3 ms·
Is there any reliable source for this? It's an interesting claim, but I'm skeptical because I don't think anyone had any idea what a huge success RPi would be.
by ahepp 2y ago
Is there any reliable source for this? It's an interesting claim, but I'm skeptical because I don't think anyone had any idea what a huge success RPi would be. The idea that it was all a monopoly play by Broadcom is something that I'd need more evidence to believe.
- justin66 2y agoI had very much the same feeling. Not because Broadcom are nice guys, but because it just doesn't sync with what everyone thought they knew at the time.
- chrisjj 2y ago> it just doesn't sync with what everyone thought they knew at the time. Such as?
- pclmulqdq 2y agoIt's not a monopoly play by broadcom originally. It was a way to get rid of excess stock of a chip that was going obsolete (without just tossing them) while doing something good for computer engineering education. I don't think anyone expected this to get so big. Subsequent chips were specially made for the Pi by broadcom, and supposedly they didn't have as large of margins as other customers.
- justin66 2y agoIs there evidence that Broadcom sold those chips to the foundation for less than their own cost? That’s the claim I find a little strong. And I do understand that undercutting other nonprofit or small vendors might also be considered bad behavior, but it never sounded like there was a lot of demand for those particular chips (which were already on the edge of obsolescence, and were even in the process of being abandoned by Debian).
- chrisjj 2y ago> Is there evidence that Broadcom sold those chips to the foundation for less than their own cost? That’s the claim I find a little strong. For me, its beaten by the more effective claim Broadcom sold it /at/ cost.