Re: Oh why did Apple dump IBM....

Steve Firth <%steve%@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Steve Firth <%steve%@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Steve Firth <%steve%@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

.... because Apple wouldn't pay for it to be developed.

Do you pay Apple to develop a new computer for you up front before you
have even seen what that computer will be like?

If I want a firm to develop a product that I and I alone will buy I
would expect to have to pay for the development - it's common enough
practice in engineering circles.

That's complete and utter ***.

My dad

And at that point you may as well give up. Because not only is my dad
bigger than your dad, but I have worked on major engineering projects
around the coiuntry including the establishment of contracts between
supplier and end user.

So what? The point is not about when that kind of contract isn't the
right thing to do, but when it *is* the right thing to do.

used to make prototypes for a chap who made his living that way -
okay, he (the designer; my dad basically just got a hourly wage for his
efforts and don't ask if he used the tooling in the firm's workshop,
okay?) didn't normally get an advance, but sometimes he did and the
basic deal was `The cost of the product for this single contract pays
for development and production'. Sometimes he got paid for just
delivering the design and a production prototype. Paying for design
work is a normal thing to do when you're going to be the only customer
for the design.

The arrangement between an artisan and his client is different to that
between a supplier of general purpose microprocessors and their clients.

We're not talking about an artisan: we're talking about a rather clever
inventor as it happens, who gave up working for IBM so he could take out
his own patents as far as I could tell (he was an anarchist in any case
and didn't like the whole wage slave thing and he was a *REAL*
anarchist, not some Class War
get-drunk-hate-the-middle-classes-smash-it-all-up moron).

My dad did the `honest toil' side of things, not Wolf - do you call
someone who's doing the job of a toolmaker an artisan? Possibly, but
I'd be more inclined to go for craftsman myself.

(Short for Wolfgang; yes he was German. Came here in 1936; seemed a
good idea at the time, what with him being Jewish)

An artisan is in a weak position, with little capital and may therefore
have to request that a client subsidieses tooling costs etc.

If he's in a weak position, he's less able to get such things. You can
only really do that if you're in a strong position, surely?

His contracts were not quite the same as the deal IBM was proposing,

No indeed they were nothing like.

Of course not - rather shorter and cheaper to draw up, amongst other
things. Also with less wiggle-room and places you could argue. He
never promised to deliver what he couldn't, and he always did deliver.

but
that's because IBM was making a product which was not going to be
supplied in a fixed quantity over a fixed and short period of time.

No it's because your father is a one man band

No, he was the sidekick for a one man band.

and IBM is a well funded
organisation perfectly capable of meeting its own development costs.

Why should IBM put up those development costs up front when it has no
particular reason that it's going to get them back from subsequent
sales? Which is the situation IBM was in with the next gen Apple CPU.

That normal mode of operation

Is not normal.

I have known many people who make their living that way, or near enough.
It's utterly normal, standard practice as far as I can see.

Umm hmm, you do realise how silly you know look because you are trying
to compare one-man band arrangements to the case of a supplier of
general purpose components?

But the point here is that we're not talking about a general purpose
component: we're talking about a custom-designed specialist part, to be
designed for a single customer.

Now, that part just happens to match the description of a general
purpose microprocessor, but the fact is that there was only one customer
who was interested in buying it, just like with the G5s.

Since IBM had no reason to think that it was going to make its money
back from the development costs given the sales that were likely in the
future - and you must admit that is a fact - I don't see that it had
much choice but to ask for up-front development money. How else would
it make the money back?

The more I think about it, the more I think that it was nothing but good
sense on the part of IBM to ask for up-front development money.
Wouldn't you if you were designing a new IC for a single customer who
wasn't going to sign a contract to buy enough of 'em for you to make
your money back?

And that is why I made the comparison I did: because, strange as it
seems, it's a valid one in this context. Of course I'm aware of its
apparent incongruity due to the scale of operations being diametrically
opposed (from as small an operation as you can get to one of the
biggest) - but actually, the comparison works.

[snip]

I give up. You're just picking holes in selected parts of what I say
while ignoring the points I've made that demonstrate that your
hole-picking isn't relevant in this case.

Deeply dishonest behaviour - as usual.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.

Loading