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.

Almost everything in Ms Divonas post isn't right. I can't be bothered to quote all of it because its late, but most of her statements would need the use of a crystal ball to make a decision. And I've never got those dingers to work properly.

Face it Morgana, you are wrong here. I know you are finding that difficult to accept, but you have two people who have worked in the industry telling you stuff, and yet you still don't beleive them. Why are you so confident you are right, and the experts are wrong, in the face of so much contrary evidence? You are working from heresay and speculation, and have people giving you facts, and yet, still you thing you are right. That's mucho dingo dudette.

Actually, one point is worth adding - that of excessive capacity in the third party fabs industry. There is a lot of capacity for sure, but not SPARE capacity. If there was spare capacity, there wouldn't  be a long lead time - you could just get in there and use it now. So you can make a hell of a lot of chips, if you book ahead. Which means the alledged shortage now is due to an order not being big enough 3-4 months ago. Since fabless companies in this area are not in the game of making stuff in advance and storing it just in case, the ordering decision back them was underestimated. Which is understandable - who would have expected the demand to still be so high a year after launch. That's pretty unusual.

Billy:  Look up "argument from authority" and "logical fallacy".

Then come back to us with solid reasoning instead of your repeated "It's like this because I'm experienced and I say so."  It's not convincing in an engineering forum.  If you're truly experienced then it should be easy for you to provide a reasoned argument rather than your standard line.

mynameisJim and I have exchanged reasoned arguments without name-calling nor arguing from authority.  We may not agree but it's a logical exchange of views.  Try it, it will stand you in good stead.

Your last paragraph might even have qualified as logical if you hadn't incorporated another logical fallacy, a simple straw man.  "fabless companies in this area are not in the game of making stuff in advance and storing it just in case" is the straw man because it's not "just in case", it's to fulfil the solid and well-known back-orders for Pi held by the manufacturing partners.  I stated that plainly in the preceding post to which you were replying, so you're countering a premise that was never made.

Arguing bitterly over conjecture and idle speculation is surely a sign of a species with too much time on it's hands...

From a manufacturing point of view I have to concur that it makes little sense for a manufacturer (especially one with no actual manufacturing capability) to push an obsolete, low profit item to the head of a carefully planned queue. I would imagine that the main value of the 2835 / Pi thing to Broadcom is in terms of public relations, so possibly a beancounter in a Cambridge office knocked out a cost / benefit analysis a long time ago, while other grey suits got on the trumpet to their pet fabrication subcontractors - only to be given the option of being bent over a barrel. One has to look after one's important customers (and shareholders) first, so unless one can conjure manufacturing capability out of thin air and defy the laws of physics to shrink lead times, somebody is going to have to wait (especially if they didn't order enough in the first place). In fairness, it would have taken a crystal ball rather than a spreadsheet to predict the level of sustained demand that the Pi has seen.

Pretty shonky attitude there, Morgan.

Nothing I've said is wrong, or a straw man argument. And I reckon my experience actually working in this sector and actually knowing what I am talking about  trumps your inconsistent arguments. Don;t give me nonsense about reasoned argument  - you dont need to argue when presented with actual facts. You lost, admit it, or are you incacable of accepting you could be wrong about something. That's not reasoned argument, that being bloody minded.

For example, my statement "fabless companies in this area are not in the game of making stuff in advance and storing it just in case" is completely true and contains no straw shaped man. You in an earlier post stated Broadcom should make a load of chips up front without receiving  orders. I told you this is not the way they work. They make according to the backorders they are told about i.e by the people who actually know the numbers ie RS and Farnell.  They don;t make stuff that hasnt been ordered. They might make stuff up front if they are told by the manufacturer they expect to sell a particular number, but that owuld need to be a multi million chip order, not the small change orders fom the Raspberry Pi foundation. Some chip companies do make to fill warehouses, not companies like Broadcom, that's not their business. I dunno specifics, as I don;t work for any of them, but the only way Broadcom could know the actual order numbers required in the backlog is if RS or Farnell told them, and they way they do that is by ORDERING THEM. So they order enough for the backlog, plus the extra they expect to sell between receipt and the next order time. My guess is the RS completely failed to anticipate the demand would still be high and failed to order enough. Broadcom has exactly the same number of working crystal balls as anyone else, so without numbers from orders, they ain;'t gonna guess how many to make.

Jesus, its the middle of the night and I'm still arguing. People who cannot accept they have lost an argument do my blood pressure no good at all. Dunno why I bother. Must be the beers!

Billy Thornton wrote:

 

Pretty shonky attitude there, Morgan.

Every single post of yours is full of personal comments like that.  Try sticking to the subject and not attacking people but dealing exclusively with what the people say.  Don't refer to me, refer to what I am saying.  This will only cramp your style if you don't have a solid line of reasoning in the first place and therefore rely on abuse and ad hominem.  But if you do actually have something logical and reasoned to say then it will not cramp your posts at all.  Try it.

Billy Thornton wrote:

 

Nothing I've said is wrong, or a straw man argument.

I gave the precise details of your straw man argument, and it's not a matter of dispute because it was in your own words in black and white.  If you try to knock down an argument by adding a premise of your own that was not given and knocking down this new premise then that is the exact definition of a straw man argument.  It isn't a logical counter to what was said, but only a logical counter to the premise which you invented.  Don't do it.

Billy Thornton wrote:

 

For example, my statement "fabless companies in this area are not in the game of making stuff in advance and storing it just in case" is completely true and contains no straw shaped man.

I've gone over this before, but to help you along, I'll repeat what I already said.  The "just in case" was not what I suggested.  I very clearly suggested that they could work with Eben Upton and everyone else concerned to ensure that there was no risk by virtue of fabricating only enough parts to cover existing solid order backlogs.

If you put "just in case" in your counter then you are countering with a straw man argument.  It does not matter that the statement you are making is true when expressed without reference to a previous argument (in that case you would just be making a hypothesis yourself and debunking it).  When used in a counter to someone else's argument then it becomes a straw man because it does not deal with that person's argument but only with the premise you introduced yourself, and yet attributes the "success" in debunking it to the failure of the other person's argument when it is only a failure of your invented argument.  It exactly matches the fallacy type.  Don't do it.

Jonathan Garrish wrote:

 

From a manufacturing point of view I have to concur that it makes little sense for a manufacturer (especially one with no actual manufacturing capability) to push an obsolete, low profit item to the head of a carefully planned queue.

I agree with that, but once the game has started, we are where we are and it has to run its course.

When Eben was designing the Pi, issues of whether Broadcom would be interested in longevity of the BCM2835 should have been discussed.  Perhaps a chip in which they have more interest would have been a better choice.

It's a bit late to talk about that now though.  We are where we are, and Broadcom is lumbered with continued fabrication of an old SoC.  If they're unhappy about that then the best thing they could do is to get these blasted preorders out of the way by accellerating BCM2835 manufacture and at the same time work in concert with Eben to design the next version of Pi around a more modern SoC.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

RPF has said clear as daylight that every Model A that could be produced would result in one less Model B being produced.

But nearly every Model A produced and sold is a Model B that would not be needed instead.

I think it is clear the reason As have not been made is that the distributors are not enthusiastic about them. 

Why make the even cheaper device and risk being left with waste stock of 9512s.

They have been very careful never even to gauge demand for the Model A so they can cling to the "too many people still ordering Bs" excuse.

jopaji wrote:

 

But nearly every Model A produced and sold is a Model B that would not be needed instead.

 

I think it is clear the reason As have not been made is that the distributors are not enthusiastic about them. 

That's a pretty good point you make.  Even if one were to dispute the "nearly every" part, it's certainly the case that a proportion of Model A sales will replace Model B sales, so it's not plain sailing for the distributors.

Yes, I can see the disincentive for them.

[Addendum:  That said, the margin on Model A might be a bit higher, which would make them happier.  Perhaps we can estimate that.]

jopaji wrote:

 

But nearly every Model A produced and sold is a Model B that would not be needed instead.

 

I think it is clear the reason As have not been made is that the distributors are not enthusiastic about them. 

That's a pretty good point you make.  Even if one were to dispute the "nearly every" part, it's certainly the case that a proportion of Model A sales will replace Model B sales, so it's not plain sailing for the distributors.

Yes, I can see the disincentive for them.

[Addendum:  That said, the margin on Model A might be a bit higher, which would make them happier.  Perhaps we can estimate that.]