gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (02/15/88)
So what do you think about Motorola's decision to "go it alone" and
deny other manufacturers (Japanese AND American) the right to
second-source the 68020?
I'm not too impressed. Motorola is trying to be like Intel. It's a
longstanding tradition to second source ALL high-tech ICs to ensure a
smooth flow of working chips. Otherwise, clean rooms get dirty,
masks slip out of alignment, sputtering devices break down, kilns
change their properties, and manufacturing is interrupted. It can
takes days, weeks, even MONTHS to find the problem. This KILLS OEMs
that depend on the chip.
Rest assured that Motorola can charge a $$$ royalty on every
second-sourced chip. But the second-source manufacturer can innovate
in manufacturing, getting higher yield. A $500 chip often costs $499
to build when it is introduced. Motorola might get the cost down to
$200 after many months. After that, where's the incentive to cut the
fat off the manufacturing cost?
If other companies are competing in manufacturing, the competition
might bring the manufacturing cost down to $20. Then you might see a
$500 chip selling for $220. I doubt this will happen with Motorola
(and Intel's) new snobby policy.
I think it's a great opportunity for the Japanese to penetrate the
market with 32-bit processor chips (clones, or genuinely new
processors). It's also a great incentive for them to increase their
processor-design skills. Intel & Motorola are just asking to be
manufactured out of business, by Asia.
Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois
{gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu}ward@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Ward) (02/17/88)
In article <75900004@uiucdcsp>, gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > So what do you think about Motorola's decision to "go it alone" and > deny other manufacturers (Japanese AND American) the right to > second-source the 68020? Of course, Motorola has many second sources for the MC68000 MPU. The last I heard, Motorola had signed a second source agreement with Toshiba for the MC68020. Does your statement above mean that you are aware of this past announcement and that you know that the Motorola/Toshiba deal has fallen apart? I believe that the deal also involved a memory deal of some sort and I have not personally read any news of the deal going sour. Any light shed on this matter would be appreciated. >
michael@mcdchg.UUCP (Michael Bodine) (02/18/88)
> So what do you think about Motorola's decision to "go it alone" and > deny other manufacturers (Japanese AND American) the right to > second-source the 68020? > I'm not too impressed. Motorola is trying to be like Intel. It's a > longstanding tradition to second source ALL high-tech ICs to ensure a > smooth flow of working chips... Motorola is not trying to be like anyone; rather, the microprocessor group is trying to recoup some of the MASSIVE research and development costs involved in creating a chip like the MC68020 or 030. The tradition of second sourcing is intended to provide a smooth flow of chips in case of factory problems, as you indicated. However, Motorola manufactures the high-end chips at more than one facility. (At least two, i'm not sure if more...) A problem at any given site will not affect chip production. So most concerns over second sourcing are handled. As for driving the price down, patience. It'll happen. See next item. > ...where's the incentive to cut the fat off the manufacturing cost? It's called the competition. Motorola wants to sell a looooooot of 020's. More 020's than Intel can sell of x86 chips, National of 32K's, and the Japanese of anything. Nice fantasy, eh? There's only one rational way to do that. Cut the manufacturing cost, then cut the price, so more folks will buy 'em. > I think it's a great opportunity for the Japanese to penetrate the > market with 32-bit processor chips (clones, or genuinely new > processors). ANYTHING sold in quantities of five or more is a great opportunity for the Japanese. Anything sold in quantities of three or more is a great opportunity for the Koreans. None of the above is Motorola policy. Just the facts, m'am. -- [ Michael Bodine, michael@mcdchg.UUCP Opinions expressed are mine and haven't ] [ been seen, commented on or in any way approved or even allowed by Motorola ] [ MicroComputer Division, Motorola General Systems Group or Motorola, Inc. ] [ No one else agrees with me; why should my employer? ]