new RPi model B planned soon

If the Model A is planned for March 2013, then RPF's banner headline will have declared the Pi as the $25 computer for a whole year by then.  Isn't there a law against such blatant long-term false advertising?

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

If the Model A is planned for March 2013, then RPF's banner headline will have declared the Pi as the $25 computer for a whole year by then.  Isn't there a law against such blatant long-term false advertising?

coder27 is being gamesome.  The link is to a 20 Feb 2012 comment where liz promises that "you'll definitely be able to buy Model As in March".  True, she doesn't specify the year.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

You are completely missing the point.  RPF has said clear as daylight that every Model A that could be produced would result in one less Model B being produced.  Who orders what is irrelevant.  Not enough BCM2835 devices are being produced by Broadcom, period.

 

If you are trying to suggest that Broadcom would deliberately switch a fab line off BCM2835 devices or run it at less than full capacity despite knowing full well that the Pi is back-ordered around the world then you are painting Broadcom as incompetent and deliberately holding back the Pi ecosystem and not being interested in selling product.   After all they know with 100% certainty that every BCM2835 manufactured would be sold tomorrow if it were available.  I find it incredible that anyone would think Broadcom is that stupid and willfully losing out on revenue.  The mind boggles.

 

So no, no, no, no.  The scarcity has absolutely nothing to do with poor order planning by one partner, because that wouldn't alter the picture even if it were true (and indeed it might be true, I'm not saying it's not, but only that it's irrelevant).  You're listening too much to RPF excuses (which you should realize operate very much as an arm of Broadcom) and not thinking about what your interpretation would say about Broadcom's commercial interest.  They are in this to make money.  If they're not printing money by churning out chips faster than they are now when they know full well that they could sell every one instantly, then you can be certain that it has nothing to do with missing paperwork.  The only answer that makes commercial sense is that they don't have any more capacity.

 

Morgaine.

Again, we've discussed this before but I'll say it again.  That's not how fabrication works.  There is not a single line dedicated to each chip.  You'll have a line for each genre of devices (hard drive platters, CPU, etc), but you will not have a "BCM2835" line.  This is why they have such a high production time.  You schedule a period of time to produce a specific chip in, once its turn is done you move to the next.  B-com like any other fab out there will build only to meet what has been ordered, and while that might mean they build a little extra to fill out the line, odds are they have an order increment that forces the customer to fill the line.

I'll also would like to point out again that the product availability being dicussed by Liz would quite logically being the amount they have in hand, a quantity that would have been ordered 7 months ago by the respective distributor and has nothing to do with how quickly or how much b-com could produce with an order placed today.  B-com isn't going to stop manufacture of its other chips just to alter an order for this "low cost" chip to meet the demand for it within the Rpi community.  That's just bad business practice.

I'm afraid what you say doesn't make commercial sense for Broadcom nor for RS nor for RPF, so I don't believe it holds water.  But let me try a completely different tack to demonstrate that your explanation just doesn't work.

Let's assume just for a moment that Broadcom has a mind of its own and is not just a fab contract house as you make it out to be.  Let's say that they have their eyes open and notice that the demand for BCM2835 is huge and that there is zero risk associated with producing devices not to order but for buffer stock.  And let's assume that they did so.

Now, assuming that this happened, what would be the result of Broadcom's sales department picking up the phone and dialing RS's number and saying "Oh RS, guess what, we have the N devices that you wished you had ordered 500 years ago in stock, do you want them?"  (There could even be a small markup over and above contract order pricing.)

Now don't tell me that you think RS would say "Nah, not interested mate.  We're totally happy having our reputation dragged through the mud like it is now thanks, we'll talk to you again in mid-2013 for our next batch."

It would stretch incredulity, so I can't believe that there is any possibility at all of such a response.  RS would love to slash its waiting lists to nil overnight if it could, and it would if given half a chance.  RS would win, Broadcom would win (through slightly more profit for them and a happier Pi ecosystem), and RPF would win massively by Model A not being delayed by the SoC shortage and by being able to strut around with a big smiles on their faces after proclaiming "No more delivery queues anywhere, order freely now."

When everybody would win in this picture, why theorize that Broadcom is totally inept in business and thwarted by some missing paperwork?  It just doesn't make sense.

I'm not often on the side of Broadcom because of their total dislike of openess, but I do believe that they have the business sense to print money when that option is available to them.  And it is.

Morgaine.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

I'm afraid what you say doesn't make commercial sense for Broadcom nor for RS nor for RPF, so I don't believe it holds water.  But let me try a completely different tack to demonstrate that your explanation just doesn't work.

 

Let's just assume for a moment that Broadcom has a mind of its own and is not just a fab contract house as you make it out to be.  Let's say that they have their eyes open and notice that the demand for BCM2835 is huge and that there is zero risk associated with producing devices not to order but for buffer stock.  And let's assume that they did so.

 

Now, assuming that this happened, what would be the result of Broadcom's sales department picking up the phone and dialing RS's number and saying "Oh RS, guess what, we have the N devices that you wished you had ordered 500 years ago in stock, do you want them?"  (There could even be a small markup over and above contract order pricing.)

 

Now don't tell me that you think RS would say "Nah, not interested mate.  We're totally happy having our reputation dragged through the mud like it is now thanks, we'll talk to you again in mid-2013 for our next batch."

 

It would stretch incredulity, so I can't believe that there is any possibility at all of such a response.  RS would love to slash its waiting lists to nil overnight if it would, and it would if given half a chance.  RS would win, Broadcom would win (through slightly more profit for them and a happier Pi ecosystem), and RPF would win massively by Model A not being delayed by the SoC shortage and by being able to strut around with a big smiles on their faces after proclaiming "No more delivery queues anywhere, order freely now."

 

When everybody would win in this picture, why theorize that Broadcom is totally inept in business and thwarted by some missing paperwork?  It just doesn't make sense.

 

I'm not often on the side of Broadcom because of their total dislike of openess, but I do believe that they have the business sense to print money when that option is available to them.  And it is.

 

Morgaine.

If only that was the way fabrication worked!  It certainly would have made my life easier, but alas!  It isn't.  The fabrication people would get beat (sued) to no end if they called up someone and say "hey, your competitor is buying X times the amount you are.  Maybe they know something you don't, would you like to order more?"  That's both bad for business and breaking NDAs.  Now don't get me wrong, you have laid out some mighty fine logic there, extremely well thought out!  But it's obvious you've never worked in a fab plant because you keep talking nonsense in this area (no offense meant, it's just the plain truth).  Now I have real world experience in a fabrication environment, you can keep calling it crazy (which it most certainly is) and trying reject it, but it really is the way these places work! 

It also helps to keep in mind that B-com doesn't care about everyone winning, they care about b-com winning.  And B-com has most certainly won throughout this affair.  More importantly they have to keep winning by keeping their schedules with all their customers.  As crazy successful as the Pi has been, they're just a small part of their big picture their Q4 earnings were 1.82 Billion Dollars.  So far the pi has sold something in the range of .5 Million units (according to Liz's projections).  If they pay 5 dollars per chip that would only represent 2.5 Million, at 10 dollars a pop it would still only be 5 Million, heck if they made $35 of every board it will still only be 17.5 Million dollars in B-com piggy bank or what 1/100th of a percent of their Quarterly income?  B-com has bigger money makers than the pi and their version of winning is making sure that the big income makers stay on schedule.

The Rpi is like a toy, despite the hype in terms of mass market is in nobody's radar screen, it is still really unclear what's the relationship between RPF and Broadcom besides the intersection with some full time employees contributing to RPF, the agreement between RPF and the manufacturer/distributors is a mistery secret, then in the worst case scenario if demand keeps constant or growing we may have to wait much longer to get a board.

PS. Don't feed the trolls

mynameisJim wrote:

 

It also helps to keep in mind that B-com doesn't care about everyone winning, they care about b-com winning.  And B-com has most certainly won throughout this affair.  More importantly they have to keep winning by keeping their schedules with all their customers.

But that's precisely the point that I've been making all along, that Broadcom has no spare capacity to fabricate more BCM2835 devices!  If you have no spare capacity at the plant then to make more capacity for a particular device would require giving other contract work the boot, and as you say that other contract work almost certainly pays better than the low-margin Pi manufacturers can offer.

So we're actually saying the same thing, in different ways.  The problem is entirely at Broadcom's end through a lack of fab capacity.  The long lead times for BCM2835 result from this total lack of capacity requiring Pi orders to be slotted in after other contracts are fulfilled, which would not happen at all if they had spare capacity.

How can this not be clear?

[Addendum.  Of course this is all speculative since we'll never know what actually happens at Broadcom nor its relationship with its customers, but I'm interested in the core problem that is the root cause of the very long delivery times, and it seems very clear that the core problem is fabrication constraints, not paperwork.  The fact that devices are not available to RS now because an order was not placed many months ago is just a consequence of the lack of fabrication capacity.  The lack of fabrication capacity came first.  You can't blame the lack of fabrication capacity on the lack of an order being placed.  Orders don't create capacity, they just affect the scheduling of different orders in a capacity-limited fabrication plant.]

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

mynameisJim wrote:

 

It also helps to keep in mind that B-com doesn't care about everyone winning, they care about b-com winning.  And B-com has most certainly won throughout this affair.  More importantly they have to keep winning by keeping their schedules with all their customers.

 

But that's precisely the point that I've been making all along, that Broadcom has no spare capacity to fabricate more BCM2835 devices!  If you have no spare capacity at the plant then to make more capacity for a particular device would require giving other contract work the boot, and as you say that other contract work almost certainly pays better than the low-margin Pi manufacturers can offer.

 

So we're actually saying the same thing, in different ways.  The problem is entirely at Broadcom's end through a lack of fab capacity.  The long lead times for BCM2835 result from this total lack of capacity requiring Pi orders to be slotted in after other contracts are fulfilled, which would not happen at all if they had spare capacity.

 

How can this not be clear?

Because it is ultimately the responsibility of the customer to factor in the lead time for the part and order appropriately.  If RS had ordered a large enough quantity to meet the demand of the device then the lead time wouldn't have mattered.

Now I will make a caveat that the launch debacle (no offense to any R-pi peps) was a failing at all points, but beyond that there should have been some recognition of upcoming demand and ordered appropriately, Fanell did, RS didn't.

I will further add that while we're specifically discussing the RS issue, I'll swing this back round (which is only appropriate since I swung us off course in the first place, lol) to the current issue at hand not enough SoCs for the model A and the Model B (which going back to the original post's link to Liz is actually an issue of we have enough parts to meet the current demand for the model B, but not enough to meet the demand for the B and add the A).  The issue there is also not that B-com can't supply the chip.  They'll supply what ever quantity the customer asks for which brings me right back to my first sentence.  B-com is not responsible for calculating the demand for its customers.  It's their job to meet the request the customer puts in and in the time frame they've been quoted.

We might be arguing semantics at this point, but the crux of what I'm saying is Farnell and RS are the one responsible for ordering enough of the product to last them between productions of the chip, it's not B-coms job to offer more production times (unless demand for the chip exceeds production capacity) nor to keep a large amount of their chip "in stock" to be bought up by the suppliers whenever they want to make more boards than they planned for.   Whereas you are arguing, if I understand your position correctly, that it's entirely b-coms responsibility to offer more production times for the small time chip or bare the responsibility for not producing enough of the chip.

mynameisJim wrote:

 

Whereas you are arguing, if I understand your position correctly, that it's entirely b-coms responsibility to offer more production times for the small time chip or bare the responsibility for not producing enough of the chip.

I'm not saying either of those things.  I'm saying that the root cause of all the delays is lack of spare capacity at Broadcom, and you've agreed with me but using different words.

However, you prefer to place the blame on RS and somehow twist it to look as if an order placed by RS could magically create new fabrication capacity at Broadcom.  It can't.  At most it can affect scheduling of what is fabricated on capacity-limited equipment so that RS's devices get manufactured before those of another customer.  The restricted fabrication capacity remains restricted though, whether it is producing devices for RS or for someone else.  An order won't bring a new fabrication plant online, that costs billions.  It is accurate to state (assuming of course that our speculation is correct) that Broadcom's lack of spare capacity is the limiting factor.

I am much more interested in technology than in paperwork, and hence blame has to follow root cause.by logical necessity, because the relationship between supply and fulfilled demand is directly causal.  Good timing of order placement can paper over shortages in the same way that a buffer can smooth flow irregularities, but order timing does not have the same causal importance as production capacity.  Indeed, the very need for buffering highlights that the supply is constrained in what it can deliver, so the analogy is apt.

It seems that although we're both blindly examining the same elephant, we're each feeling different parts and so can't agree what on what it looks like.  It's the same elephant though, and it can't stomp out enough BCM2835.

Hey I'm back from my hols ins Sunny SIngapore. Back to the grindstone mates!

First things first. People are forgetting the Broadcom are a fabless company i.e. they do not own any fabs, so they have to book fab time. Now, I also used to work for a fabless company, hence my sunny antipodean attitude, so I know that you only book fab time for order. You reallty really don't build stuff you don't have orders for. It cost a bloody fortune to store it, and then you might not sell it. I happen to know that a particular fabless company has been caught out in the past with excess stock, and lost a *** load of $. I cannot see Broadcom speculatively making batches of SoC's, that not good business sense. Even with some of the the Pi Foundations people working at Broadcom they weon;t have the influence to get stuff made specultively. Well, I reckon not anyway. Also, this is a minor footnote on their balance sheet - they made $2B turnover last quarter.

So what the mynnameisjim poster said is right - this is a problem with order quantities from the people making the stuff. Nothing to to with Broadcom. They could easy make enough chips - or at least TSMC could - if they got the orders. Just expect those orders to be delivered in 30 wks or whatever TSMC's current lead time is. (30wks sounds high)

Billy Thornton wrote:

 

I cannot see Broadcom speculatively making batches of SoC's, that not good business sense.

Making BCM2835 SoCs is speculative in what universe?

Would you care to suggest some viable scenario under which manufactured BCM2835 devices would not be sold as quickly as buyers can click a mouse?

Billy Thornton wrote:

 

I cannot see Broadcom speculatively making batches of SoC's, that not good business sense.

Making BCM2835 SoCs is speculative in what universe?

Would you care to suggest some viable scenario under which manufactured BCM2835 devices would not be sold as quickly as buyers can click a mouse?

It's speculative right up to the point someone orders them - until then, they are  chips sitting on a shelf in a warehouse. And look, fabless companies don't like warehouses, they like to make stuff and ship it stright to the user - it's much cheaper. That's how they work. Now I reckon they can sell a shitload, but even Apple under order stuff just in case. And remember, there is a 30wk (still don't beleive that one) lead time - that's over 6 months, a lot can happen in 6 months.

Still, as I said, this is nothing to do with Broadcoms capacity as you have been arguing, since they don't actually have ANY capacity at all. It's all contracted out, and the people they contract out to have LOTS of capacity, and will make whatever you ask. So, rather than changing the subject, absorb that information, and explain how it's not the fault of RS and Farnell's ordering too few.

Billy Thornton wrote:

 

It's speculative right up to the point someone orders them - until then, they are  chips sitting on a shelf in a warehouse.

It's not speculation when there is no uncertainty or risk involved, and you have not offered any viable scenario containing uncertainty or risk.  And the chips don't need to sit on any shelves, they can be offered in advance very trivially.  Indeed this is totally normal, no different to offering for preorder.

Still, as I said, this is nothing to do with Broadcoms capacity as you have been arguing, since they don't actually have ANY capacity at all. It's all contracted out, and the people they contract out to have LOTS of capacity, and will make whatever you ask.

You can't have it both ways.  If Broadcom's capacity is all contracted out, and the people they contract out to have LOTS of capacity, and will make whatever Broadcom asks, then Broadcom's inability to produce SoCs at a higher rate and with less lead time is even less comprehensible.  Third parties would be falling over themselves to manufacture more BCM2835 for Broadcom given the demand for Pi worldwide, because "LOTS of capacity" that is twiddling its thumbs is very costly.

That doesn't seem to be what is happening here.  Admittedly we're speculating, but some things look more likely than others, and a surplus of capacity on which to produce BCM2835 seems extraordinarily unlikely.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

You can't have it both ways.  If Broadcom's capacity is all contracted out, and the people they contract out to have LOTS of capacity, and will make whatever Broadcom asks, then Broadcom's inability to produce SoCs at a higher rate and with less lead time is even less comprehensible.  Third parties would be falling over themselves to manufacture more BCM2835 for Broadcom given the demand for Pi worldwide, because "LOTS of capacity" that is twiddling its thumbs is very costly.

 

That doesn't seem to be what is happening here.  Admittedly we're speculating, but some things look more likely than others, and a surplus of capacity on which to produce BCM2835 seems extraordinarily unlikely.

And that is where the ball returns to my court.  Fabs don't want to handle excess storage (of finished product) either.  So they won't keep a high capacity either (I was quite surprised to hear that B-com did not directly fab the chip themselves though).  You're logic is backwards though, the fact they don't have their own fab facility will actually increases turn around time as they become a middleman (so to speak) in the process.  They are bound by the fab's schedule which means they really can't adjust an order at the last minute.  Which again brings us full circle to the fact that it is the responsibility of the customer to appropriately plan for the demand of a product in accordance with the suppliers schedule. It should also be noted, again, that the pi is not some big ticket item so no, fabs will not be falling over themselves to manufacture the chip.  Besides, I'm willing to bet that B-com has some very specific NDAs and contracts that prevent them from doing just that in exchange for good deals.

And you really got to get the idea that not making the BCM2835 = wasted time or a waste of capacity.  Fab plants will build no more and no less than what has been ordered.  Any time they're not making the BCM2835, they're making other chips.  Fab facilities wait for no one!  Which makes more sense to you?  Fill a big order for a customer to meet deadlines, or building some extra low cost chips in the eventuality that a customer might want some more of it before the next run?  That a waste of time material and storage space, plus the fab facility has no guarantees that the chip will still be in demand in the future.  As much as I like the pi, it could flop at any minute.  People could get tired of the USB issues, or decide they'd rather pay double and get a little bit faster android device for their media center needs.  It's insanely bad business for a fab facility to make an excess of a product that the customer hasn't ordered rather than moving things onto filling the next product that has a customer waiting right now to purchase it.

Billy Thornton wrote:

 

... And remember, there is a 30wk (still don't [believe] that one) lead time - that's over 6 months, a lot can happen in 6 months...

The source on the 30 week lead time is liz herself.  Last September (2012) I heard Rob Bishop say 23 weeks, so it's gotten worse.  As you say, >6 months is a long time and fads can be short-lived.  For example, Richard Lester made A Hard Day's Night (1964) on a very short schedule since nobody knew how long the Beatles would be popular   So I can see why neither distributor would want to be stuck with unsellable BCM2835 inventory.

Interesting that the fab times are getting worse.  Maybe it's Apple booking up prime fab time so they can peevishly distance themselves further from Samsung.  Or the fabs are swamped making Allwinner A10s and A13s.

Used to work in the industry - times vary according to what's popular - probably new models of phone coming out soon - Christmas tends to cause a rush of new product hitting the market, so the fabs will be backed up which would result in longer lead times. Probably not Apple, although their production is moving away from Samsung, so might be going to TSMC or similar. The sort of volume there would dwarf the raspberry pi, so it's not surprising that's backed up. If I were a manufacturer I'd be building the high profit chips, not low profit stuff like the 2835 (or the Allwinners, but they would be in Chinese fabs anyway). Which is exactly what is happening.

Billy Thornton wrote:

 

... Probably not Apple, although their production is moving away from Samsung, so might be going to TSMC or similar. The sort of volume there would dwarf the raspberry pi, so it's not surprising that's backed up. If I were a manufacturer I'd be building the high profit chips, not low profit stuff like the 2835 (or the Allwinners, but they would be in Chinese fabs anyway). Which is exactly what is happening.

According to this Allwinner press release, the A10 is manufactured by TSMC, one of the fabs used by Broadcom.  So lots of competition for a limited amount of fab.

John Beetem wrote:

 

 

For example, Richard Lester made A Hard Day's Night (1964) on a very short schedule since nobody knew how long the Beatles would be popular

Ahh, the Fab Four

mynameisJim wrote:

 

the fact they don't have their own fab facility will actually increases turn around time as they become a middleman (so to speak) in the process.  They are bound by the fab's schedule which means they really can't adjust an order at the last minute.

That's not consistent with Billy's "the people they contract out to have LOTS of capacity, and will make whatever you ask".  Which is it, lots of capacity allowing Broadcom to enjoy a buyer's market, or very restricted capacity making fabrication a seller's market and giving Broadcom little to no options?

You're both attempting to substantiate the same conclusion from incompatible premises, so one of you is clearly wrong.  Even if each were true separately, they can't both be true simultaneously.

In addition to one of you being necessarily wrong, you're both making out that Broadcom's business planners are incompetent at capitalizing on a massive demand for one of their chips, and that suggests strongly that you're both wrong.  I may not like Broadcom's secrecy practices, but I see no sign that they are incompetent at getting devices made cheaply and in vast numbers, under either of your premises.  If they could make money from this insatiable demand, they would, even if the profit is less than when producing other devices.  It's still profitable for them, and nobody has suggested otherwise (yet).

By Occam's Razor, the fact that they aren't making money from it at the rate for which there is demand suggests that they can't do so, because competent business people (which I believe they are) would find a way if it were at all possible.  They've had since the start of March to fully realize the scale of demand and react to it in a way that would capitalize on the world's hunger for an old chip on which their investment has already been recouped, so it's all straight profit.  I do not think they would look this gift horse in the mouth.

So, you'll have to find a much stronger reason for the company's apparent inability to knock out large numbers of these SoCs than you have so far to be convincing.  They're not some 2-bit outfit like you make them out to be.  To suggest that they  ignored one half of this zero-risk profit stream because they got no order from RS is quite comical.

Morgaine.

I have bought three Raspberry PI's.

The longest I had to wait was 3 weeks for one purchased from Allied Electronics. Original delivery was given as 6 to 8 weeks.

While waiting for Allied, Element 14 advertised a 7 day wait so I bought one from them and it was delivered in 3 to 4 days.

When the 512MB version was announced I bought another one from Element 14 that was also delivered in 3 to 4 days.

When actual availability of the Raspberry Pi was first announced I signed up with RS to be notified when I could order one

from them the next day (couldn't get anything done on the first day because the web site was totally slashdoted). To this

day I am still waiting for that notification. In every web post I've read were some one has been waiting months for delivery

and the name of the company they ordered from was mentioned it was RS.

Most fabs usually have many customers. Some of the customers, like Broadcom have more than one type of device being

made. Each customer has a contract for a certain number of all the devices it wants that the fab is expected to produce. If

a fab is running at or near full capacity as you correctly say they try really hard to do they can't just magically turn on "more

capacity" when one of their customers has a large unexpected increase in demand for one of the devices. Unless other

customer(s) can reduce their needs, more time to adjust doesn't help either. Going to another fab to produce the device

requires at least a 6 to 8 month time frame assuming of course you can find one with unused capacity that supports a

compatable fabrication process and the tools you used to design the device.

As for Broadcoms secrecy practices, they are not much different from all of the other ARM SOC sellers. There is enough

information for most of the peripherals to write drivers for them. Graphics accelerators, multimedia accelerators, and DSPs

tend to be the most highly garded because in many cases the IP for them is actually from another company and they are

under a NDA to not release it. In some cases they may just be trying to not get sued for real or imagined (as in troll) patent

violations. Finally, and what I consider the worst reason is for some perceived competitive advantage. As demand for ARM

SOCs increase this veil of secrecy is slowly being lifted. Just a couple of days ago I read about a rumor that the PowerVR

graphics accelerator was going to get oficial support for an open source driver. I have also read that there is official support

from for an open source driver for the Mali graphics accelerator although I have not been able to find it with Google.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

mynameisJim wrote:

 

the fact they don't have their own fab facility will actually increases turn around time as they become a middleman (so to speak) in the process.  They are bound by the fab's schedule which means they really can't adjust an order at the last minute.

 

That's not consistent with Billy's "the people they contract out to have LOTS of capacity, and will make whatever you ask".  Which is it, lots of capacity allowing Broadcom to enjoy a buyer's market, or very restricted capacity making fabrication a seller's market and giving Broadcom little to no options?

 

You're both attempting to substantiate the same conclusion from incompatible premises, so one of you is clearly wrong.  Even if each were true separately, they can't both be true simultaneously.

 

In addition to one of you being necessarily wrong, you're both making out that Broadcom's business planners are incompetent at capitalizing on a massive demand for one of their chips, and that suggests strongly that you're both wrong.  I may not like Broadcom's secrecy practices, but I see no sign that they are incompetent at getting devices made cheaply and in vast numbers, under either of your premises.  If they could make money from this insatiable demand, they would, even if the profit is less than when producing other devices.  It's still profitable for them, and nobody has suggested otherwise (yet).

 

By Occam's Razor, the fact that they aren't making money from it at the rate for which there is demand suggests that they can't do so, because competent business people (which I believe they are) would find a way if it were at all possible.  They've had since the start of March to fully realize the scale of demand and react to it in a way that would capitalize on the world's hunger for an old chip on which their investment has already been recouped, so it's all straight profit.  I do not think they would look this gift horse in the mouth.

 

So, you'll have to find a much stronger reason for the company's apparent inability to knock out large numbers of these SoCs than you have so far to be convincing.  They're not some 2-bit outfit like you make them out to be.  To suggest that they  ignored one half of this zero-risk profit stream because they got no order from RS is quite comical.

 

Morgaine.

*sigh* let's start from the top of your statement.  First you're trying to juxtapose mine and Billy's statements and make them about the same thing when its not.  First you have Billy's statement which is to prove that the issue is not a matter of a lack of capacity to produce the chips.  Your argument has been that B-com lacks the ability to meet the demand of the chip because they cannot produce the chip fast enough, to which Billy has responded that no, they outsource their production to other places, places which can more than meet the demand of any quantity of chips you so desire.

To which you made the response that a higher capacity would by default create shorter response times.  To which I responded no, since they're outsourcing the work it means you'd actually have longer wait times.  Or perhaps a better way of saying that is you have consistent wait times.  You get your shipment every X weeks and you prioritise your fab time to make you the most profit while still meeting customer demand.  Ergo their big money makes would have shorter turn around times and their 1/1000 of a percent of a quarterly earnings chip get's LONG wait times.  You tell your customers up front what the wait time for a product is and the customer orders the amount of product they believe they will need to carry them from one shipment to another.  This is the foundation of a business model.  You try to get enough raw material to meet demand until the next shipment of raw material comes in.  It's been that way with every job I worked with right down to Baskin Robbins.  If we ran out of Vanilla ice cream because we didn't ordered enough the corporate office didn't rush us an extra shippment at a higher price to keep getting that Vanilla revenue.  We had to make do with our poor planning.

You can't just cherry pick statements out of context to try and support your complete lack of experience in this field with two people experienced in their respective areas. 

As for the necessity of one of us being wrong... that would only be correct if your basic underlying assumptions were correct, but unfortunately they are not as anyone who has worked in these lines of work can tell you.  Your line of reasoning would make sense if the chip being discussed was the breadwinner of B-com.  As I stated in an earlier post even if all $35 dollars the pi costs went to B-com, the entire sales of the pi for the whole year wouldn't equal but a hundredth of a percent of the earning b-com made for a quarter.  (based off a Q4 1.82 Billion listed earnings in 2011 on their site).  Of course the reality is I'd be shocked if they even made 5 dollars off every sale of the pi for their chip, ergo the pi sales for a full year represents something in the 1/1000th of a percentage of a lower than usual quarter.

I will agree with you on one fact, and that is that I too believe that they are competent business people, which is why they order only a quantity of such a low revenue chip in exact proportion with what has been ordered.  You try not to overstock on your breadwinners let alone some outdated chip like the BCM2835.  And no, there's no such thing as a zero-risk profit stream.  You're using the wonderful thing called hindsight to see that the pi has been somewhat successful and trying to apply that as common knowledge foresight to the people who ordered the chips months ago.  It just doesn't work that way.  Farnell and RS both ordered chips based off how successful they thought the pi was going to be.  All signs indicate that RS didn't think it would be this successful while Farnell took a risk and invested the cash to give this pi thing a whirl.  Obviously this has worked well for Farnell.

And again, your line of logic that B-com can't build chips quickly enough to meet demand would only work if both RS, Farnell and Roku (well maybe not Roku, but Farnell and RS) experienced equal shortages or if they had rolling shortages with each company have a period where they don't have enough to meet demand but the other company does.  This just hasn't been the case so it doesn't hold up.