4 ms·

That’s reasonable, I guess. If that is “capitalism” (with negative connotation) then what is more fair alternative to this?

by donny2018 5y ago

fundad 5y ago
Samsung’s foundry, obviously. Choosing Apple meant letting go of old guard players
n8cpdx 5y ago
Qualcomm and AMD could have chosen to be more vigorous in their competition. Android customers would have gotten better phones, Intel wouldn’t have waited until 2021 to start making decent parts again, and everyone would win. Maybe a more fair version would be for the federal government to socialize each of these players, and decide that they will pay a premium for slow, hot, American-made parts. If that sounds ridiculous, meditate on why you think capitalism/markets have a negative connotation when they are in fact producing great outcomes - amazing chips (M1 series) and competitive pressure on Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm to eventually deliver similarly competitive chips. Unbridled capitalism gets a bad rap, but that’s a relatively new innovation. You can have a well-regulated market produce even more fabulous outcomes; don’t blame corporations for those outcomes, blame politicians and the voting public. Edit: a theme I see repeated over and over, on hacker news of all places, is people making excuses for businesses operating in competitive markets. Making excuses is bad for consumers, it’s bad for competition, it’s bad for society. Stop making excuses and ask business to work harder. Android users deserve fast processors, and it is 100% Qualcomm’s fault that they don’t have them. Intel PC users deserve fast, low-power processors, and it is 100% Intel’s fault that users don’t get them, or have to go to AMD/Apple for them. Apple’s success is proof positive that AMD, Qualcomm, and Intel have been insufficiently vigorous and innovative in their competition, which in manufacturing products also involves the surrounding business practices needed to ensure access to fab capacity.
- artificialLimbs 5y ago
  Upvoted, but: >> You can have a well-regulated market produce even more fabulous outcomes... Can you cite an example of this?

That’s reasonable, I guess. If that is “capitalism” (with negative connotation) then what is more fair alternative to this?

fundad 5y ago

Samsung’s foundry, obviously. Choosing Apple meant letting go of old guard players

n8cpdx 5y ago

Qualcomm and AMD could have chosen to be more vigorous in their competition. Android customers would have gotten better phones, Intel wouldn’t have waited until 2021 to start making decent parts again, and everyone would win. Maybe a more fair version would be for the federal government to socialize each of these players, and decide that they will pay a premium for slow, hot, American-made parts. If that sounds ridiculous, meditate on why you think capitalism/markets have a negative connotation when they are in fact producing great outcomes - amazing chips (M1 series) and competitive pressure on Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm to eventually deliver similarly competitive chips. Unbridled capitalism gets a bad rap, but that’s a relatively new innovation. You can have a well-regulated market produce even more fabulous outcomes; don’t blame corporations for those outcomes, blame politicians and the voting public. Edit: a theme I see repeated over and over, on hacker news of all places, is people making excuses for businesses operating in competitive markets. Making excuses is bad for consumers, it’s bad for competition, it’s bad for society. Stop making excuses and ask business to work harder. Android users deserve fast processors, and it is 100% Qualcomm’s fault that they don’t have them. Intel PC users deserve fast, low-power processors, and it is 100% Intel’s fault that users don’t get them, or have to go to AMD/Apple for them. Apple’s success is proof positive that AMD, Qualcomm, and Intel have been insufficiently vigorous and innovative in their competition, which in manufacturing products also involves the surrounding business practices needed to ensure access to fab capacity.

artificialLimbs 5y ago
Upvoted, but: >> You can have a well-regulated market produce even more fabulous outcomes... Can you cite an example of this?