Comments on: Karlgaard on “The Cheap Revolution”

By: sethstorm

sethstorm — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:51:01 +0000

I'd hold on the awards - maybe the person who gets quality back on track, and not pure price would do well - given the general lack of quality.

As for the lawsuit, it just sounds a bit too late. She'd have half a chance if she did so before the $100 discount.

His point still stands: electronic components tend to get (dramatically) cheaper over time.

The quality unfortunately falls with it without reaching a "bottom". Case in point being (not only Apple) IBM/Lenovo gutting their brand. Removing higher end features(e.g. Flexview) without finding a suitable replacement, having parts being of a lower quality that do get replaced, and having it be bad enough to only want a warranty extension.

With Apple, that left ages ago, back in the days of the PII (most likely Karlgaard's intended timeframe).

These days, cheapness is a sign of weakness. Karlgaard would do well to not prove that one right.

By: sethstorm

sethstorm — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:51:01 +0000

I'd hold on the awards - maybe the person who gets quality back on track, and not pure price would do well - given the general lack of quality.

As for the lawsuit, it just sounds a bit too late. She'd have half a chance if she did so before the $100 discount.

His point still stands: electronic components tend to get (dramatically) cheaper over time.
The quality unfortunately falls with it without reaching a "bottom". Case in point being (not only Apple) IBM/Lenovo gutting their brand. Removing higher end features(e.g. Flexview) without finding a suitable replacement, having parts being of a lower quality that do get replaced, and having it be bad enough to only want a warranty extension.

With Apple, that left ages ago, back in the days of the PII (most likely Karlgaard's intended timeframe).

These days, cheapness is a sign of weakness. Karlgaard would do well to not prove that one right.

By: Bergamot

Bergamot — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:54:49 +0000

There also were no Pentiums in 1992, at all. Perhaps he meant 1996? His point still stands: electronic components tend to get (dramatically) cheaper over time. Somebody get this guy a Nobel Prize for Economics.

By: Mike Sullivan

Mike Sullivan — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:47:22 +0000

Intel Pentium II chips reached 300 MHz in 1997, and the Pentium Pro at 333 MHz didn’t arrive until 1998. (I had one of those!) So he was off by about 5 years. Details.

By: Bergamot

Bergamot — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:54:49 +0000

By: Mike Sullivan

Mike Sullivan — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:47:22 +0000

Intel Pentium II chips reached 300 MHz in 1997, and the Pentium Pro at 333 MHz didn’t arrive until 1998. (I had one of those!) So he was off by about 5 years. Details.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:26:44 +0000

Um, Intel chips in 1992 were in the neighborhood of 50 MHz, not 300. You'd think he would have asked someone who knows something about computers before publishing a story like this.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:26:44 +0000

Um, Intel chips in 1992 were in the neighborhood of 50 MHz, not 300. You'd think he would have asked someone who knows something about computers before publishing a story like this.