schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow) (03/08/89)
I am curious as to what people think of the following situations that
looks to me like crippler circuitry, only different.
1) I sweat blood for years to design a blazingly fast machine, the
company builds it and sells it for big bucks. Some bright new grad
comes along and spends another year to come up a better faster
design (and it only takes replacing 5 board and the backplane).
Do you consider it ethical for the company to charge even bigger
bucks for this new machine? How about for the upgrade?
1a) What if a really bright, sharp-eye high-schooler came in on a
plant visit and said:
Hay, just take that or-gate out of the critical path and the
machine wil run twice at fast.
And you know what? It works! How much can the company ethically
charge for the upgrade?
1b) I, the original designer, then had to run all kinds of simulations
and other testing to make sure that indeed, this simple change
does run twice as fast but only if a dozen components are up to
snuff and that only a small percentage of the existing boards
would run. Fortunately, the company kept meticulas records of
all products, so we know which boards are easy upgrades and which
are not.
Should all upgrades be at the same cost?
2) While I am sweating blood for the above machine, I made a list
of the top 20 critical paths keeping the cycle time at 100 femtoseconds
instead of the 10 femtoseconds that I am aiming for. However, before
I get around to fixing all 20 of them, marketing and finance combine
to make us release the machine at 100 femtoseconds.
Two years later, competitors come out with new machines and I go
fix the 20 paths. Amazingly, it only took 5 jumpers [says I while
I trumpet my own foresight].
How much can the company charge?
-- And now for something different:
3) After my blasingly fast machine has been on the market for a while,
[and of course it sells like hot cakes at only $50 Million a crack].
Lots of users are clamoring for a simalar machine but only cheaper.
Users are begging us to produce a machine that is 10% the cost and
10% the performance.
Would you rather the company produce a crippled machine or stick
to only the high priced one?
[Anyone who says the company is obligated to sell all machines at
the lowest possible price is dreaming. So what it only costs
$10 per machine to make, so what the profit magin is huge?]
Stanley Chow ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!schow%bnr-public
(613) 763-2831
P.S.
Please don't tell anyone that I can design machines a femtosecond speed
or even anything approaching it. I don't want the NSC/CIA/KGB/MI5 to break
my knee caps trying to get my secrets.
Disclaimer:
I get paid for technical stuff, what do I know about ethics and marketing?
Anyone wishing to pay me for my opinions on ethics are invited to contact
me [you will be the first].gary@percival.UUCP (Gary Wells) (03/11/89)
In article <325@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow@bnr-public.UUCP (Stanley Chow) writes: >I am curious as to what people think of the following situations that >looks to me like crippler circuitry, only different. A whole mess of situations deleted. The real question here is: Do we live (or _want_ to live) in a free-market, a socialist, or a communist (the economic definiton, not necessarily what is practised in the USSR) society. In a true free market (which we are pretty close to, but not exactly), the maker of a product gets to sell it for whatever he can get for it. If there are buyers who want the product, but can't afford it, the maker can ignore the potential sale, or lower the price. Note that there is no _obligation_ on the maker to lower the price, other than that produced by the desire to make a sale, even if at a lower price. In a socialist society, there _is_ a percieved obligation to provide the best product to any party desiring it, regardless of price/profit to the maker. Presumably, the buyer offers as much as he can afford, and the maker will reap the benefit of similar obligations when acquiring raw materials. As a good communist, you'd build the best machine and _give_ it to whoever wanted it. They, in turn, would _give_ you that Mercedes you want. Both cummunism and socialism fail on the same point: they depend on the basic honesty and intelligence of each individual. All it takes is one selfish person, and either of these fail. Unfortuneately, there are more under educated, self centered, greedy poeple than there are any other kind. So I think we should all stop flogging ourselves for marking up our products. If my customers wanted 1/10 the machine at 1/10 the price, I see no problem in crippling my existing product for them. I'd also make it _VERY HARD_ to field modify it back to full power. And I'd laugh all the way to the bank when I sold them the field upgrade. If a visitor provided the idea that made a 100% improvement, I'd pay him a stipend (do you know anyone who wopuld not be pleased to recieve a surprise check in the mail?) for all rights. Then I'd charge as much as thought I could get for it. Call me unenlightened, but I see nothing wrong with making money, lots of money! >Disclaimer: >I get paid for technical stuff, what do I know about ethics and marketing? >Anyone wishing to pay me for my opinions on ethics are invited to contact >me [you will be the first]. As pointed out in "Atlas Shrugged", being a philosopher is the hardest calling of all. You may not get paid for your ethics, but you obviously have them. Too bad the same can't be said of more people. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still working on _natural_ intelligence. gary@percival (...!tektronix!percival!gary)
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (03/12/89)
In article <1470@percival.UUCP>, gary@percival.UUCP (Gary Wells) writes: > > In a true free market ... the maker > gets to sell it for whatever he can ... > Note that there is no _obligation_ on the > maker to lower the price, other than that produced by > the desire to make a sale, > even if at a lower price. > > Both cummunism and socialism fail on the same point: they depend on the basic > honesty and intelligence of each individual. All it takes is one selfish > person, and either of these fail. Unfortuneately, there are more under > educated, self centered, greedy poeple than there are any other kind. Actually, where socialism and communism fail, using this example, is: after giving away your first batch, you have no money with which to make a second batch. The barter examples given are just too clumsy and haphazard to work -- IF they occur at all. Re: selfishness. Yes, in the sense of "I want what I can honorably get", capitalism runs on selfishness. But collectivism depends on 'second-hander selfishness' -- i.e., wanting not only what's yours, but what's properly someone else's, as well. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- "Why can't they be like *we* were -- perfect in every way? What's the matter with kids today?" From "Bye, Bye Birdie"