, it does not further the arguement that the requested information is already in the DoJ's posession.
Just ask anyone who's tried to fight RIAA's subpoena's in John Doe lawsuits with that arguement; on a slight tangent, it appears that the most successful way to defeat those suits as the RIAA files them today is on grounds of improper joining; the RIAA joins random people together in a single action without any evidence of collusion or interaction between the various parties.
That link is the declaration of Philip Stark in support of the DoJ's motion to compel Google to comply with the subpoena. In it he states why he believes the requested information is relevent and useful in the investigation he is assisting the DoJ with.
You don't need to post a link to Google's response; I *have* read it. However, I did not find any arguements that I thought were compelling or otherwise in their favor.
Right. All of their lawyers are stupid.
I didn't say they were stupid, rather that I don't understand their frame of reference. I don't understand how they think that they have a chance of winning this -- obviously they believe they have a shot, otherwise they wouldn't be putting up a fight in the first place.
No. What I am saying is that these "terrorist" (think Patriot Act) and "kiddie porn" laws shouldn't, but are routinely used by LEAs against NON-terrorists and NON-kiddie porners (against the spirit and intentions of the lawmakers) rather than real terrorists and real kiddie pornographers.
This is undoubtably true, however this sort of behavior isn't limited to just these sorts of laws. That behavior occurs to everything from jaywalking to changing lanes on the highway...
First of all, like I wrote, the DoJ is not entitled to Google's information. It's THEIRS to do with as they wish.
Read up on administrative subpoena's sometime; you don't appear to have a very clear understanding of the law governing them. You can argue that the government shouldn't have the ability to compel that information, but the fact of the matter is that they DO have the power to compel Google to produce that information.
Secondly, giving this "anonymous usage data" is a slippery slope and a fishing expedition.
What exactly is the DoJ "fishing" for exactly? Is there some information you believe that the DoJ is trying to obtain beyond anonymous usage data and statistics?
Go read Google's reply to the DoJ's request... it's pretty well spelled out in there.
That's the DoJ's reply to Google's reply. Though I would recommend reading it, as they express the same puzzlement over Google's objections as I do.
Google's arguements, in summarized form: 1. Google does not believe that the requested data is relevent to a defense of the COPA act being challenged before the Supreme court. 2. Google believes the request requires them to disclose identifying information about their users. 3. Google believes that the material requested is redundant. 4. Google believes that the total number of search requests they receive per day is a trade secret. 5. Google believes complying with the subpoena imposes and undue burden. 6. Google believes complying with the request implies that their database is a representative sample of content available on the internet, and they object to that implication. 7. Google believes the requested data can be obtained elsewhere, and thus shouldn't have to provide that data.
All of their arguements are contrived and nonsensical, and the only conclusion I can draw is that they've misinterpreted the information being requested by the subpoena. If this were Microsoft or Yahoo making these arguements you'd be asking what kind of crack they were smoking...
I won't bother responding to Google's arguements in form as the document you referenced does so much better than I could.
Shine a penlight laser up at a plane, you are a "terrorist." Have pictures of your 8 month old son taking a bath, you got "kiddie porn."
So you're saying that because some people are dumbasses that nothing should be done about real terrorists or kiddie pornographers? Would you feel better if we used the terms "freedom fighters" and "kiddie lovers"?
In addition to what the other posters have stated, enough information about various parts exists to make reasonable estimates on their cost to produce. Stuff like die size, target processor speed, manufacturing process, etc.
I think a $500 estimate for the samsung bd drive is probably fair (especially if you work backward from the typical retailer profit on the $1000msrp).
In common between the devices is about $15 worth of parts (various connectors and av stuff) and the decoder chip (cost unknown). The PS3 has a video chip in it, so I'm going to presume that both of these cost roughly the same to manufacture to make the remainer of the comparison easy.
Leftover you must account for the cpu, memory, network devices/plugs, various memory card readers, wireless related goo, bluetooth related goo, controller(s), and so on.
So, using your guesses, that would mean all of that would have to cost $100.
Sorry, I'm not seeing it.
Either the player cost somewhere around $300 to manufacture (doubtful), or the PS3 is going to cost more than $600 to manufacture.
Honestly, I'm still remembering the early $500-$600msrp rumours that started after some of Sony's comments at the last E3. That's looking less and less absurd as more information becomes available (assuming of course that Sony doesn't trim any features to cut costs).
The bluray players announced at CES will be retailing far above $350. The cheapest demo'd was around $1000.
The CPU price is high because the die size is large, the chip is clocked at a high frequency, and iit is being manufactuered using a 90nm process (in other words, think low yields until production snafus are ironed out).
It isn't like they're taking a bunch of cheapass mass produced parts off of the shelf and putting them together. All of the stuff they're using is new and bleeding edge. I don't care who you are, new and bleeding edge isn't cheap even when manufactured in-house.
The analyst was trying to determine how much it would cost Sony to manufacter the device, not what the MSRP would be.
I'm just sick of reading post from whiners who see something that isn't to their liking, proclaiming "those guys are idiots! can't they see how wrong they are! hrmph!". If you know better, put your money where your mouth is and add something intelligent from the conversation instead of bitching like a 2 year old about how some analyst kicked your puppy while trying determine which way the wind blows in the stock market.
Sure, let's go another round: I can't figure out how a request for anonymous usage data comprises their user's privacy. I also can't figure out how they figure censorship is better than kiddy porn. But hey, the courts will figure it out right?
1. How can you debunk something that was never asserted in the first place? 2. RTFA: "Overall, as the BOM analysis below indicates, we think that the PS3 will cost about $900 initially to manufacture. We note that shifting Cell to 64nm manufacturing should help, as will scaling Blu-Ray drive volume in other device." Seems to me they are accounting for manufacturing costs, not retail. Which would be nonsense anyway, there is no "retail" market for a Cell chip. The fact that the cell chip might someday be used in greater volumes in other products does not negate the fact that it there is currently only one manufacturer planning on putting it into a shipping product (ie: Sony) and that, compared to chip runs made by Intel & AMD, it will be initially produced in small quantities; the economics of scale can't kick in until you actually scale. Additionally, the fact that you think that the manufacturing cost would translate to a $5000 MSRP is ludicrous, and shows that you have no real perspective on how thin the margins on CPUs actually is. 3. See 2. 4. Apparently you can't read or have some sort of mential deficiency. Again, manufacturing cost != MSRP. 5. See 2. 6. AFAIK, the cost of the "chip" on $120 Nvidia budget cards is $58. A far cry from the "under $50" that you were claiming. That does not represent the cost of licensing/producing a state of the art chip. 7. And you can't apparently can't write down numbers with the decimal in the right place; who to believe... *sigh*
Overall, you aren't debunking. You're waving your hands around in the air making assertions without anything to back them up.
Of course our "opinions" differ, given that Google is entangling itself in legal proceedings about it. Personally, I would think they'd have to be getting some pretty piss poor legal counsil to challenge this in the first place...
1. Correct. The analyst, however, was attempting to determine how much the console would cost to manufacture, not sell. 2. The analyst isn't examining cost at retail. 3. See 2. 4. Agreed. Again, the analyst isn't attempting to estimate msrp. 5. See 2. 6. I have a hard time believing the margins on $500 video cards are that high. Linkage? 7. Analist seems to factor this into the equation.
Actually, it will be used in an active DoJ investigation. That investigation may serve some GOP agenda, but it is still within the bounds of serving an administrative subpoena.
The same right any other federal agency with administrative subpoena powers has. The DoJ subpoena must only be "reasonable"; in other words, it must be for knowledge not already in their possession, relevent to their investigation, and not be considered an abuse of the court's process.
The subpoena does not request personally identafiable information. And the information Google is freaking out over is the same kind of information they already share with advertising partners (their ad service tells you how many times the "query" you're buying an ad for has been hit recently).
The issue is the DoJ has no legal right, AFAICT, to compel Google to cough up this information.
The DoJ does, indeed, have the legal right to compel Google to produce this information. The DoJ has the power to issue administrative subpoenas (as do several hundred other federal agencies). The subpoena must merely be "reasonable", in that it must be sought for information not in the DoJ possession, be relevent to the DoJ's investigation, and would not be considered an abuse of the court's process. Check, check, and check.
A subpoena is an order compelling testimony or information from a 3rd party in a trial or investigation. Google refused the subpoena. The DoJ is now asking the court to enforce the subponea, which is their legal right.
Just like Bush is just using these 'NSA warrantless wiretaps' only against terrorists?
The subpoena is quite clear in describing the information requested from Google. It does not request any personally identafiable information.
But the DoJ is trying to compel Google to cough up this info without any legal basis behind it.
As stated before, the DoJ does have a legal basis for doing so.
My fear, just like Google's is the DoJ wants to use this info for stuff other than it claims:
The subpoena does not request any personally identafiable information.
You're guilty of the same thing. You don't state why their numbers are not believable, nor how you arrive at your $500 estimate, nor the reasoning for how it would be easy for them to cut the price by 40% quickly.
Context doesn't increase ambiguity, it reduces it. Without context, nothing would have meaning. Hell, the words I'm typing here mean nothing without the other words present in this sentence. Your arguement is nonsensical.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe its the case that there's a cost issue with gaining access to source code (and presumably the 500 hours of support), which means that things aren't level.
Access to the source code is an issue separate to access to the documents and the 500 hours of support. The EU has to approve any and all fees involved with liscensing the documentation, and thus far the EU has not issued an objection on that front.
I've not seen the documentation myself so I can't comment. So either it was good documentation, bad documentation, or something in the middle. If it was bad documenation, would it take longer to establish this? Maybe not. Maybe it would be obvious it was bad.
Perhaps. Given the lack of transparency and the EU's refusal to actually state what their issue is with the documentation (other than it is "unworkable"), and given that I have a hard time accepting that 12,000 pages of documentation on dozens of complex subjects can be fairly evaluated in a 48 hour period, I doubt it.
But at the end of the day, who's judging this?
A judge in a court of law serving the interests of justice.
Its not like the parties get to throw their evidence on the table and ask the public to take a vote!
As a member of the public, I get to decide how much weight I give the result. If Microsoft wins its appeal on this, would you feel better about it knowing that they really did do the right thing, or would you rather not know?
I can't understand how you can patent an idea like e-mail / txt through a wireless device..
They didn't patent such a broad idea. They did however patent stuff related to how RIM chose to deliver email (a push method instead of a poll) to its wireless device.
more expensive laser and presumably more accurate actuators for lens positioning
You do realize that those are the only parts in your DVD player that actually cost more than a trivial amount, right?
To who? Who does that help?
Anyone liscensing the documentation.
Yeah, but not without strings! So it doesn't exactly level the playing field.
Nothing is without "strings"; go into McDonalds and order a hamburger -- they'll tell you that you have to pay for it before they'll give you one.
What specifically do you object to?
I believe that the problem is that the documentation is in some way lacking! That being the case (and I agree, it is subjective), then the EU would be correct in declaring is insufficient, since thats the whole point!
Their "expert" took 48 hours to evaluate the 12,000 pages of documentation. Part of that evaluation included attempting to duplicate some portion of the specification.
Yes, that's right. They tried to write some massively complicated piece of code from scratch with no background or knowledge of the problem in 48 hours, failed, and then claimed the documentation was insufficient as a result.
Yeah, whatever. And... uh... its quite clear to me that, er, Microsoft wants to screw around in order to maintain their monopoly. Uh!
At least Microsoft's screwing is transparent. The comission's screwing happens behind closed doors.
You can run .Net 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 code side by side without breaking compatibility. Instead of dealing with the version hell associated with subtle changes in API behaviors or optimizations (see MFC*.dll), they fork everything when releasing a new version -- logic being you can't break anything if you don't change it.
This is not the same thing in the Comdex Gates demo, though the presentation is similar.
"The WPA system checks ten categories of hardware:
* Display Adapter
* SCSI Adapter
* IDE Adapter (effectively the motherboard)
* Network Adapter (NIC) and its MAC Address
* RAM Amount Range (i.e., 0-64mb, 64-128mb, etc.)
* Processor Type
* Processor Serial Number
* Hard Drive Device
* Hard Drive Volume Serial Number (VSN)
* CD-ROM / CD-RW / DVD-ROM
It then calculates and records a number based on the first device of each type that was found during setup, and stores this number on your hard drive. Initially, this is sent to Microsoft in an automatic dial-up, together with the Product ID number derived from the 25-character unique Product Key used in setting up Windows.
If Service Pack 1 has been installed, the entire Product Key is also transmitted: This can then be checked against a list of known pirated keys
The hardware is checked each time Windows boots, to ensure that it is still on the same machine. Also, if you subsequently perform a complete format and reinstall of Windows, Microsoft's activation center will have to be contacted again because the information held on the machine itself (the number previously written to your hard drive) will have been wiped out by reformatting the hard drive. If your hardware is substantially the same, this will be done by an automated call without your needing to talk to anyone.
What does 'substantially the same' mean? WPA asks for 'votes' from each of these ten categories: 'Is the same device still around, or has there never been one?' Seven Yes votes means all is well -- and a NIC, present originally and not changed, counts for three yes votes! Minor cards, like sound cards, don't come into the mix at all. If you keep the motherboard, with the same amount of RAM and processor, and an always present cheap NIC (available for $10 or less), you can change everything else as much as you like.
If you change the device in any category, you have lost that Yes vote -- but will not lose it any more thereafter if you make changes in that category again. So, for example, you can install a new video display card every month for as long as you like.
Note that it appears that if you boot with a device disabled (disabled -- not removed), the device is not found in the enumeration -- so if, say, you disable a network connection which uses the NIC and then reboot, you may be missing its three votes and find that a new activation is needed."
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.php
[...]
c om.com%2Fcnwk.1d%2Fpdf%2Fne%2F2006%2Fgoogle-doj%2F notice.of.stark.declaration.pdf&siteId=3&oId=2100- 1030-6041113&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex
Another reason for objecting to the subpoena, Google says in its brief authored by Al Gidari and Lisa Delehunt at the law firm of Perkins Coie, is that government lawyers might share the information with the FBI for criminal prosecution--say, of people who typed in search terms like "marijuana cultivation" or "directv hacking."
[...]
Even more than that, I see the DoJ using this information to go after "subversives", just like Nixon did.
Anonymous data will not provide a link to the people who entered those queries, nor would a phrase entered into a Google search be sufficient probable cause to have a court issue a subpoena in a criminal investigation.
Arguing that you are afraid that you may be served with a second subpoena isn't sufficient cause to quash the original subpoena: it does not further the arguement that the subpoena is an abuse of the court's process, it does not further the arguement that the information requested is not relevent to the stated purpose, it does not further the arguement that the requested information is already in the DoJ's posession.
Just ask anyone who's tried to fight RIAA's subpoena's in John Doe lawsuits with that arguement; on a slight tangent, it appears that the most successful way to defeat those suits as the RIAA files them today is on grounds of improper joining; the RIAA joins random people together in a single action without any evidence of collusion or interaction between the various parties.
http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.i.
That link is the declaration of Philip Stark in support of the DoJ's motion to compel Google to comply with the subpoena. In it he states why he believes the requested information is relevent and useful in the investigation he is assisting the DoJ with.
You don't need to post a link to Google's response; I *have* read it. However, I did not find any arguements that I thought were compelling or otherwise in their favor.
Right. All of their lawyers are stupid.
I didn't say they were stupid, rather that I don't understand their frame of reference. I don't understand how they think that they have a chance of winning this -- obviously they believe they have a shot, otherwise they wouldn't be putting up a fight in the first place.
No. What I am saying is that these "terrorist" (think Patriot Act) and "kiddie porn" laws shouldn't, but are routinely used by LEAs against NON-terrorists and NON-kiddie porners (against the spirit and intentions of the lawmakers) rather than real terrorists and real kiddie pornographers.
This is undoubtably true, however this sort of behavior isn't limited to just these sorts of laws. That behavior occurs to everything from jaywalking to changing lanes on the highway...
First of all, like I wrote, the DoJ is not entitled to Google's information. It's THEIRS to do with as they wish.
Read up on administrative subpoena's sometime; you don't appear to have a very clear understanding of the law governing them. You can argue that the government shouldn't have the ability to compel that information, but the fact of the matter is that they DO have the power to compel Google to produce that information.
Secondly, giving this "anonymous usage data" is a slippery slope and a fishing expedition.
What exactly is the DoJ "fishing" for exactly? Is there some information you believe that the DoJ is trying to obtain beyond anonymous usage data and statistics?
Go read Google's reply to the DoJ's request... it's pretty well spelled out in there.
That's the DoJ's reply to Google's reply. Though I would recommend reading it, as they express the same puzzlement over Google's objections as I do.
Google's arguements, in summarized form:
1. Google does not believe that the requested data is relevent to a defense of the COPA act being challenged before the Supreme court.
2. Google believes the request requires them to disclose identifying information about their users.
3. Google believes that the material requested is redundant.
4. Google believes that the total number of search requests they receive per day is a trade secret.
5. Google believes complying with the subpoena imposes and undue burden.
6. Google believes complying with the request implies that their database is a representative sample of content available on the internet, and they object to that implication.
7. Google believes the requested data can be obtained elsewhere, and thus shouldn't have to provide that data.
All of their arguements are contrived and nonsensical, and the only conclusion I can draw is that they've misinterpreted the information being requested by the subpoena. If this were Microsoft or Yahoo making these arguements you'd be asking what kind of crack they were smoking
I won't bother responding to Google's arguements in form as the document you referenced does so much better than I could.
Shine a penlight laser up at a plane, you are a "terrorist." Have pictures of your 8 month old son taking a bath, you got "kiddie porn."
So you're saying that because some people are dumbasses that nothing should be done about real terrorists or kiddie pornographers? Would you feel better if we used the terms "freedom fighters" and "kiddie lovers"?
Can't read? RETAIL PRICE. I specified end-user retail price hwen buying as a customer.
Are you daft!?! That's what MSRP is! (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price)
Notice the fact that Sony half owns RSX.
No, they don't. Sony liscensed the right to manufacture the RSX from Nvidia. Sony owns none of the chip's IP.
And I wrote decimals in a wrong place.... where?
Your numbers are off by a factor of 10. You tell me.
In addition to what the other posters have stated, enough information about various parts exists to make reasonable estimates on their cost to produce. Stuff like die size, target processor speed, manufacturing process, etc.
I think a $500 estimate for the samsung bd drive is probably fair (especially if you work backward from the typical retailer profit on the $1000msrp).
In common between the devices is about $15 worth of parts (various connectors and av stuff) and the decoder chip (cost unknown). The PS3 has a video chip in it, so I'm going to presume that both of these cost roughly the same to manufacture to make the remainer of the comparison easy.
Leftover you must account for the cpu, memory, network devices/plugs, various memory card readers, wireless related goo, bluetooth related goo, controller(s), and so on.
So, using your guesses, that would mean all of that would have to cost $100.
Sorry, I'm not seeing it.
Either the player cost somewhere around $300 to manufacture (doubtful), or the PS3 is going to cost more than $600 to manufacture.
Honestly, I'm still remembering the early $500-$600msrp rumours that started after some of Sony's comments at the last E3. That's looking less and less absurd as more information becomes available (assuming of course that Sony doesn't trim any features to cut costs).
The bluray players announced at CES will be retailing far above $350. The cheapest demo'd was around $1000.
The CPU price is high because the die size is large, the chip is clocked at a high frequency, and iit is being manufactuered using a 90nm process (in other words, think low yields until production snafus are ironed out).
It will cost Sony *nothing* like that.
So what will it cost? $2 and a shoe string?
It isn't like they're taking a bunch of cheapass mass produced parts off of the shelf and putting them together. All of the stuff they're using is new and bleeding edge. I don't care who you are, new and bleeding edge isn't cheap even when manufactured in-house.
The analyst was trying to determine how much it would cost Sony to manufacter the device, not what the MSRP would be.
I'm just sick of reading post from whiners who see something that isn't to their liking, proclaiming "those guys are idiots! can't they see how wrong they are! hrmph!". If you know better, put your money where your mouth is and add something intelligent from the conversation instead of bitching like a 2 year old about how some analyst kicked your puppy while trying determine which way the wind blows in the stock market.
Sure, let's go another round: I can't figure out how a request for anonymous usage data comprises their user's privacy. I also can't figure out how they figure censorship is better than kiddy porn. But hey, the courts will figure it out right?
1. How can you debunk something that was never asserted in the first place? ... *sigh*
2. RTFA: "Overall, as the BOM analysis below indicates, we think that the PS3 will cost about $900 initially to manufacture. We note that shifting Cell to 64nm manufacturing should help, as will scaling Blu-Ray drive volume in other device." Seems to me they are accounting for manufacturing costs, not retail. Which would be nonsense anyway, there is no "retail" market for a Cell chip. The fact that the cell chip might someday be used in greater volumes in other products does not negate the fact that it there is currently only one manufacturer planning on putting it into a shipping product (ie: Sony) and that, compared to chip runs made by Intel & AMD, it will be initially produced in small quantities; the economics of scale can't kick in until you actually scale. Additionally, the fact that you think that the manufacturing cost would translate to a $5000 MSRP is ludicrous, and shows that you have no real perspective on how thin the margins on CPUs actually is.
3. See 2.
4. Apparently you can't read or have some sort of mential deficiency. Again, manufacturing cost != MSRP.
5. See 2.
6. AFAIK, the cost of the "chip" on $120 Nvidia budget cards is $58. A far cry from the "under $50" that you were claiming. That does not represent the cost of licensing/producing a state of the art chip.
7. And you can't apparently can't write down numbers with the decimal in the right place; who to believe
Overall, you aren't debunking. You're waving your hands around in the air making assertions without anything to back them up.
Of course our "opinions" differ, given that Google is entangling itself in legal proceedings about it. Personally, I would think they'd have to be getting some pretty piss poor legal counsil to challenge this in the first place...
1. Correct. The analyst, however, was attempting to determine how much the console would cost to manufacture, not sell.
2. The analyst isn't examining cost at retail.
3. See 2.
4. Agreed. Again, the analyst isn't attempting to estimate msrp.
5. See 2.
6. I have a hard time believing the margins on $500 video cards are that high. Linkage?
7. Analist seems to factor this into the equation.
Actually, it will be used in an active DoJ investigation. That investigation may serve some GOP agenda, but it is still within the bounds of serving an administrative subpoena.
And what right do they have to this data?
The same right any other federal agency with administrative subpoena powers has. The DoJ subpoena must only be "reasonable"; in other words, it must be for knowledge not already in their possession, relevent to their investigation, and not be considered an abuse of the court's process.
The subpoena does not request personally identafiable information. And the information Google is freaking out over is the same kind of information they already share with advertising partners (their ad service tells you how many times the "query" you're buying an ad for has been hit recently).
The issue is the DoJ has no legal right, AFAICT, to compel Google to cough up this information.
The DoJ does, indeed, have the legal right to compel Google to produce this information. The DoJ has the power to issue administrative subpoenas (as do several hundred other federal agencies). The subpoena must merely be "reasonable", in that it must be sought for information not in the DoJ possession, be relevent to the DoJ's investigation, and would not be considered an abuse of the court's process. Check, check, and check.
A subpoena is an order compelling testimony or information from a 3rd party in a trial or investigation. Google refused the subpoena. The DoJ is now asking the court to enforce the subponea, which is their legal right.
Just like Bush is just using these 'NSA warrantless wiretaps' only against terrorists?
The subpoena is quite clear in describing the information requested from Google. It does not request any personally identafiable information.
But the DoJ is trying to compel Google to cough up this info without any legal basis behind it.
As stated before, the DoJ does have a legal basis for doing so.
My fear, just like Google's is the DoJ wants to use this info for stuff other than it claims:
The subpoena does not request any personally identafiable information.
You're guilty of the same thing. You don't state why their numbers are not believable, nor how you arrive at your $500 estimate, nor the reasoning for how it would be easy for them to cut the price by 40% quickly.
When you're using more memory than is available on the system, does the distinction really matter?
Context doesn't increase ambiguity, it reduces it. Without context, nothing would have meaning. Hell, the words I'm typing here mean nothing without the other words present in this sentence. Your arguement is nonsensical.