4 ms·

No disrespect to Sinclair, but this reads like Great Man history to me. Computers aren't (relatively) cheap today because Sinclair gave people the idea they co

No disrespect to Sinclair, but this reads like Great Man history to me. Computers aren't (relatively) cheap today because Sinclair gave people the idea they could be cheap. They're cheap because of the incremental efforts of thousand of people from research scientists to manufacturing engineers. For instance, the cheaper version of the calculator was built around Texas Instrument's TMS1802NC. If Sinclair didn't seize on the opportunity to use the TMS1802NC to reduce costs, then one of his competitors would have eventually done it. You see it happening today. The iPhone launched for $658.38 (inflation adjusted), but today you can buy the vastly superior iPhone SE for half that price. You can go cheaper still if you're willing to go down the Android route. We didn't need Sinclair to show us that was possible.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
I think you misunderstand. The Sinclair model was to design something as cheaply as possible using insane engineering workarounds to shave every last possible penny off the price. Then to package it with better-than-average industrial design and sell it through a marketing blitzkrieg. Sinclair came to give a talk at our college and explained this was a deliberate and calculate strategy. He sketched a graph showing that maximum profit for his way of working was around a margin of 50%. Unlike most engineers, he was thinking in business terms throughout - while also appreciating the engineering challenges. It was an excellent strategy for his market, which was mostly nerds and engineers who appreciated low cost access to advanced tech. Compare the HP and TI calculators with the Sinclair models for context. There was an engineering-led tradition at HP etc which produced leading edge no-compromise products, but they were sold at leading-edge no-compromise prices. The HP-65 cost the equivalent of >$4000 in modern money. When you bought a Sinclair calculator you didn't just buy a plastic package with a TI chip inside. You bought the chance to feel a part of a British engineering tradition of cut corners and minimal solutions which nonetheless still sort-of-mostly worked. You would read about the various hacks and cost saving tricks and think "That's really clever. How does that work, exactly? I wonder if I could that?" That was the core of the Sinclair branding. It was the ethic that created the ZX series and gave developers and bedroom entrepreneurs a start. It was a scene, and it was the reason he was so influential when more conventional calculator companies - of which there were very many - weren't.
- bencollier49 5y ago
  > When you bought a Sinclair calculator you didn't just buy a plastic package with a TI chip inside. You bought the chance to feel a part of a British engineering tradition of cut corners and minimal solutions which nonetheless still sort-of-mostly worked. Americans: You have the 'nerd' and the 'hacker', but we have the 'boffin' and the 'bodger'. I'm probably the latter.
helsinkiandrew 5y ago
> one of his competitors would have eventually done it Yes - but surely the person who actually did it has to get some credit!
jacquesm 5y ago
> If Sinclair didn't seize on the opportunity to use the TMS1802NC to reduce costs, then one of his competitors would have eventually done it. You are missing the point entirely: Sinclair did seize on the opportunity and nobody else did, and likely would not have. Sinclair did this quite purposefully when in fact if he had been more greedy he could have chosen a different path. And the fact that he did this repeatedly is proof that this was not an accident. So yes, we did need Sinclair to show us that was possible.
specialist 5y ago
> We didn't need Sinclair to show us that was possible. No. Nigel Searle, Sinclair's programming and math whiz, actually did it. Steve Wozniak actually did it. Archimedes actually did it. Etc. I'm not a big fan of Great Person narratives. And yet it's also true that some minds seem adept at finding shortcuts to previously seemingly intractable problems. How many persons have the actual willingness to defy conventional wisdom, forging progress faster than the mortality rate of the old guard?

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

I think you misunderstand. The Sinclair model was to design something as cheaply as possible using insane engineering workarounds to shave every last possible penny off the price. Then to package it with better-than-average industrial design and sell it through a marketing blitzkrieg. Sinclair came to give a talk at our college and explained this was a deliberate and calculate strategy. He sketched a graph showing that maximum profit for his way of working was around a margin of 50%. Unlike most engineers, he was thinking in business terms throughout - while also appreciating the engineering challenges. It was an excellent strategy for his market, which was mostly nerds and engineers who appreciated low cost access to advanced tech. Compare the HP and TI calculators with the Sinclair models for context. There was an engineering-led tradition at HP etc which produced leading edge no-compromise products, but they were sold at leading-edge no-compromise prices. The HP-65 cost the equivalent of >$4000 in modern money. When you bought a Sinclair calculator you didn't just buy a plastic package with a TI chip inside. You bought the chance to feel a part of a British engineering tradition of cut corners and minimal solutions which nonetheless still sort-of-mostly worked. You would read about the various hacks and cost saving tricks and think "That's really clever. How does that work, exactly? I wonder if I could that?" That was the core of the Sinclair branding. It was the ethic that created the ZX series and gave developers and bedroom entrepreneurs a start. It was a scene, and it was the reason he was so influential when more conventional calculator companies - of which there were very many - weren't.

bencollier49 5y ago
> When you bought a Sinclair calculator you didn't just buy a plastic package with a TI chip inside. You bought the chance to feel a part of a British engineering tradition of cut corners and minimal solutions which nonetheless still sort-of-mostly worked. Americans: You have the 'nerd' and the 'hacker', but we have the 'boffin' and the 'bodger'. I'm probably the latter.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago

> one of his competitors would have eventually done it Yes - but surely the person who actually did it has to get some credit!

jacquesm 5y ago

> If Sinclair didn't seize on the opportunity to use the TMS1802NC to reduce costs, then one of his competitors would have eventually done it. You are missing the point entirely: Sinclair did seize on the opportunity and nobody else did, and likely would not have. Sinclair did this quite purposefully when in fact if he had been more greedy he could have chosen a different path. And the fact that he did this repeatedly is proof that this was not an accident. So yes, we did need Sinclair to show us that was possible.

specialist 5y ago

> We didn't need Sinclair to show us that was possible. No. Nigel Searle, Sinclair's programming and math whiz, actually did it. Steve Wozniak actually did it. Archimedes actually did it. Etc. I'm not a big fan of Great Person narratives. And yet it's also true that some minds seem adept at finding shortcuts to previously seemingly intractable problems. How many persons have the actual willingness to defy conventional wisdom, forging progress faster than the mortality rate of the old guard?