[Arm-netbook] EOMA server standard

[luke.leighton]

On 10/28/12, Gordan Bobic <gordan at bobich.net> wrote:

>>> So add a chip to do it, maybe?
>>
>>   no.  absolutely not.  whatever the cost of that chip is, it's
>> automatically too much.  see b), below, which i note conspicuously you
>> didn't reply to or say "fair enough" or anything :)
>>
>>   it could be $0.50 for that chip, but automatically that's too much,
>> esp. as that could be *greater* than the entire profit margin for a
>> mass-volume 100 million+ units product.
>
> To get a better product with more/better features most people probably
> wouldn't mind paying an extra $0.50 on the end retail price.

 it doesn't work that way.

 you have to bear in mind that a) it won't be an extra $0.50 it'll be
an extra $1.00
 b) an extra $1.00 on a retail price makes it uncompetitive when
compared to the other products which are not
EOMA-{insert-version-which-has-a-mandatory-$0.50-IC}

 so the retailers will feel compelled to compare like-with-like
product, and demand from the manufacturer that the one with the EOMA
card be given to them for *exactly* the same price.

 the manufacturer will, to shift the stock, be compelled to do so.

 the *manufacturer* will then lose $0.50 in profit.

 that $0.50, especially in the mass-volume retail sector, where the
product's BOM is say $30 or less, might *be* their profit.

 ... you understand?

 in the mass-volume retail sector it simply doesn't work the way you think.

 however, in the *high-end* sector, you would be absolutely right.
$0.50 would make absolutely no odds.  but in the high-end sector, the
chances are that you would use a better IC that didn't require that
$0.50 part in the first place (i.e. it would probably have a composite
video output.)

 *but*.... because the EOMA-68 standard covers high *and* low end, the
standard has to be designed to cover both.

 therefore, composite video is out, because if composite video was
"in", it would jeapordise the viability of the low-end sector.

 it's really quite simple, but has to take in a hell of a lot of
factors into consideration.

 the server area's one i still can't quite get my head round, though.

> So instead you cripple the standard by excluding the possibility of
> using anything with PCIe?

 no gordan, there's no excluding of anything.  please don't put words
into my mouth.  i'm asking for people to contribute and discuss in an
open fashion - not accuse people of "crippling" anything.

 l.