Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 24 Apr 2001 04:33:36 -0700
From:      "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>
To:        "~/.signature" <hawk@fac13.ds.psu.edu>
Cc:        <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   RE: the AMD factor in FreeBSD 
Message-ID:  <008f01c0ccb2$66cc8ba0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
In-Reply-To: <200104231413.f3NEDwn25143@fac13.ds.psu.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
>[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of ~/.signature
>
>> No, what this is, is Intel sticking it to the folks that want to buy a P3
>> to support cheaper prices on the Celery.
>
>I  don't think soo.  If the Celerey were to be separately developed,
>the P3 price would be higher, not lower, than it is now. The celery
>might or might not exist.
>
>> the AMD chip.  But, if those IT people catch on then the volume of P3s
>> will drop so far that they won't be able to get the money from P3 sales
>> to support Celery R&D and they will have to raise prices on the Celery to
>> pay for the R&D and drop prices on the P3 to keep from losing the market.
>
>Which continues until the price of celery and P3 are the same, which
>will be close to (and probably above) current P43 prices.
>

Which is exactly what I said earlier - Intel doesen't want this because
then nobody would buy the Celery.  Then they would just end up selling the
P3.  So, to create Celery sales they raise P3 prices.

Note I never said the Celery was to be
separately developed in which case you would be correct.

>To this point, I"ve been speaking as an economist.  But as an
>economists, it's tough to explain how the price of the P3 can be above
>the AMD price at all; I'll leave that for the marketing folks :)
>
>In a similar vein, as an economist it's quite easy to explain why a
>firm would pay women less then men for the same work.  I have yet to
>see an explanation as to why the firm would pay men *more* than women
>for the same work;

Sorry, I couldn't resist:

They may have a market that irrationally prefers products made entirely
by men, thus will pay more for those products despite the fact that they
are the same.  Thus since the firm makes
the same profit for the "more expensive products made entirely by men
that cost more" as they make on the "less expensive products made
entirely by women that don't cost as much" the firm then has a strong
disincentive to equalize the pay scale.  (because if they raise the
women's wage they lose money and if they lower the men's wage then
they lose the men employees and thus cannot make the market preference
anymore)

> the rational act at that point is an all-female work
>force . . .
>

Which is self-correcting as what happens then is everyone else wants
the cheaper women, competition sets in and drives up their price and
you end up with both being paid the same.  Or, you can bring in the
unions who will then throw all economic theory into the trash. ;-)

Ted Mittelstaedt                      tedm@toybox.placo.com
Author of:          The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide
Book website:         http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?008f01c0ccb2$66cc8ba0$1401a8c0>