The global chip shortage is starting to have consequences(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
The global chip shortage is starting to have consequences
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/07/chip-shortage-is-starting-to-have-major-real-world-consequences.html
738 comments
I get that this is a potential big problem, but I had to stop reading when the dog washing company blamed needing to respin a new board on a chip being out of stock due to this.
I'm sorry, but if you aren't buying enough chips to build all the boards you want to build of a revision, this is just what happens, chip shortage or no. Stuff gets obsoleted all the time, it doesn't take a chip shortage.
Blaming a black swan shortage instead of your own poor planning for something as commonplace as needing to respin one board to make more new products is embarrassing.
I'm sorry, but if you aren't buying enough chips to build all the boards you want to build of a revision, this is just what happens, chip shortage or no. Stuff gets obsoleted all the time, it doesn't take a chip shortage.
Blaming a black swan shortage instead of your own poor planning for something as commonplace as needing to respin one board to make more new products is embarrassing.
> Stuff gets obsoleted all the time, it doesn't take a chip shortage.
This is just not true. But when it happens, there is usually an announcement well ahead of time (e.g. 1 year), as well as a last time buy option.
Historically, there has never been a need to buy the chips of all the boards of a revision. If you are in the position of being able to buy all the components of all the boards you'll ever make for a certain revision, you're probably just above hobbyist level.
This is just not true. But when it happens, there is usually an announcement well ahead of time (e.g. 1 year), as well as a last time buy option.
Historically, there has never been a need to buy the chips of all the boards of a revision. If you are in the position of being able to buy all the components of all the boards you'll ever make for a certain revision, you're probably just above hobbyist level.
Depends on the chip manufacturer. Nordic obsoletes versions of their Bluetooth chips at the drop of a hat. I worked for 2 years on a smartwatch that used the nRF51822 and they went through about 8 revisions of the chip during that time, occasionally obsoleting the software API as well. It was a nightmare to work with. We open sourced our design but it is useless to anyone now because they changed the hardware and API's yet again. Any open source hardware likely encounters the same problem eventually.
I think this churn in parts is hurting innovation since it makes things very difficult for small companies just starting out. It also wastes enormous amounts of human effort redesigning boards and rewriting software. People who could be inventing new products are tied up rehashing the existing ones. The cost to the world must be enormous. I do not understand how anyone could think this is a good thing and a reasonable way to run things. It is completely insane.
I think this churn in parts is hurting innovation since it makes things very difficult for small companies just starting out. It also wastes enormous amounts of human effort redesigning boards and rewriting software. People who could be inventing new products are tied up rehashing the existing ones. The cost to the world must be enormous. I do not understand how anyone could think this is a good thing and a reasonable way to run things. It is completely insane.
Would you use an NRF chip today, or is there another you would recommend? I'm working on a board with an NRF52840 and have been annoyed with their API. There are so many versions of their API and software, some are marked deprecated but the interface is still used in their latest code/examples. Nordic also doesn't provide a code generator to configure the hardware. I started with them since their chips seemed popular, they provided the BLE profile I needed, and come with a Segger debug license.
There is not a huge range of choices. I considered TI's chips and worked with a student who had some measure of success using BT on a dev board. I would recommend looking over the support forums for any candidate chips, you will quickly get an idea of what the development experience is like. If the functionality you need is simple (e.g., just sending periodic data from a sensor) then something that wraps the SDK's API and provides a higher level simplified interface would be faster and easier to use (Arduino, MBed). If you need low level access, complete control, and special functionality there are few choices, namely the big chip companies that make BT chips and they all seem pretty bad. My theory is that Bluetooth is so hugely complex as a barrier to market entry (also companies like Nordic want to sell you consulting services). We wanted simultaneous Central and multiple Peripheral channels (a connection to a phone and to multiple sensors) so our only choice at the time was use two chips or use Nordic, and a smartwatch has tight space requirements. In general if you just need radio and it does not have to be Bluetooth I would avoid Bluetooth. ANT was a real pleasure to work with and has some nice development and testing tools and there are some phones with ANT radios (Sony if I remember correctly). Zigbee might be another alternative.
I meant the parts that are not common enough to have pin-compatible substitutes from multiple vendors. I have worked with people way above hobbyist level and it is those obnoxious non-standard parts that are the ones that suddenly go out of stock everywhere even if they aren't actually obsoleted. Sometimes they just haven't done a run manufacturing that part number in a while and the stock ran out.
I've seen this happen with everyone from ST to Microchip to Atmel (when it existed) to Qualcomm to Analog Devices (though interestingly never Texas Instruments so far); this is just something that happens...
Thank you for the clarification, my initial comment was flippant and needed like four paragraphs of caveats.
I've seen this happen with everyone from ST to Microchip to Atmel (when it existed) to Qualcomm to Analog Devices (though interestingly never Texas Instruments so far); this is just something that happens...
Thank you for the clarification, my initial comment was flippant and needed like four paragraphs of caveats.
“The parts that don’t have a pin compatible substitute” is usually 80% of your total BOM cost. It’s not a helpful clarification.
Let’s take something totally ordinary like an STM32 MCU, and let’s ignore for a moment that there are now some clones on the market, with questionable compatibility at times.
Even though they’re unique parts, there is no way anybody sane would stock up on those for the lifetime of a product revision.
It was never needed and it’s ridiculous to plan for a black swan event like the one we’re experiencing now.
And here’s why: even if you had planned for a sudden shortage of an STM32, you’d still be screwed on some generic components. Because I’ve seen people get stuck recently because they couldn’t source certain generic diodes.
It makes no financial sense to always plan for the worst possible case. The whole reason distributors exist is because they are the buffer that moderates spikes in supply and demand.
The system has worked very well for decades. It’s much better to be right or wrong along with everybody else than to be wrong 99% of the time (and waste margins compared to the competition), and being able to say “I told you so” to the rest once.
And that 99% is not hyperbole.
Let’s take something totally ordinary like an STM32 MCU, and let’s ignore for a moment that there are now some clones on the market, with questionable compatibility at times.
Even though they’re unique parts, there is no way anybody sane would stock up on those for the lifetime of a product revision.
It was never needed and it’s ridiculous to plan for a black swan event like the one we’re experiencing now.
And here’s why: even if you had planned for a sudden shortage of an STM32, you’d still be screwed on some generic components. Because I’ve seen people get stuck recently because they couldn’t source certain generic diodes.
It makes no financial sense to always plan for the worst possible case. The whole reason distributors exist is because they are the buffer that moderates spikes in supply and demand.
The system has worked very well for decades. It’s much better to be right or wrong along with everybody else than to be wrong 99% of the time (and waste margins compared to the competition), and being able to say “I told you so” to the rest once.
And that 99% is not hyperbole.
I’ve been stocking up on various chips and components for the last month. Almost grabbed some STM32s. Maybe if I can find them.
I have this growing gut feeling we are at the peak of technology... at least for a while.
I have this growing gut feeling we are at the peak of technology... at least for a while.
On the other hand, I expect this whole mess to propel technology way forward, especially the microchip market. Everyone can now see that there is extreme demand for it and what is compatibility and standardization good for.
You and a bunch of others, and now all the supermarkets are out of toilet paper.
[deleted]
Not really. I have a lot of musical equipment. The chips I have are relatively uncommon. Not toilet paper. I’ve only got enough to duplicate things and keep them running if need be. I suspect what I will have will last around end of my life. Enough to just keep things going.
I’m not a hoarder, I’ve kept my focus limited and goals clear.
But you’re an assumptive a*hat.
I’m not a hoarder, I’ve kept my focus limited and goals clear.
But you’re an assumptive a*hat.
Guilty as charged. I was part joking, part serious. I've had to order more than immediately needed capacity a couple of times in my life to tide over expected difficulties in getting timely equipment. Either managers who were slow at approving things or (today) expected shipping delays meaning I need enough capacity for the expected next year rather than expected next 2 months. Multiply that by everyone, you get a rush on the bank.
Interestingly I saw an analysis a while back (citation not provided because I'm about to go sleep and have an early start tomorrow) that just the change in demand from office to home could account for a lot of the increased toilet paper demand. People were still shitting the same amount but they were using home-grade rolls rather than industrial giant office rolls, of which there was a glut!
Interestingly I saw an analysis a while back (citation not provided because I'm about to go sleep and have an early start tomorrow) that just the change in demand from office to home could account for a lot of the increased toilet paper demand. People were still shitting the same amount but they were using home-grade rolls rather than industrial giant office rolls, of which there was a glut!
Alrighty. Well, I just remember last years run on toilet paper. It was a “why?”, people buying much more than needed. I don’t wanna be one of them.
I still say “stock up” though at least for what you can actually plan to use. Just like the above with toilet paper, supply-chains are going funky.
I still say “stock up” though at least for what you can actually plan to use. Just like the above with toilet paper, supply-chains are going funky.
[deleted]
Never let a crisis go to waste
Companies always piggy back on the current crisis to make changes or blame issues on that crisis that have nothing at all to do with the actual crisis...
come to think about it, governments also do this.
Companies always piggy back on the current crisis to make changes or blame issues on that crisis that have nothing at all to do with the actual crisis...
come to think about it, governments also do this.
> come to think about it, governments also do this
This was my thought watching the video in the article. It went on and on about supply shortages, China, and the Biden administration’s talks to prevent shortage as well as Chinese competition, and then near the end of the video, two little details slip by so fast you could miss them: auto makers cancelled their own orders, now they want their place in line back, and the biggest chip maker (TSMC) is in Taiwan, but it’s really close to China, so it still counts.
Yes, preventing supply shortages and paying attention to national security are good things. But neither of those would address the specific “shortage” behind this article & video.
This was my thought watching the video in the article. It went on and on about supply shortages, China, and the Biden administration’s talks to prevent shortage as well as Chinese competition, and then near the end of the video, two little details slip by so fast you could miss them: auto makers cancelled their own orders, now they want their place in line back, and the biggest chip maker (TSMC) is in Taiwan, but it’s really close to China, so it still counts.
Yes, preventing supply shortages and paying attention to national security are good things. But neither of those would address the specific “shortage” behind this article & video.
And so do individuals. There's plenty of tragic or difficult moments that come unexpected in one's life, and it's easy to make them cover for unrelated issues, because questioning the explanation would be greatly untactful. A somewhat stereotypical example - a student that excuses their lack of homework and unpreparedness by mentioning their aunt died, even though they weren't really close with their aunt and they learned about the death an hour before the class started - it's an easy way out that nobody will dare question.
Chips don't suddenly get obsoleted though, they get put in "not recommended for new designs" for at least a year or two beforehand, and when the chip maker plans to phase the chip out they typically give a "last time buy" notice at least a month or two before it gets discontinued.
The normal courtesy for LTB is a year, often 18 months.
And if you have a contract to buy a certain amount from a supplier then they will hold that much stock in their own inventory to cover your contract.
Apologies, I truly intended "out of stock" rather than "obsoleted" and agree 100% that there is a big difference.
I'm very loosely involved in the highly customized keyboard business, think runs of a couple hundred units.
One vendor is having trouble finding any chip to design for. The software stack supports a couple of dozen STM32 chip series, but none of them are even remotely available. I've seen a lead time of over 11 months. Before COVID, pretty much every single chip was in stock almost all of the time.
Respinning a board isn't too difficult, but good luck doing that if there's no chip to respin it for.
One vendor is having trouble finding any chip to design for. The software stack supports a couple of dozen STM32 chip series, but none of them are even remotely available. I've seen a lead time of over 11 months. Before COVID, pretty much every single chip was in stock almost all of the time.
Respinning a board isn't too difficult, but good luck doing that if there's no chip to respin it for.
Yep, we're hearing 52week lead times on pretty much all microcontrollers at the moment, with more esoteric parts being... somewhat more than that.
A year ago you could buy 10k+ units of most common parts -- in stock -- from each of the major distributors.
A year ago you could buy 10k+ units of most common parts -- in stock -- from each of the major distributors.
> Respinning a board isn't too difficult, but good luck doing that if there's no chip to respin it for.
Some people hoard toilet paper, some people hoard baby formula, some people hoard Shanghai apartments, some people hoard microchips...
Got burned with same STM32s recently. A purchaser been shopping parts, and ordered a given model of MCU by muscle memory. The price has moved one zero overnight, and we ran for quite a sum.
Some people hoard toilet paper, some people hoard baby formula, some people hoard Shanghai apartments, some people hoard microchips...
Got burned with same STM32s recently. A purchaser been shopping parts, and ordered a given model of MCU by muscle memory. The price has moved one zero overnight, and we ran for quite a sum.
Some people fail to stock toilet people, some people fail to stock chip fabs.
I don't doubt it, in the article the dog washing company specifically said that their design firm already had a solution that just required new PCBs.
That is not sympathetic, that's very normal.
What you're describing is sympathetic and hard to deal with. Their example was lucky about it and still ended up somehow quoted in the story.
That is not sympathetic, that's very normal.
What you're describing is sympathetic and hard to deal with. Their example was lucky about it and still ended up somehow quoted in the story.
I wonder if that sort of library compatibility might be the reason for the shortages in those particular part lines?
It looks easy to find STM32L0x2 chips in stock. Those are not supported by the QMK firmware, but they are very similar in terms of peripherals and features to the supported (and hard-to-find) STM32F0x2 lines. The main differences are a lower minimum operating voltage and more power management options, IIRC.
It looks easy to find STM32L0x2 chips in stock. Those are not supported by the QMK firmware, but they are very similar in terms of peripherals and features to the supported (and hard-to-find) STM32F0x2 lines. The main differences are a lower minimum operating voltage and more power management options, IIRC.
STM32 isn't the only Cortex-M microcontroller series in the world, you know. They're popular because they're pretty decent, low cost, have good dev boards and offer a wide variety of parts.
However, their software sucks (okay, so do all of the other options...), their peripherals are not as good as some of the other options (in particular I'm thinking of peripheral clock trees when I say this, among other things), and their availability is the _worst_.
Seriously, unless you're big enough that ST management actually knows your name, expect to have sudden availability issues with the STM32. This has been true for the last decade. It will remain true. (Many of these availability problems start at ST's wafer fab, so they're not shared by the other vendors.) I always advise clients who care about such things to consider other vendors.
However, their software sucks (okay, so do all of the other options...), their peripherals are not as good as some of the other options (in particular I'm thinking of peripheral clock trees when I say this, among other things), and their availability is the _worst_.
Seriously, unless you're big enough that ST management actually knows your name, expect to have sudden availability issues with the STM32. This has been true for the last decade. It will remain true. (Many of these availability problems start at ST's wafer fab, so they're not shared by the other vendors.) I always advise clients who care about such things to consider other vendors.
> They're popular because they're pretty decent, low cost, have good dev boards and offer a wide variety of parts.
Now find a single person who can program bare hardware on a short notice on above Arduino level.
The current chip shortage has claimed 6 of our firmware devs, all hired by companies ready to spend just any money for anybody "who can replace that ____ing STM|NXP|Renesas thing"
People downstream in the industry greatly overestimated their knowledge of the industry.
Lots of tech companies around who had zero prior knowledge of embedded development, now jumping on it, and breaking their teeth.
I haven't heard more fabulous questions like "Are there other microcontrollers than Intel, and AMD in the world?" this year than any time before.
Now find a single person who can program bare hardware on a short notice on above Arduino level.
The current chip shortage has claimed 6 of our firmware devs, all hired by companies ready to spend just any money for anybody "who can replace that ____ing STM|NXP|Renesas thing"
People downstream in the industry greatly overestimated their knowledge of the industry.
Lots of tech companies around who had zero prior knowledge of embedded development, now jumping on it, and breaking their teeth.
I haven't heard more fabulous questions like "Are there other microcontrollers than Intel, and AMD in the world?" this year than any time before.
>Now find a single person who can program bare hardware on a short notice on above Arduino level.
Wait, there's real money in that?
Maybe I shouldn't waste my time just doing yard work.
Sidenote: I just asked my wife about parts shortages at her workplace. Evidently you guys are right. I should get out more.
Wait, there's real money in that?
Maybe I shouldn't waste my time just doing yard work.
Sidenote: I just asked my wife about parts shortages at her workplace. Evidently you guys are right. I should get out more.
No, there isn't real money in this. I've been doing it 30 years now and my earnings curve will never match what a webdev gets.
Firmware engineers are the out-of-sight-out-of-mind component in the product development spectrum.
Firmware engineers are the out-of-sight-out-of-mind component in the product development spectrum.
To be fair, nobody's wages were particularly high 30 years ago.
Although the money has been decent, programming complicated devices has spoiled me for one thing..I have just about essentially zero interest in web technologies, products, languages. I've always gotten to work on the sexier version of embedded work and so feel really blessed, it's not all about the lucre.
Although the money has been decent, programming complicated devices has spoiled me for one thing..I have just about essentially zero interest in web technologies, products, languages. I've always gotten to work on the sexier version of embedded work and so feel really blessed, it's not all about the lucre.
>my earnings curve will never match what a webdev gets.
Which is the saddest part of it all.
Which is the saddest part of it all.
Yep, I'd say today is the best opportunity to get a higher paid embedded job than any time before if anybody specifically targets people hiring on urgency.
But a thing to remember is that people currently hiring themselves been likely neglecting their RnD before the crisis hit them.
But a thing to remember is that people currently hiring themselves been likely neglecting their RnD before the crisis hit them.
I have to wonder how many of those gigs are getting an ugly legacy codewad dumped in your lap with a short deadline to add features to somebody's automatic swimming pool cleaning product.
> The current chip shortage has claimed 6 of our firmware devs, all hired by companies ready to spend just any money for anybody "who can replace that ____ing STM|NXP|Renesas thing"
Condolences on the loss of coworkers.
But this seems interesting to software people who haven't been doing embedded, but who can wrangle C well enough to adapt (quickly?) to embedded constraints and interfaces.
Condolences on the loss of coworkers.
But this seems interesting to software people who haven't been doing embedded, but who can wrangle C well enough to adapt (quickly?) to embedded constraints and interfaces.
Embedded development is more than just wrangling C, that would be like saying backend dev is wrangling EC2 instances ;).
It's knowing how low level hardware operates and knowing how to dig yourself out of the various gotchas like for example figuring out that a last minute replacement of the crystal oscillator by the HW team with a cheaper one is now screwing up your boot process or that the reason your products are starting to go haywire after 6 months is an interrupt triggering too many writes to the flash, wearing it out prematurely, etc.
It's knowing how low level hardware operates and knowing how to dig yourself out of the various gotchas like for example figuring out that a last minute replacement of the crystal oscillator by the HW team with a cheaper one is now screwing up your boot process or that the reason your products are starting to go haywire after 6 months is an interrupt triggering too many writes to the flash, wearing it out prematurely, etc.
I hope an EE with a logic analyzer will help troubleshoot the clock problem, since I don't think the prevailing software methodology will work (i.e., ask on Stackoverflow, then add three dozen more Node.js packages to the firmware footprint). :)
You don't need EE for that, just reasonably competent embedded programmer with a logic analyzer. But that's typically the difference between embedded programmers and "normal" programmers.
Even just making software for those things can be interesting. You need to know how the memory is laid out. You need to know if an interrupt happens at the wrong spot you are broken. I had one where the data was bumping through a 485 bus and the data was coming out wonky on the other side. Meaning I had 0 control over the software or hw on the other side as it was a vendor product. But I could at least read the chips numbers and guess what the dev did with the memory segments on the other side. Turns out I was telling the thing to read over a memory boundary which caused odd results. Which lead me to breaking the command into 2 parts.
Sometimes being an embedded dev is dead easy. Other times you are dealing with a GCC chain from 2003. 2 layers of some 3rd party of libs that someone bought in 2005 because the VP was good friends with a buddy in some other company that made something similar (which you may may not have the code for). With 64k of flash and RAM. And the vendor ground off the chip numbers and put their own sticker in place. Playing detective, historian, and making good guesses as you may not even have access to the firmware anymore. Then on top of that sometimes you are really lucky and have a debug port and can play the printf logging game to see what is going wrong.
Sometimes being an embedded dev is dead easy. Other times you are dealing with a GCC chain from 2003. 2 layers of some 3rd party of libs that someone bought in 2005 because the VP was good friends with a buddy in some other company that made something similar (which you may may not have the code for). With 64k of flash and RAM. And the vendor ground off the chip numbers and put their own sticker in place. Playing detective, historian, and making good guesses as you may not even have access to the firmware anymore. Then on top of that sometimes you are really lucky and have a debug port and can play the printf logging game to see what is going wrong.
Does "Embedded dev" imply digital, or can it include analogue things too?
>Now find a single person who can program bare hardware on a short notice on above Arduino level.
Are you in the US? Because EU is full of embedded devs.
Are you in the US? Because EU is full of embedded devs.
That's happening in China. It's not that uncommon.
[deleted]
But it's a great save your ass tactic that's used all the time.
If it's a big news story people are focused on it. And humans mistakenly attribute events to what the are focused on.
Trump was a great scapegoat for local, city, regional, state politicians.
All kinds of things can be blamed on climate change, systematic racism, etc. Basically anything that a leader can't fix but is in the news is a great scapegoat.
Not to say that these aren't real issue. They are, but once you hear how they are over attributed as causal you can't unsee it.
If it's a big news story people are focused on it. And humans mistakenly attribute events to what the are focused on.
Trump was a great scapegoat for local, city, regional, state politicians.
All kinds of things can be blamed on climate change, systematic racism, etc. Basically anything that a leader can't fix but is in the news is a great scapegoat.
Not to say that these aren't real issue. They are, but once you hear how they are over attributed as causal you can't unsee it.
> I had to stop reading when the dog washing company blamed needing to respin a new board on a chip being out of stock due to this
...
> if you aren't buying enough chips to build all the boards you want to build of a revision
Friendly advice:
If you are going to be a consultant to industry, don't post comments like this.
As someone who has been manufacturing tech products for over thirty years, my first reaction to your comment was "this guy doesn't have a clue". Then I looked at your site and was absolutely floored. My guess is you have lived in what I like to call the "SBIR distortion field", which is a domain that is very, very far from the realities of, say, a dog washing company. Not just because of usually just having to make one or a few of something (rather than 10,000), but also because of the financial dynamics of these programs --I have experience in that domain as well.
Your vision of how this dog washing-machine company should operate does not align with the realities of a business outside of the "SBIR distortion field". Companies don't have cash reserves to fill the warehouse to the brim with components and product, weather a storm, keep the business afloat and everyone employed simultaneously. On top of that, manufacturing at any non-trivial scale is such a cash intensive endeavor that cash must be managed very carefully. If you buy too much inventory you can end-up in financial dire straits.
The phase lag between spending money to manufacture a product and getting a return on that investment can be in the order of months, and that assumes a "linear" market. If you include R&D in that equation, it's even worse, years.
I experienced this personally back in 2008. I did precisely what you suggested above and filled the warehouse with some two million dollars in components and assemblies to get ready for sales of our new product. We had demand. In fact, the purchase of the components and assemblies was triggered by receiving a purchase order for five million dollars of this product. And that was just one customer. I didn't know better. I thought it was perfectly sensible to place large PO's for critical components that would cover us for at least a year and tool-up. We even bought a bunch of brand new CNC equipment to bring manufacturing of heat sinks and other mechanical components in-house in order to reduce our cost basis. In fact, interestingly enough given some of what you have on your site, I made the single largest purchase to date (at that time) from Osram's high power LED division. No company in the world had ordered that many high power LEDs from them.
And then the music stopped.
The economy came to a grinding halt.
Sales went to ZERO.
The five million dollar purchase order? They went insolvent when their bank cut-down and eventually cancelled their line of credit. Other orders from major companies were put on hold (we had a PO but were told they were not going to accept deliveries, so, don't ship). We went from having tens of millions of dollars in orders for that product and that year to, effectively, zero.
What was the end result? It was very rough. All of our cash was in the warehouse, on shelves, as components and assemblies we could not sell. We couldn't even get a loan to weather the storm. Nobody was buying anything, not at scale anyhow. We had to sell some of our component inventory for ten or twenty cents on the dollar just to bring in cash. It was worthless.
I had to take a second mortgage on my home and use credit cards to make payroll (big mistakes, both of them). We survived for two years on bread crumbs. And then I had to shut down the company. It too me years to even be able to talk about this episode of my life to anyone. It was horrible.
The two millions dollars I spent on "buying enough chips to build all the boards", as you put it (it was more than chips, but the example fits) was the single biggest mistake I have made in my business career. And this one cost me a business I built over a decade, starting in my garage with $5,000 to receiving a $30MM acquisition offer just as the economy took a shit (the offer was rescinded).
So, please, pretty please, with sugar on top, if you want to be a consultant, don't say anything unless you really understand it. In this case, you clearly do not. To someone like me --who has actually lived through many ups and downs in life and business-- such comments result in what I will call "less-than-favorable conclusions" about the author. This isn't good for a consultant, unless the consulting is in a domain that does not necessarily align with reality outside of something like the SBIR/academic domains.
It took years to recover, both mentally and financially. I eventually launched a new business, also in tech. Today we are facing having to manufacture 10K to 20K units per month of a new product. When we started design we picked readily available components and went on to design the product over about twelve months (real product design for scale manufacturing takes time).
Today, as we approach production requirements, we are being quoted anywhere from 40 to 50 weeks for some of the components. In other words, we can't even buy them. We are having to consider having multiple alternative designs to see if we can manufacture functionally equivalent versions of the hardware using different chip sets. This means all of our regulatory and safety testing --another thing you ignored-- (FCC, CE, TUV, UL, environmental, thermal, lifetime, etc.) has to be redone, not once, but likely four to six times (depending on how many versions we end-up with). It's a nightmare.
And, no, buying a million chips a year ago wasn't the solution. The cash drain would have resulted in people losing their jobs and possibly even going out of business again as sales levels last years went down some 80%.
You buy as close to just-in-time as you possibly can. This practice has gained acceptance over the years for a reason. Sadly, I happen to have learned the lesson the hard way. If you have to weather a storm it is far better to have cash in the bank than a warehouse full of worthless components that you can't turn into cash precisely because of the storm.
"A man holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way". --Mark Twain
So true.
...
> if you aren't buying enough chips to build all the boards you want to build of a revision
Friendly advice:
If you are going to be a consultant to industry, don't post comments like this.
As someone who has been manufacturing tech products for over thirty years, my first reaction to your comment was "this guy doesn't have a clue". Then I looked at your site and was absolutely floored. My guess is you have lived in what I like to call the "SBIR distortion field", which is a domain that is very, very far from the realities of, say, a dog washing company. Not just because of usually just having to make one or a few of something (rather than 10,000), but also because of the financial dynamics of these programs --I have experience in that domain as well.
Your vision of how this dog washing-machine company should operate does not align with the realities of a business outside of the "SBIR distortion field". Companies don't have cash reserves to fill the warehouse to the brim with components and product, weather a storm, keep the business afloat and everyone employed simultaneously. On top of that, manufacturing at any non-trivial scale is such a cash intensive endeavor that cash must be managed very carefully. If you buy too much inventory you can end-up in financial dire straits.
The phase lag between spending money to manufacture a product and getting a return on that investment can be in the order of months, and that assumes a "linear" market. If you include R&D in that equation, it's even worse, years.
I experienced this personally back in 2008. I did precisely what you suggested above and filled the warehouse with some two million dollars in components and assemblies to get ready for sales of our new product. We had demand. In fact, the purchase of the components and assemblies was triggered by receiving a purchase order for five million dollars of this product. And that was just one customer. I didn't know better. I thought it was perfectly sensible to place large PO's for critical components that would cover us for at least a year and tool-up. We even bought a bunch of brand new CNC equipment to bring manufacturing of heat sinks and other mechanical components in-house in order to reduce our cost basis. In fact, interestingly enough given some of what you have on your site, I made the single largest purchase to date (at that time) from Osram's high power LED division. No company in the world had ordered that many high power LEDs from them.
And then the music stopped.
The economy came to a grinding halt.
Sales went to ZERO.
The five million dollar purchase order? They went insolvent when their bank cut-down and eventually cancelled their line of credit. Other orders from major companies were put on hold (we had a PO but were told they were not going to accept deliveries, so, don't ship). We went from having tens of millions of dollars in orders for that product and that year to, effectively, zero.
What was the end result? It was very rough. All of our cash was in the warehouse, on shelves, as components and assemblies we could not sell. We couldn't even get a loan to weather the storm. Nobody was buying anything, not at scale anyhow. We had to sell some of our component inventory for ten or twenty cents on the dollar just to bring in cash. It was worthless.
I had to take a second mortgage on my home and use credit cards to make payroll (big mistakes, both of them). We survived for two years on bread crumbs. And then I had to shut down the company. It too me years to even be able to talk about this episode of my life to anyone. It was horrible.
The two millions dollars I spent on "buying enough chips to build all the boards", as you put it (it was more than chips, but the example fits) was the single biggest mistake I have made in my business career. And this one cost me a business I built over a decade, starting in my garage with $5,000 to receiving a $30MM acquisition offer just as the economy took a shit (the offer was rescinded).
So, please, pretty please, with sugar on top, if you want to be a consultant, don't say anything unless you really understand it. In this case, you clearly do not. To someone like me --who has actually lived through many ups and downs in life and business-- such comments result in what I will call "less-than-favorable conclusions" about the author. This isn't good for a consultant, unless the consulting is in a domain that does not necessarily align with reality outside of something like the SBIR/academic domains.
It took years to recover, both mentally and financially. I eventually launched a new business, also in tech. Today we are facing having to manufacture 10K to 20K units per month of a new product. When we started design we picked readily available components and went on to design the product over about twelve months (real product design for scale manufacturing takes time).
Today, as we approach production requirements, we are being quoted anywhere from 40 to 50 weeks for some of the components. In other words, we can't even buy them. We are having to consider having multiple alternative designs to see if we can manufacture functionally equivalent versions of the hardware using different chip sets. This means all of our regulatory and safety testing --another thing you ignored-- (FCC, CE, TUV, UL, environmental, thermal, lifetime, etc.) has to be redone, not once, but likely four to six times (depending on how many versions we end-up with). It's a nightmare.
And, no, buying a million chips a year ago wasn't the solution. The cash drain would have resulted in people losing their jobs and possibly even going out of business again as sales levels last years went down some 80%.
You buy as close to just-in-time as you possibly can. This practice has gained acceptance over the years for a reason. Sadly, I happen to have learned the lesson the hard way. If you have to weather a storm it is far better to have cash in the bank than a warehouse full of worthless components that you can't turn into cash precisely because of the storm.
"A man holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way". --Mark Twain
So true.
That's a tale as old as time to anyone who weathered the great recession, and I can deeply sympathize.
You've highlighted exactly the value and difference experience makes. People born at the crest of the wave can only take for granted their position until they have lived enough to reflect.
You've highlighted exactly the value and difference experience makes. People born at the crest of the wave can only take for granted their position until they have lived enough to reflect.
As I finished writing that comment (and I truly tried to be constructive as the author is young and inexperienced) I remembered another traumatic event of that era.
Every order we received was like precious molecules of much needed oxygen. We got this order from one of our resellers (we had about fifty all over the world at the time) for about half a million dollars in product. This needs to be in the right context: I had just taken out nearly all of the equity in my home to keep the business going and took out a bunch of cash on all of my credit cards, personal and business. I had already been to the hospital once due to stress and dehydration (I managed to do that twice in a year). A half million dollar order felt like a billion dollars.
We had product. We shipped it and awaited payment in thirty days. That's the other reality, it just takes time to convert components to money.
Almost precisely thirty days into this cycle FedEx freight shows-up with a shipment. Our reseller returned 100% of the order we shipped a month earlier. All of it.
I called the owner of the company and unloaded on him. At the end of the call I ended-up having to thank him.
You see, they were going down in flames, just as most of us were. He was at the point where the banks forced him into bankruptcy. He knew that within days people were going to descend on him to take inventory (and possession) of everything under their roof.
He sent us our hardware back because he actually care for us and did not want the bank to grab hardware he had not paid for. Like I said, I had to say "thanks" and wish him luck.
I can't remember if we ever got another order of that size between that point in time and when we closed our doors.
Every order we received was like precious molecules of much needed oxygen. We got this order from one of our resellers (we had about fifty all over the world at the time) for about half a million dollars in product. This needs to be in the right context: I had just taken out nearly all of the equity in my home to keep the business going and took out a bunch of cash on all of my credit cards, personal and business. I had already been to the hospital once due to stress and dehydration (I managed to do that twice in a year). A half million dollar order felt like a billion dollars.
We had product. We shipped it and awaited payment in thirty days. That's the other reality, it just takes time to convert components to money.
Almost precisely thirty days into this cycle FedEx freight shows-up with a shipment. Our reseller returned 100% of the order we shipped a month earlier. All of it.
I called the owner of the company and unloaded on him. At the end of the call I ended-up having to thank him.
You see, they were going down in flames, just as most of us were. He was at the point where the banks forced him into bankruptcy. He knew that within days people were going to descend on him to take inventory (and possession) of everything under their roof.
He sent us our hardware back because he actually care for us and did not want the bank to grab hardware he had not paid for. Like I said, I had to say "thanks" and wish him luck.
I can't remember if we ever got another order of that size between that point in time and when we closed our doors.
Maybe the real lesson of the whole thread is to require customers to pay in advance with a non-reversible wire transfer, or at least via an escrow service contingent on delivering the goods. Or alternatively, somehow buy insurance against the customer failing to pay.
This is a thing offered by some banks, they will pay you straight away and take a cut for the convenience/risk.
If you can find a customer who will pay in advance on product with (reportedly) 40+ weeks lead time, then you've found a customer who will probably be insolvent by the time you ship
You are not going to find any sizable player who will agree to immediate payment. Even getting someone to agree net 30 can be pulling teeth from time to time.
This war was fought decades ago. Just-in-time production won, and it was a decisive victory. This chip shortage is rough, but nowhere near as rough as it would be if we weren't doing things the way we are right now. Everything that has happened has happened for a reason. Attempting to disrupt this will put you in way over your head in ways you couldn't imagine.
This war was fought decades ago. Just-in-time production won, and it was a decisive victory. This chip shortage is rough, but nowhere near as rough as it would be if we weren't doing things the way we are right now. Everything that has happened has happened for a reason. Attempting to disrupt this will put you in way over your head in ways you couldn't imagine.
There are an enormous number of marketplace norms which prevent being able to make demands on a customer like that. If you're the only vendor trying to protect your downside like that, then you look like a bad vendor, and it can affect your ability to close the deal at all. Especially in enterprise/B2B markets there's an amount of ceremony and playing of the game required, not because it's actually good for any of the parties involved, but because it's just the thing everybody does, so you have to do it too.
For example, we sell into markets like automotive, aerospace, and medical. Being a startup we have basically zero leverage in how to go about conducting business with large well entrenched enterprises with business development dynamics that were calcified decades ago. Part of managing my business is accepting and working with the risk profile of having to keep the company solvent long enough to actually engage these customers in the ways they're able to be engaged. I'm not going to be in a position to make demands that they conduct business significantly differently with us relative to their hundreds of other vendors regardless of if it would ultimately benefit both of us to do so. There's an amount of inertia in any status quo that needs to be overcome, and the problem with that is that the party with the most motivation to displace that inertia is also the one with the least power to do so. That reality gets baked into our capitalization and operations strategy.
I'd love to be able to demand that automotive OEMs actually cover the cost of engaging in a PoC with them which isn't going to have any real payoff for months or years, but every single other supplier they have eats that cost just like we do, and betting my company on the incredibly low probability that I'm going to displace the pandering that they expect from their supply-chain all by ourselves would be crazy.
For example, we sell into markets like automotive, aerospace, and medical. Being a startup we have basically zero leverage in how to go about conducting business with large well entrenched enterprises with business development dynamics that were calcified decades ago. Part of managing my business is accepting and working with the risk profile of having to keep the company solvent long enough to actually engage these customers in the ways they're able to be engaged. I'm not going to be in a position to make demands that they conduct business significantly differently with us relative to their hundreds of other vendors regardless of if it would ultimately benefit both of us to do so. There's an amount of inertia in any status quo that needs to be overcome, and the problem with that is that the party with the most motivation to displace that inertia is also the one with the least power to do so. That reality gets baked into our capitalization and operations strategy.
I'd love to be able to demand that automotive OEMs actually cover the cost of engaging in a PoC with them which isn't going to have any real payoff for months or years, but every single other supplier they have eats that cost just like we do, and betting my company on the incredibly low probability that I'm going to displace the pandering that they expect from their supply-chain all by ourselves would be crazy.
> There are an enormous number of marketplace norms which prevent being able to make demands on a customer like that
There's also the reality that every business is on a 30, 60 or 90 day phase lag from delivery to getting paid, and so they have no choice but to enforce those rules up the supply chain. If you don't you need piles of cash upfront months before you generate any revenue, at scale that is really tough to manage and there's a very real cost to money.
The simplest example of this I can offer is that if you have to borrow ten million dollars to pay all your suppliers upfront and this money cost you 1% per month (making the numbers simple for the sake of an example), you are going to incur a 5% cost of money if you have to wait five months to get paid (again, keeping numbers simple).
I have a friend in the production business who made commercials for a major animation studio. He told me it typically took them about six months to collect. They would invest massive amounts of money on equipment and personnel to shoot, edit and deliver a commercial and their payment would not come for six months after delivering the end product. The entire cycle would easily have taken a year.
There's also the reality that every business is on a 30, 60 or 90 day phase lag from delivery to getting paid, and so they have no choice but to enforce those rules up the supply chain. If you don't you need piles of cash upfront months before you generate any revenue, at scale that is really tough to manage and there's a very real cost to money.
The simplest example of this I can offer is that if you have to borrow ten million dollars to pay all your suppliers upfront and this money cost you 1% per month (making the numbers simple for the sake of an example), you are going to incur a 5% cost of money if you have to wait five months to get paid (again, keeping numbers simple).
I have a friend in the production business who made commercials for a major animation studio. He told me it typically took them about six months to collect. They would invest massive amounts of money on equipment and personnel to shoot, edit and deliver a commercial and their payment would not come for six months after delivering the end product. The entire cycle would easily have taken a year.
> Maybe the real lesson of the whole thread is to require customers to pay in advance with a non-reversible wire transfer
Not so easy. This is particularly true as you start to get into higher dollar amounts. Also, it tends to be far more common with international orders than with domestic business. I can say that nearly 100% of our international business was prepaid. Sadly, during the 2008 downturn, all business came to a halt. There were very we places where you could find income that could sustain the prior state of business.
In the case of the the five million dollar contract I mentioned, we did get a $500K deposit with the order. Well, the $500K was spent on components pretty much as soon as it hit the bank, within a week. It's very hard to escape something like what happened in 2008 if all your cash in in a warehouse filled with parts and product you just can't sell.
Not so easy. This is particularly true as you start to get into higher dollar amounts. Also, it tends to be far more common with international orders than with domestic business. I can say that nearly 100% of our international business was prepaid. Sadly, during the 2008 downturn, all business came to a halt. There were very we places where you could find income that could sustain the prior state of business.
In the case of the the five million dollar contract I mentioned, we did get a $500K deposit with the order. Well, the $500K was spent on components pretty much as soon as it hit the bank, within a week. It's very hard to escape something like what happened in 2008 if all your cash in in a warehouse filled with parts and product you just can't sell.
Thats called supply chain financing but of course the biggest company in that space Greensill just went up in flames.
Greensill were a colossal fraud. That's why they recruited David Cameron as political cover. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/28/greensill-c...
Huge mistake, they should have bought Johnson instead.
Huge mistake, they should have bought Johnson instead.
This is great. Thank you. This is like flippantly suggesting we all just drive on the other side of the road. Genius. Ignoring all the complexities involved in getting such an endeavour to happen.
[deleted]
Extremely well said. my gut reaction to the comment you were replying to was similar to yours which was this person clearly has no clue about smaller batch manufacturing.
It kind of ties into Steve Jobs comments on consultants versus people who have to live with the consequences of their decisions.
It kind of ties into Steve Jobs comments on consultants versus people who have to live with the consequences of their decisions.
Thank you for sharing that. One of the biggest laments I've run into trying to help someone get businesses bootstrapped is some of the very lessons you just shared.
That sharing is so damn rare, and I think a lot of people end up in a really bad place because we don't do a great job at teaching the failure states of business.
So again, thank you. Life willing, you sound like someone I'd be thrilled to do business with.
That sharing is so damn rare, and I think a lot of people end up in a really bad place because we don't do a great job at teaching the failure states of business.
So again, thank you. Life willing, you sound like someone I'd be thrilled to do business with.
> One of the biggest laments I've run into trying to help someone get businesses bootstrapped is some of the very lessons you just shared.
This is one of those things that makes hardware businesses so darn hard and something software-only startup folks just don't understand. The marginal cost difference and phasing of money you need to support, say 10K SaaS clients vs. shipping 10K non-trivial hardware products can be massive.
In my case the company was 100% bootstrapped. In retrospect I should have gone for investment as soon as we started to take flight. Frankly, I was too busy gasping for air (money) and absolutely overloaded with work to even consider it. Any investor type I spoke to was going to suck time and resources I simply did not have. So we kept going. Had it not been for the 2008 economic downturn we would have had an amazing exit.
> That sharing is so damn rare
Frankly, the experience was at the limit of darkness for me and sharing was nearly impossible for years. In December of 2009 I wrote a friend an email where, among other things, I said "I now understand, in no uncertain terms, why people jump off buildings or walk in front of trains during hard times". He was knocking on my front door within 15 minutes, after breaking the sound barrier driving from his office to mine.
No, I wasn't thinkin of ending my life. Not even close. It's just that the darkness I was facing at that moment in time produced a clarity of understanding I had never had before. I felt that I had full understanding of how someone could make that kind of a decisions. I was simply communicating the revelation I had. I can see how bad it must have sounded.
This is one of those things that makes hardware businesses so darn hard and something software-only startup folks just don't understand. The marginal cost difference and phasing of money you need to support, say 10K SaaS clients vs. shipping 10K non-trivial hardware products can be massive.
In my case the company was 100% bootstrapped. In retrospect I should have gone for investment as soon as we started to take flight. Frankly, I was too busy gasping for air (money) and absolutely overloaded with work to even consider it. Any investor type I spoke to was going to suck time and resources I simply did not have. So we kept going. Had it not been for the 2008 economic downturn we would have had an amazing exit.
> That sharing is so damn rare
Frankly, the experience was at the limit of darkness for me and sharing was nearly impossible for years. In December of 2009 I wrote a friend an email where, among other things, I said "I now understand, in no uncertain terms, why people jump off buildings or walk in front of trains during hard times". He was knocking on my front door within 15 minutes, after breaking the sound barrier driving from his office to mine.
No, I wasn't thinkin of ending my life. Not even close. It's just that the darkness I was facing at that moment in time produced a clarity of understanding I had never had before. I felt that I had full understanding of how someone could make that kind of a decisions. I was simply communicating the revelation I had. I can see how bad it must have sounded.
First off, I really hope things go well for you and thank you for sharing your amazing story. I went through something similar in the software side of things.
Second, that was a great post and I want to read your (I’m sure imaginary) blog. It was like a mini business education in modern manufacturing.
Finally, I am amazed you’re able to write this with no bitterness. Hats off to you.
Second, that was a great post and I want to read your (I’m sure imaginary) blog. It was like a mini business education in modern manufacturing.
Finally, I am amazed you’re able to write this with no bitterness. Hats off to you.
Oh, there's emotion there. No question about it. Not bitter. Angry, maybe. I made a really bad decision because I thought business was going to take off like crazy that year. We were running on all cylinders. It was going to be the culmination of a ten year effort.
You don't go through something like that without the emotion staying with you. Yet, if you are going to move on you have to be able to put it in a drawer and only look at it every so often just to make sure you are not going to do something dumb again. As time passes you have less time to make mistakes like that.
You don't go through something like that without the emotion staying with you. Yet, if you are going to move on you have to be able to put it in a drawer and only look at it every so often just to make sure you are not going to do something dumb again. As time passes you have less time to make mistakes like that.
The emotion was very evident. That’s what made the post so powerful. You didn’t take it out on the parent poster.
I'm sincerely sorry for offending you so badly.
You did not offend me at all. I'm not a kid. I am just offering a mirror from the perspective of someone who has actually lived the kind of thing you are proposing.
Look at it a different way: Back then I thought what you are proposing was sensible enough that I spent two million dollars to execute precisely that strategy. I ended-up losing a business that I built over ten years because of that decision at a time when it was the worst decision one could make.
In other words, if I called you a fool I would be calling my younger self an even bigger fool. I actually believed it enough to effectively destroy my company and affect my life for years. I am not calling you a fool. I am sharing a lesson I learned the hard way and simply warning readers not to assume they understand reality without the benefit of experience. Sadly some of this stuff we only learn after the fact, not before. I can't blame you at all for not understanding it.
EDIT: If there's emotion in my tone, please forgive me, ten years later and this still hurts. The experience put me in the hospital more than once and nearly cost us everything, we were horribly close from losing our home and everything we built over decades.
Look at it a different way: Back then I thought what you are proposing was sensible enough that I spent two million dollars to execute precisely that strategy. I ended-up losing a business that I built over ten years because of that decision at a time when it was the worst decision one could make.
In other words, if I called you a fool I would be calling my younger self an even bigger fool. I actually believed it enough to effectively destroy my company and affect my life for years. I am not calling you a fool. I am sharing a lesson I learned the hard way and simply warning readers not to assume they understand reality without the benefit of experience. Sadly some of this stuff we only learn after the fact, not before. I can't blame you at all for not understanding it.
EDIT: If there's emotion in my tone, please forgive me, ten years later and this still hurts. The experience put me in the hospital more than once and nearly cost us everything, we were horribly close from losing our home and everything we built over decades.
I appreciate it, but still apologize for being flippant.
I did intend the comment to be about the dog washing startup that I assumed to be a fairly small business. Not buying the (presumed to be in the 10,000 quantity range) MCUs they needed ahead of time, knowing that they will be the single linchpin chip that there will be no pin-compatible replacement for, is what I found to be ridiculous.
I hope you find that perspective to clarify my intent some.
I did intend the comment to be about the dog washing startup that I assumed to be a fairly small business. Not buying the (presumed to be in the 10,000 quantity range) MCUs they needed ahead of time, knowing that they will be the single linchpin chip that there will be no pin-compatible replacement for, is what I found to be ridiculous.
I hope you find that perspective to clarify my intent some.
That's the good-old hindsight is 20/20 business, isn't it?
No need to apologize at all. This is conversation. We all have much to learn.
Today, what you suggested is precisely what I do. I try to make sure there are at least three pin/function-compatible chips that can swap in for any given device. Preferably from different manufacturers. I also talk to distributors to get a sense of volume. I prefer to buy devices and components that are being manufactured and stocked in larger quantities. A silly example of this is that it is much easier to find a 47 uH inductor in stock than a 50 uH part. One has easy substitutes, the other can turn into a nightmare.
As for buying 10K microprocessors, again, that can be a tough decision to make. On the financial front, you could be talking about a $50K to $200K expenditure before you sell any product. In terms of logistics, if I have $200K in microprocessors in stock and I can't buy RS422 drivers I can't build a product. Which means that the decision of locking-up cash in the warehouse can quickly turn into a nearly all-or-nothing proposition. In other words, if you are going to stockpile microprocessors you might have to stockpile another $500K in parts in order to ensure that the investment isn't worthless if there's a shortage.
And then there's the issue of what you do with your nice pile of components if nobody is buying anything. As 2020 has proven, if you are in the wrong category, you could literally sit there for a year without selling much. That's what really hurts when you locked-up a pile of cash in the warehouse. We have a client who's business went down 80% last year. They had to shrink from 50 employees to three. They had to further shrink from a 100K square foot facility to a 22,000 sq ft building. And business is slowly crawling up. Had they made a huge cash investment early last year they would have been out of business by now.
In the electronics manufacturing business you have at least three tiers of manufacturers.
One is the super small shop that just sends everything out to contract manufacturers, along with parts they purchase themselves.
The next is the small-to-medium shop that graduated to having the CM provide parts. In other words, you design your product and fully trust your contract manufacturer to handle the supply chain. CM's will work with distributors to stock components and build boards. There is no way CM's are going to stock components clients don't need just to be sure they have a supply for a year's worth of boards. The only components CM's might stock in large quantities are parts others are using that are low cost. A simple example of this might be resistors.
The next level is a case where a manufacturer has enters into a contract with the distributor and the CM to have "bonded" inventory. They commit to buying a certain quantity of product --no matter what-- and, in exchange, the distributor and CM will inventory enough product to meet the demands of that contract. For example, you might commit to manufacturing 10K LED bulbs per month and need to ensure a supply of, say, half a million LEDs. You sign a contract and this happens. The advantage of this approach is that you are billed as product is delivered rather than for the entire half million LEDs you bonded. Of course, you are buying 10K bulbs per month. It's a machine, once it is set in motion you have to meet your obligation.
The next level might be manufacturers that do their own in-house assembly. I've lived in all of the above categories. The in-house assembly case can give you a lot of control and even lower your COGS, but you are now paying for everything pretty much upfront.
Once you start adding other component classes (mechanical, optical, etc.) things get even more complicated.
Each of these models has a financial formula associated with it. I have no idea where CCSI (the dog washing machine guys sit). My guess is it isn't a high volume business. I would further guess they make boards in batches of 100 or so (I could be wrong). When you don't know a pandemic is coming and the world is going to come to a halt, buying enough to make 100 boards a month is the right decision. If someone suggested they should buy enough to make boards for the entire year it would not sound like good advise unless the cost basis of those boards was such that it materially affected profitability in a significant way.
Business has become so competitive and fast that everyone pretty much ends-up adopting a JIT (Just in Time) manufacturing methodology. Anything else is suicide.
Here's another take: Do I invest money parking components in a warehouse for a year --just in case-- or do I put it into marketing, R&D and new product development? I think I can say that, under normal circumstances, it would be irresponsible (as learned the hard way) to park it in the warehouse. No crystal balls.
As someone else in this thread mentioned, I too wish there were more documented stories of business failures. That's where the real lessons for all of us lie.
No need to apologize at all. This is conversation. We all have much to learn.
Today, what you suggested is precisely what I do. I try to make sure there are at least three pin/function-compatible chips that can swap in for any given device. Preferably from different manufacturers. I also talk to distributors to get a sense of volume. I prefer to buy devices and components that are being manufactured and stocked in larger quantities. A silly example of this is that it is much easier to find a 47 uH inductor in stock than a 50 uH part. One has easy substitutes, the other can turn into a nightmare.
As for buying 10K microprocessors, again, that can be a tough decision to make. On the financial front, you could be talking about a $50K to $200K expenditure before you sell any product. In terms of logistics, if I have $200K in microprocessors in stock and I can't buy RS422 drivers I can't build a product. Which means that the decision of locking-up cash in the warehouse can quickly turn into a nearly all-or-nothing proposition. In other words, if you are going to stockpile microprocessors you might have to stockpile another $500K in parts in order to ensure that the investment isn't worthless if there's a shortage.
And then there's the issue of what you do with your nice pile of components if nobody is buying anything. As 2020 has proven, if you are in the wrong category, you could literally sit there for a year without selling much. That's what really hurts when you locked-up a pile of cash in the warehouse. We have a client who's business went down 80% last year. They had to shrink from 50 employees to three. They had to further shrink from a 100K square foot facility to a 22,000 sq ft building. And business is slowly crawling up. Had they made a huge cash investment early last year they would have been out of business by now.
In the electronics manufacturing business you have at least three tiers of manufacturers.
One is the super small shop that just sends everything out to contract manufacturers, along with parts they purchase themselves.
The next is the small-to-medium shop that graduated to having the CM provide parts. In other words, you design your product and fully trust your contract manufacturer to handle the supply chain. CM's will work with distributors to stock components and build boards. There is no way CM's are going to stock components clients don't need just to be sure they have a supply for a year's worth of boards. The only components CM's might stock in large quantities are parts others are using that are low cost. A simple example of this might be resistors.
The next level is a case where a manufacturer has enters into a contract with the distributor and the CM to have "bonded" inventory. They commit to buying a certain quantity of product --no matter what-- and, in exchange, the distributor and CM will inventory enough product to meet the demands of that contract. For example, you might commit to manufacturing 10K LED bulbs per month and need to ensure a supply of, say, half a million LEDs. You sign a contract and this happens. The advantage of this approach is that you are billed as product is delivered rather than for the entire half million LEDs you bonded. Of course, you are buying 10K bulbs per month. It's a machine, once it is set in motion you have to meet your obligation.
The next level might be manufacturers that do their own in-house assembly. I've lived in all of the above categories. The in-house assembly case can give you a lot of control and even lower your COGS, but you are now paying for everything pretty much upfront.
Once you start adding other component classes (mechanical, optical, etc.) things get even more complicated.
Each of these models has a financial formula associated with it. I have no idea where CCSI (the dog washing machine guys sit). My guess is it isn't a high volume business. I would further guess they make boards in batches of 100 or so (I could be wrong). When you don't know a pandemic is coming and the world is going to come to a halt, buying enough to make 100 boards a month is the right decision. If someone suggested they should buy enough to make boards for the entire year it would not sound like good advise unless the cost basis of those boards was such that it materially affected profitability in a significant way.
Business has become so competitive and fast that everyone pretty much ends-up adopting a JIT (Just in Time) manufacturing methodology. Anything else is suicide.
Here's another take: Do I invest money parking components in a warehouse for a year --just in case-- or do I put it into marketing, R&D and new product development? I think I can say that, under normal circumstances, it would be irresponsible (as learned the hard way) to park it in the warehouse. No crystal balls.
As someone else in this thread mentioned, I too wish there were more documented stories of business failures. That's where the real lessons for all of us lie.
As someone else in this thread mentioned, I too wish there were more documented stories of business failures. That's where the real lessons for all of us lie.
Usually telling someone to "get a blog, dude" is an insult, but in this case it's a real shame that the experience you're relating is going to be buried and forgotten in an ephemeral HN thread. Have you considered sharing your experiences and thoughts on an actual blog, perhaps in conjunction with whatever business you're engaged in nowadays? That's one page I'd bookmark for sure.
Usually telling someone to "get a blog, dude" is an insult, but in this case it's a real shame that the experience you're relating is going to be buried and forgotten in an ephemeral HN thread. Have you considered sharing your experiences and thoughts on an actual blog, perhaps in conjunction with whatever business you're engaged in nowadays? That's one page I'd bookmark for sure.
I have. And I will. Eventually. I just don't have the time to do something like that justice at this point and the emotional ride might not serve me well. It's one thing to open-up on rare occasion on HN, it's quite another to make a regular thing out of it. Revisiting your failures doesn't necessarily make for the best frame of mind as you work hard to push forward.
>It too me years to even be able to talk about this episode of my life to anyone. It was horrible.
I am glad you found the courage to share a bleak chapter in your life, and for being unflinchingly honest. I hope it was cathartic ─ your lived experience will serve as an extremely valuable lesson for those of us, who might encounter such circumstances.
I am glad you found the courage to share a bleak chapter in your life, and for being unflinchingly honest. I hope it was cathartic ─ your lived experience will serve as an extremely valuable lesson for those of us, who might encounter such circumstances.
To this day I don't really like to talk about it because it is easy to blame myself for more and more and I need to focus on the future. One of the things that happens to you when you fail like that after a ten+ year effort is that you sort of lose your identity. By that I mean that I was very well known in my industry, gave seminars to hundreds of people, etc. I went from that to evaporating from the scene for many years. I left the industry and never went back. I shifted into other domains. That identity is gone. In the new context I am nobody. That's a tough shift. Not because I value being somebody, but because losing your professional identity isn't a great thing to having to navigate.
Yes, it is cathartic to some extent. And yet I don't really enjoy talking about it. It still hurts.
Yes, it is cathartic to some extent. And yet I don't really enjoy talking about it. It still hurts.
thanks for the very interesting story. i never went beyond the prototyping stage for the products i designed. i always thought that small scale production would be an easy next step. i understand how wrong i could have been thinking it was "easy".
Don't give up. Just be aware that reality is never even close to a linear path from idea to scale.
Thanks for the detailed comment, and trying to pass knowledge and experience onto the community. It’s these comments that I come here for
I wrote a simple inventory program for a yachting company, after entering the inventory data into the computer it turns out a lot of expensive parts had been double ordered and even triple ordered.
But the Ontario added a luxury tax and sales tanked. It looks like they had over three million dollars in excess inventory. And soon the company went bankrupt, to this day I think the company would had pulled thru if it did not have the extra money in the bank instead of inventory they could not use.
But the Ontario added a luxury tax and sales tanked. It looks like they had over three million dollars in excess inventory. And soon the company went bankrupt, to this day I think the company would had pulled thru if it did not have the extra money in the bank instead of inventory they could not use.
I can't tell you how often I see comments on HN about "corporate greed" and such things as "businesses just want to make money at any cost". What these commenters don't understand is that cash is like the blood pumping through the veins of the business. Without cash the business dies. Even worse, people lose jobs, families lose security and the chain reaction can be massive. Businesses need profit and careful management in order to accumulate cash to grow and survive through events and circumstances most people who have never run a non-trivial business couldn't even begin to imagine.
Every time I read such comments I reflect upon how terrible of a job we are doing in teaching young people about finance, business and entrepreneurship. In the US most high school graduates have no skills to offer other than, perhaps, stacking boxes and making coffee (after some training). I truly don't understand how people are happy with this in a so-called "developed" nation. We launch young adults into the world and they know so little about it. That's where such comments come from. How could you blame them? The entire country failed them by not ensuring their education includes perspectives and knowledge that allows them to deliver value to potential employers.
Every time I read such comments I reflect upon how terrible of a job we are doing in teaching young people about finance, business and entrepreneurship. In the US most high school graduates have no skills to offer other than, perhaps, stacking boxes and making coffee (after some training). I truly don't understand how people are happy with this in a so-called "developed" nation. We launch young adults into the world and they know so little about it. That's where such comments come from. How could you blame them? The entire country failed them by not ensuring their education includes perspectives and knowledge that allows them to deliver value to potential employers.
If a company has a honest business, then i agree with you. Money is the blood in their vein and they need it and should get it.
Well, i cant speak for others, but when i talk about company greed i think of practices like using fake cheese to cut costs but hide it from the customer.
Or when they break their product by update and tell you to buy the bigger one. (Like Synology recently) Or to intentionally slow down the product by Update (like Apple) and lie to your customers about doing it.
Or drying up the well from villages(Like Nestle).
Or demanding tax returns from taxes you never paid (Cum-Ex).
Those companies give a shit on society for each dollar they can get no matter what.
that is greedy and in my opinion very wrong.
Every time i read a comment about how someone defends that i reflect upon how short sighted or antisocial a person must be. Those people have probably no skill beside locust style investment and stealing lolipops from little babies. We launch young Business Administrators into the society and they know so little about how to actually be productive. That's where such comments come from. How could you blame them? The entire Society failed them by not ensuring their education includes perspectives and knowledge that allows them to deliver actual value to economy or society.
Well, i cant speak for others, but when i talk about company greed i think of practices like using fake cheese to cut costs but hide it from the customer.
Or when they break their product by update and tell you to buy the bigger one. (Like Synology recently) Or to intentionally slow down the product by Update (like Apple) and lie to your customers about doing it.
Or drying up the well from villages(Like Nestle).
Or demanding tax returns from taxes you never paid (Cum-Ex).
Those companies give a shit on society for each dollar they can get no matter what.
that is greedy and in my opinion very wrong.
Every time i read a comment about how someone defends that i reflect upon how short sighted or antisocial a person must be. Those people have probably no skill beside locust style investment and stealing lolipops from little babies. We launch young Business Administrators into the society and they know so little about how to actually be productive. That's where such comments come from. How could you blame them? The entire Society failed them by not ensuring their education includes perspectives and knowledge that allows them to deliver actual value to economy or society.
Starting from the basis that there are less-than-honorable people in every domain it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a certain percentage of businesses might be (or are) willing to cut corners or behave badly in pursuit of whatever drives them. This could be profits, survival, competitive advantage, all of the above, etc.
I tend to react badly to broad-brush painting of business and those who run them as greedy and evil. There is a cultural undertone that seems to think this way. I can't understand how this happens other than to think that people who think this way (broad characterization) simply don't engage in any critical thinking at all and don't understand business.
The vast majority of businesses, large and small, are comprised of honest hard-working people who have no ill intent of any kind. The percentage has to be in the high 9's, like 99.999%. If this were not the case it would be very evident.
Large corporations can behave badly due to the power they can wield. A simple example of this are companies that have entire floors full of attorneys and can muscle little guys into submission by simply being able to outspend them in legal jousting. I have been at the receiving end of this and it is nasty. You are entirely powerless and can't do a thing about you. The asymmetry is beyond evident and, yes, very much unfair.
This, in my opinion, is a structural failure of our legal system. I am not a lawyer, so I can't really dissect this down to details. I just think that "equal under the law" depend on how much money you have to tilt that equality. I don't know what could be changed in order to achieve balance.
A simple example of this could be patents. A good utility patent can cost in the order of $25K to $50K to secure and take years. A large company has the resources to write hundreds of patents per year. Small to medium businesses are generally more innovative and creative than large organizations with lots of inertia. However, they are often starved for cash, which means they have to choose between innovating, paying the bills, keeping people employed and existing or dumping cash into patent after patent. This creates a situation where small to medium businesses end-up living in a very real legal mine field of patents that could, at any time, take them out. Beyond that, patent litigation --any litigation-- is so expensive that almost anyone has to cave immediately.
Yes, we could do a lot better in ensuring fairness and socially responsible behavior across the board. Not sure how we get there when our political system's fitness function is completely disconnected from delivering anything of true value to society. As long as politicians are evaluated through a fitness function with that consists of votes and not much else, we are not going to have leadership who cares about doing anything other than lying and pandering for votes. How do we fix anything when these are the kinds of people running the nation?
I tend to react badly to broad-brush painting of business and those who run them as greedy and evil. There is a cultural undertone that seems to think this way. I can't understand how this happens other than to think that people who think this way (broad characterization) simply don't engage in any critical thinking at all and don't understand business.
The vast majority of businesses, large and small, are comprised of honest hard-working people who have no ill intent of any kind. The percentage has to be in the high 9's, like 99.999%. If this were not the case it would be very evident.
Large corporations can behave badly due to the power they can wield. A simple example of this are companies that have entire floors full of attorneys and can muscle little guys into submission by simply being able to outspend them in legal jousting. I have been at the receiving end of this and it is nasty. You are entirely powerless and can't do a thing about you. The asymmetry is beyond evident and, yes, very much unfair.
This, in my opinion, is a structural failure of our legal system. I am not a lawyer, so I can't really dissect this down to details. I just think that "equal under the law" depend on how much money you have to tilt that equality. I don't know what could be changed in order to achieve balance.
A simple example of this could be patents. A good utility patent can cost in the order of $25K to $50K to secure and take years. A large company has the resources to write hundreds of patents per year. Small to medium businesses are generally more innovative and creative than large organizations with lots of inertia. However, they are often starved for cash, which means they have to choose between innovating, paying the bills, keeping people employed and existing or dumping cash into patent after patent. This creates a situation where small to medium businesses end-up living in a very real legal mine field of patents that could, at any time, take them out. Beyond that, patent litigation --any litigation-- is so expensive that almost anyone has to cave immediately.
Yes, we could do a lot better in ensuring fairness and socially responsible behavior across the board. Not sure how we get there when our political system's fitness function is completely disconnected from delivering anything of true value to society. As long as politicians are evaluated through a fitness function with that consists of votes and not much else, we are not going to have leadership who cares about doing anything other than lying and pandering for votes. How do we fix anything when these are the kinds of people running the nation?
Those comments aren't entirely unreasonable. Money is important, but it can't be the be-all-and-end-all of a company.
There are companies like Sun Microsystems, and then there are companies like Oracle.
There are companies like Gandi, and then there are companies like GoDaddy.
There are companies like Fastmail, and then there are companies like Google.
I prefer to look up to the first group.
There are companies like Sun Microsystems, and then there are companies like Oracle.
There are companies like Gandi, and then there are companies like GoDaddy.
There are companies like Fastmail, and then there are companies like Google.
I prefer to look up to the first group.
Sure. Agreed. However, I think it is entirely fair to say that this isn't a 50/50 situation where half the companies are evil. In fact, even companies like Google --which I have grown to dislike-- are not evil. They behave badly in some areas while doing great things in others.
One of the things I have grown fond of forcing myself to say or think as a way to center myself is that reality can't be reduced to a single variable. Reality is a complex multivariate problem. As such, a reduction to a single variable, is both irrational and unrealistic. No matter the issue, there's a lot more under the surface than a single variable, issue, property, behavior, etc. A lot more. The sophisticated thinker will recognize this and try their best to avoid the kinds of sweeping generalizations that are, sadly, so common these days. Entire groups of people negatively painted with a broad brush is probably the most recognizable for of this effect today.
One of the things I have grown fond of forcing myself to say or think as a way to center myself is that reality can't be reduced to a single variable. Reality is a complex multivariate problem. As such, a reduction to a single variable, is both irrational and unrealistic. No matter the issue, there's a lot more under the surface than a single variable, issue, property, behavior, etc. A lot more. The sophisticated thinker will recognize this and try their best to avoid the kinds of sweeping generalizations that are, sadly, so common these days. Entire groups of people negatively painted with a broad brush is probably the most recognizable for of this effect today.
How long did it take for the luxury tax to take effect?
This is one of the best comments I’ve read on this site. I’m sorry for the hardship, but I so appreciate you sharing what you’ve learned.
Excellent post. Thanks for sharing.
This is largely a result of just-in-time manufacturing.
Companies hate holding on to inventory. Most companies now don’t hold on to any extra stock needed to manufacture their products.
This is great for your finances in normal times. But don’t complain when there is a shortage and you literally have zero slack for delays and your factory sits idle — that’s the well-known drawback.
Companies hate holding on to inventory. Most companies now don’t hold on to any extra stock needed to manufacture their products.
This is great for your finances in normal times. But don’t complain when there is a shortage and you literally have zero slack for delays and your factory sits idle — that’s the well-known drawback.
I agree but with a caveat, it's largely a result of BAD just-in-time manufacturing. Zero inventory production systems (ZIPS) are what people often mean when they talk about JIT, they are different. Toyota, one of the originators and leaders of JIT/lean has not had this problem...because they don't blindly ZIPS [0].
Not holding inventory is great for a lot of reasons, but it is a calculated risk...Toyota learned from experience that if they want to do it, they need to understand risk all the way up their supply chain. They largely aren't having this problem. They de-risked certain things because they really treat TPS and everything associated with it as a philosophy not a set of heuristics that should just be implemented blindly. Manufacturing something is all tradeoffs...there is (almost) nothing with a universal upside. Sure I want to hold less inventory, but JIT is actually about manufacturing time, not inventory. If I have NO inventory and NO ability to get inventory my manufacturing time goes up while I wait with my thumb in the fertilizer pipe.
I've worked with a couple of manufacturing plants (and consultants...) that treat 'JIT' inventory management as something that can simply be pushed off to vendors and then the upside of less inventory enjoyed. They have specs and forms and certification and paperwork...but nobody looks at it. Those are the companies struggling now. They outsourced without fully understanding the risk of the outsourcing. Usually this doesn't bite the world, it bites one or two companies that relied on a certain part (someone misses an EOL notice) or a certain vendor (who goes bust because the owner's grandson ran the thing into the ground). It's like my students who make choices in the first week of the semester that seem minor...and then are frustrated when it effects their grade at the end of the semester (sorry, too much grading this week)
[0] https://www.autoblog.com/2021/03/09/toyota-how-it-avoided-se...
Not holding inventory is great for a lot of reasons, but it is a calculated risk...Toyota learned from experience that if they want to do it, they need to understand risk all the way up their supply chain. They largely aren't having this problem. They de-risked certain things because they really treat TPS and everything associated with it as a philosophy not a set of heuristics that should just be implemented blindly. Manufacturing something is all tradeoffs...there is (almost) nothing with a universal upside. Sure I want to hold less inventory, but JIT is actually about manufacturing time, not inventory. If I have NO inventory and NO ability to get inventory my manufacturing time goes up while I wait with my thumb in the fertilizer pipe.
I've worked with a couple of manufacturing plants (and consultants...) that treat 'JIT' inventory management as something that can simply be pushed off to vendors and then the upside of less inventory enjoyed. They have specs and forms and certification and paperwork...but nobody looks at it. Those are the companies struggling now. They outsourced without fully understanding the risk of the outsourcing. Usually this doesn't bite the world, it bites one or two companies that relied on a certain part (someone misses an EOL notice) or a certain vendor (who goes bust because the owner's grandson ran the thing into the ground). It's like my students who make choices in the first week of the semester that seem minor...and then are frustrated when it effects their grade at the end of the semester (sorry, too much grading this week)
[0] https://www.autoblog.com/2021/03/09/toyota-how-it-avoided-se...
(probably wrongly worded)
Wouldn't toyota model essentially set a required buffer size in kanban, essentially ensuring a certain level of stock decided upon by risk management?
The pull flow would then ensure that the stock fluctuates around that value instead of being driven to 0, because taking a "card" out of stock might trigger purchasing of more stock?
Wouldn't toyota model essentially set a required buffer size in kanban, essentially ensuring a certain level of stock decided upon by risk management?
The pull flow would then ensure that the stock fluctuates around that value instead of being driven to 0, because taking a "card" out of stock might trigger purchasing of more stock?
Toyota (for example) doesn't get the chips directly, this is about visibility/planning/management of your vendor's vendor's vendor's. Those chips (Tier 3+) become boards (Tier 2) become center consoles (Tier 1) that an OEM installs.
The question isn't how stock is tracked or risked, its who is responsible for it.
The question isn't how stock is tracked or risked, its who is responsible for it.
No, this is the result of people like Neill Ferguson forecasting that COVID would be multiple times worse than it turned out to be, and Governments and the media believing him.
For example this report from March 2020 was highly influential and predicted 2.2 million deaths in the US in an 'unmitigated epidemic' scenario:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...
When in reality the official COVID death count in the USA was 580,000. And meanwhile the best public health response seems to have been... to do nothing, given that Sweden has a lower COVID death toll per capita than countries which did lockdown and use masks, and is overall merely #27 in the world for COVID deaths per capita:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
With deaths there in 2020 being only 6% higher than 2018 (and deaths in 2019 were 4% lower than 2018, suggesting mortality displacement explains much of that increase):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-...
These sort of mega-flus come and go once a decade (look at 2009 Swine Flu, 1993 Flu, 1988 Flu, 1976 Flu, the Asian flus of the 50s and 60s - all basically forgotten):
https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/sweden-monthly-...
But there were political factors in 2020 (a major re-election year in the USA) which drove the completely unusual and unjustified lockdown response. Its unfair to blame JIT manufacturing.
For example this report from March 2020 was highly influential and predicted 2.2 million deaths in the US in an 'unmitigated epidemic' scenario:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...
When in reality the official COVID death count in the USA was 580,000. And meanwhile the best public health response seems to have been... to do nothing, given that Sweden has a lower COVID death toll per capita than countries which did lockdown and use masks, and is overall merely #27 in the world for COVID deaths per capita:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
With deaths there in 2020 being only 6% higher than 2018 (and deaths in 2019 were 4% lower than 2018, suggesting mortality displacement explains much of that increase):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-...
These sort of mega-flus come and go once a decade (look at 2009 Swine Flu, 1993 Flu, 1988 Flu, 1976 Flu, the Asian flus of the 50s and 60s - all basically forgotten):
https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/sweden-monthly-...
But there were political factors in 2020 (a major re-election year in the USA) which drove the completely unusual and unjustified lockdown response. Its unfair to blame JIT manufacturing.
> For example this report from March 2020 was highly influential and predicted 2.2 million deaths in the US in an 'unmitigated epidemic' scenario:
You just said yourself that the 2.2 million was the "do nothing" scenario, and as we've seen in India it could've easily been that. You also just said said we did many things — "unusual and unjustified" things, in your opinion — therefore mitigating that worst-case projection. I personally lost the point you were trying in these self-contradictions, but I am curious where you were going.
You just said yourself that the 2.2 million was the "do nothing" scenario, and as we've seen in India it could've easily been that. You also just said said we did many things — "unusual and unjustified" things, in your opinion — therefore mitigating that worst-case projection. I personally lost the point you were trying in these self-contradictions, but I am curious where you were going.
Re: India. Look at their case curves per million. They haven't really had any epidemic until now. Their infections per mille stats are far below places like the UK. What we're seeing in India is COVID round 1 combined with a third world health system and third world air quality. This is a country that routinely has problems with respiratory illness and oxygen shortages in 'normal' times. It will get much worse before it gets better in India and that doesn't tell us anything about the accuracy of the predictions.
For that we need to look at all the data. People have done that. The predictions were always completely wrong in every case. Here's an article that examines the track record of that group at ICL:
https://www.aier.org/article/imperial-college-predicted-cata...
Re: "do nothing". Both ICL and a separate Swedish team applied the Ferguson model to Sweden and got a prediction of around 90,000 COVID deaths. True total: 98,000 deaths of all causes in total, and that was after 2019 was the year with the lowest mortality on record. Age adjusted, Swedish excess mortality matches that in 2012.
That's one famous example but again, all-data analysis shows the same thing. Lockdowns don't seem to affect the course of the disease:
https://thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(...
Epidemiology has developed a culture of bad science, presenting unvalidated models as indisputable fact and worst of all, pathological lying. Ferguson was recently caught doing it again:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/04/uks-covid-reopen...
As pandemic revisionism goes, it was really quite extraordinary. Asked on BBC Radio Four’s Today Programme about the latest data showing Britain is enjoying an eight-month low in coronavirus deaths and infections, Professor Neil Ferguson said on Tuesday: “The data is very encouraging, and very much in line with what we expected.” As it was on the radio it was impossible to tell whether this was said with a straight face, but we must assume it was ...
... Prof Ferguson’s team [had] warned: “A return to higher transmissibility levels after non-pharmaceutical interventions are lifted will also lead to a third wave of hospitalisations comparable in magnitude to the current wave” and called for mask wearing and hand hygiene to continue after full lifting. Under the February modelling which informed the roadmap, hospitalisations should be starting to tick up around now, but there is no evidence of that happening, with cases down 11 per cent in the past week ...
... The team warned there was no way out of a devastating third wave, with modellers arguing that even the slowest release in August would result in “substantial additional deaths” of around 56,900 by June 2022 ... One of the main errors in much of the modelling seems to have arisen from a misjudgement of how much schools would impact the reproduction number
The predictions of epidemiologists, not just Ferguson, were wrong by orders of magnitude and wrong in a way that has caused global supply chain disruptions. We should care more about the effects they had on restricting access to healthcare, because those actually killed people rather than just disrupting electronics supplies. But this story is about the latter. That's why it is wrong to vote down someone speaking the truth about the root cause: exceptionally bad science and our societies apparent inability to detect it or reckon with it.
For that we need to look at all the data. People have done that. The predictions were always completely wrong in every case. Here's an article that examines the track record of that group at ICL:
https://www.aier.org/article/imperial-college-predicted-cata...
Re: "do nothing". Both ICL and a separate Swedish team applied the Ferguson model to Sweden and got a prediction of around 90,000 COVID deaths. True total: 98,000 deaths of all causes in total, and that was after 2019 was the year with the lowest mortality on record. Age adjusted, Swedish excess mortality matches that in 2012.
That's one famous example but again, all-data analysis shows the same thing. Lockdowns don't seem to affect the course of the disease:
https://thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(...
Epidemiology has developed a culture of bad science, presenting unvalidated models as indisputable fact and worst of all, pathological lying. Ferguson was recently caught doing it again:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/04/uks-covid-reopen...
As pandemic revisionism goes, it was really quite extraordinary. Asked on BBC Radio Four’s Today Programme about the latest data showing Britain is enjoying an eight-month low in coronavirus deaths and infections, Professor Neil Ferguson said on Tuesday: “The data is very encouraging, and very much in line with what we expected.” As it was on the radio it was impossible to tell whether this was said with a straight face, but we must assume it was ...
... Prof Ferguson’s team [had] warned: “A return to higher transmissibility levels after non-pharmaceutical interventions are lifted will also lead to a third wave of hospitalisations comparable in magnitude to the current wave” and called for mask wearing and hand hygiene to continue after full lifting. Under the February modelling which informed the roadmap, hospitalisations should be starting to tick up around now, but there is no evidence of that happening, with cases down 11 per cent in the past week ...
... The team warned there was no way out of a devastating third wave, with modellers arguing that even the slowest release in August would result in “substantial additional deaths” of around 56,900 by June 2022 ... One of the main errors in much of the modelling seems to have arisen from a misjudgement of how much schools would impact the reproduction number
The predictions of epidemiologists, not just Ferguson, were wrong by orders of magnitude and wrong in a way that has caused global supply chain disruptions. We should care more about the effects they had on restricting access to healthcare, because those actually killed people rather than just disrupting electronics supplies. But this story is about the latter. That's why it is wrong to vote down someone speaking the truth about the root cause: exceptionally bad science and our societies apparent inability to detect it or reckon with it.
> political factors in 2020 (a major re-election year in the USA) which drove the completely unusual and unjustified lockdown response
I'm very interested to understand what part did the US 2020 election played in the (still continuing in some parts) lockdowns in Europe...
I'm very interested to understand what part did the US 2020 election played in the (still continuing in some parts) lockdowns in Europe...
[deleted]
We had 581k deaths so far, is that not close enough to 2.2 million unmitigated to be in the ballpark? It is for me.
This guy is like Nostradamus compared to the people at NASA doing project life estimates for the rovers.
This guy is like Nostradamus compared to the people at NASA doing project life estimates for the rovers.
> compared to the people at NASA doing project life estimates for the rovers
This one is obviously caused by setting "bare minimum" to "actual expected average time".
Mission exceeding minimum plan is much better that very expensive hardware failing before supposed end of mission.
This one is obviously caused by setting "bare minimum" to "actual expected average time".
Mission exceeding minimum plan is much better that very expensive hardware failing before supposed end of mission.
The result of cutting too many "wastes".
Chips shouldn't go obsolete so fast. Your local auto parts store has in stock parts for cars made 50 years ago. That include aftermarket parts made in the past few years.
You cannot support right to repair if you support the idea that chips go obsolete.
You cannot support right to repair if you support the idea that chips go obsolete.
It's actually a "feature." Automakers like to have easily sun-settable, hard to replace parts to quickly remove old cars off the market.
Now, they want to do it even quicker.
DRMed autoparts are a new craze. A tsunami of them is coming in 2021+ cars.
They all now want to do the the John Deere trick. They gave the industry a very bad example to follow.
Now, they want to do it even quicker.
DRMed autoparts are a new craze. A tsunami of them is coming in 2021+ cars.
They all now want to do the the John Deere trick. They gave the industry a very bad example to follow.
As an employee of John Deere I can assure you that is false. We are proud that machines made in the 1950s are still in regular use, and we make a ton of money providing replacement parts for machines that old. We have also spent large amount of dollars over the last decade replacing electronics that have gone obsolete, not to mention buying and storing spare parts so we can continue to replace those old electronics for customers. Our bottom line would look a lot better if we didn't have to redesign perfectly good electronics all the time.
I can't go into more detail than that.
I can't go into more detail than that.
Our bottom line would look a lot better if we didn't have to redesign perfectly good electronics all the time.
Well, I can think of at least one easy way to avoid that problem. If you document your hardware and put a leash on your lawyers, you'll find that your customers and their independent service organizations will be glad to take on this responsibility for you.
Well, I can think of at least one easy way to avoid that problem. If you document your hardware and put a leash on your lawyers, you'll find that your customers and their independent service organizations will be glad to take on this responsibility for you.
A few things help the auto part example over consumer electronics
* the model was setup while the auto makers were substantially smaller. GM / Ford couldn't hope to control the entire supply chain in the 1930s like they can now. These pre-existing businesses are able to protect their interests.
* Early cars had massive defect rates compared to modern consumer electronics. You HAD to be able to have a large number of people able to repair and maintain cars.
* Due to the value of cars, a higher proportion of damage is likely to be considered repairable over a CE device.
* Many auto parts were simpler when the model setup. Many parts did not have extensive IP protections, and were relatively easily clone-able. (i.e. you can make a mould of a part and cast other copies). Not to mention, outside a few halo proprietary technologies, companies were less litigious and protective of IP.
* Commercial operators such as Taxi and corporate fleets mean that there was a market for these 3rd party products, enough to cover R&D costs of cloning an existing part.
I think we need to enforce a compulsory licensing of IP for all parts, chips, etc after a period of non-availability or obsolescence. Price should be set at a point where 3rd party companies come in and produce generic versions, paying royalties to the owner. Allow these 3rd parties to reverse engineer the products and sell their clones if there is truly a market need.
What will likely happen is that the companies would rather license their designs to a chosen partner, in the hope of having more control over it
* the model was setup while the auto makers were substantially smaller. GM / Ford couldn't hope to control the entire supply chain in the 1930s like they can now. These pre-existing businesses are able to protect their interests.
* Early cars had massive defect rates compared to modern consumer electronics. You HAD to be able to have a large number of people able to repair and maintain cars.
* Due to the value of cars, a higher proportion of damage is likely to be considered repairable over a CE device.
* Many auto parts were simpler when the model setup. Many parts did not have extensive IP protections, and were relatively easily clone-able. (i.e. you can make a mould of a part and cast other copies). Not to mention, outside a few halo proprietary technologies, companies were less litigious and protective of IP.
* Commercial operators such as Taxi and corporate fleets mean that there was a market for these 3rd party products, enough to cover R&D costs of cloning an existing part.
I think we need to enforce a compulsory licensing of IP for all parts, chips, etc after a period of non-availability or obsolescence. Price should be set at a point where 3rd party companies come in and produce generic versions, paying royalties to the owner. Allow these 3rd parties to reverse engineer the products and sell their clones if there is truly a market need.
What will likely happen is that the companies would rather license their designs to a chosen partner, in the hope of having more control over it
How much more would you be willing to pay for the same car if all chips in it were guaranteed to be available 50 years from now, at today's price plus inflation?
Me nothing. I drive my cars until they are 12 feet under and junk them. I'm sure the collectors of future will have a different opinion, but they won't get my cars, (see above) and I have no idea what cars (if any) future generations will collect.
What are you talking about. The vast majority of companies use just in time stocking. If you sell x amount of a product that is when you order x amount of each item on the BOM. It has been this way for decades for manufacturing in the usa. There are tax and other liabilities when keeping more than required stocks on hand.
> I get that this is a potential big problem, but I had to stop reading when the dog washing company blamed needing to respin a new board on a chip being out of stock due to this.
What you are suggesting is quite impractical, unless you are a really big business with cash, which can simply direct order components.
Small businesses, even in Shenzhen, a place inundated with supply chain abundance, always have to either keep running from one small wholesaler, to another searching for components, or pay n-times the price working with somebody like Arrow.
In my experience, you can't safeguard yourself against such things as a small company no matter what.
I worked in, and around OEM electronics since 2007, and things like having to redesign a product 4 times a year to accommodate a supply chain disruption were happening even in the best years. Nothing special with the current disruption besides the scale.
This is also the reason why Asian electronics makers have such short product lifetimes. It's usually easier just to sunset a product, and make an improved, and better version with newer components, than to fight against the always evolving supply chain. And I not talking about small companies, ASUS, Acer, MSI, and such all practice this.
I know few people running the Chuwi brand. What they do as a small maker is that the moment the get a good consignment of chipsets, and other parts, they spin a laptop model solely for that batch alone.
Then, they live off it until they get another good parts purchase, when they usually sell their component leftovers, or do few final runs if they can find people wanting to buy them for rebadging.
The entirety of small volume laptop industry spins around chipsets, and screens — hardest things to find for a small company.
I want you people to take a looks on a big difference in how companies in the West, and here handle the crisis: Western brands wail, cry, and wait for component supplies to resume, while Asian brands just keep releasing new products with parts coming into their hands, and making great cash from this shortage.
What you are suggesting is quite impractical, unless you are a really big business with cash, which can simply direct order components.
Small businesses, even in Shenzhen, a place inundated with supply chain abundance, always have to either keep running from one small wholesaler, to another searching for components, or pay n-times the price working with somebody like Arrow.
In my experience, you can't safeguard yourself against such things as a small company no matter what.
I worked in, and around OEM electronics since 2007, and things like having to redesign a product 4 times a year to accommodate a supply chain disruption were happening even in the best years. Nothing special with the current disruption besides the scale.
This is also the reason why Asian electronics makers have such short product lifetimes. It's usually easier just to sunset a product, and make an improved, and better version with newer components, than to fight against the always evolving supply chain. And I not talking about small companies, ASUS, Acer, MSI, and such all practice this.
I know few people running the Chuwi brand. What they do as a small maker is that the moment the get a good consignment of chipsets, and other parts, they spin a laptop model solely for that batch alone.
Then, they live off it until they get another good parts purchase, when they usually sell their component leftovers, or do few final runs if they can find people wanting to buy them for rebadging.
The entirety of small volume laptop industry spins around chipsets, and screens — hardest things to find for a small company.
I want you people to take a looks on a big difference in how companies in the West, and here handle the crisis: Western brands wail, cry, and wait for component supplies to resume, while Asian brands just keep releasing new products with parts coming into their hands, and making great cash from this shortage.
I agree and have experienced that too. Even without obsoleted parts, stuff will be impossible to find all the sudden, particularly specialty components. Heck, I've had vendors who simply had fabs that caught fire... but I always have a laundry list of substitutes that are pin compatible when humanly possible, which is for almost all the parts on the board. For the ones that aren't possible, that's a much smaller BOM to buy ahead of time if you absolutely have to keep the PCB design the same.
The caveat is that because MCUs are not standardized you frequently get screwed over so my replacement part list is a collection of versions of the part with different amounts of memory that are designed to be pin-compatible. Sometimes that isn't enough, and often companies aren't big enough to negotiate a guaranteed supply. But if you're not big enough to negotiate a guaranteed supply you just have to deal with buying enough of the parts to keep you in business long enough to create a new revision before you literally run out of stuff to sell...
I sympathize with the other comment berating me at length for being flippant about this, and am genuinely sorry for being flippant especially in light of their experience with the opposite issue (buying stuff and getting screwed by customers canceling orders). But I was talking about a dog washing startup. A dog washing startup vocally complaining to the news about needing to respin one board because of a supply chain interruption.
Yes, there is FCC and other testing you have to do if you significantly modify a board, so I'm not sitting here oblivious to the challenges involved in a respin. My response was to them being a poster child for the people suffering from this issue. Those of you who cannot find any component that will do the job have my absolute sympathy and I apologize for not being more verbose.
The caveat is that because MCUs are not standardized you frequently get screwed over so my replacement part list is a collection of versions of the part with different amounts of memory that are designed to be pin-compatible. Sometimes that isn't enough, and often companies aren't big enough to negotiate a guaranteed supply. But if you're not big enough to negotiate a guaranteed supply you just have to deal with buying enough of the parts to keep you in business long enough to create a new revision before you literally run out of stuff to sell...
I sympathize with the other comment berating me at length for being flippant about this, and am genuinely sorry for being flippant especially in light of their experience with the opposite issue (buying stuff and getting screwed by customers canceling orders). But I was talking about a dog washing startup. A dog washing startup vocally complaining to the news about needing to respin one board because of a supply chain interruption.
Yes, there is FCC and other testing you have to do if you significantly modify a board, so I'm not sitting here oblivious to the challenges involved in a respin. My response was to them being a poster child for the people suffering from this issue. Those of you who cannot find any component that will do the job have my absolute sympathy and I apologize for not being more verbose.
I'm sure the dog washing business wasn't trying to be a poster child, more likely it was the one business that the reporter could find on deadline that wasn't a huge manufacturer, was impacted, and was willing to talk about it. More like a bit of color to show the breadth of the problem - this isn't just GM and Apple or whoever in a lurch.
Call it wailing if you want, but what you are really describing is a different philosophy in product design: stability vs. flexibility. Western brands aim for stability for customers to be able to buy the same products, with the same guarantees, for longer periods. I am not saying one philosophy is better than the other, but they are not whining out of laziness; it is a different set of design requirements and assumptions for customer products.
Interesting, some Chuwis caught my eye several times, but I dismissed them for uncertainty of Linux/BSD support. Is that even on their radar, or don't they care about it at all because
F** those few nerds, they can reverse it themselves if they think they have to. I mean, in general it should work, because standard components, but in reality it depends on how the firmware glues them together.
Many small manufactures can’t afford to order much more than the MOQ on parts. PCBs generally have much higher MOQs than parts you can buy from digi key, I ran a manufacturing business fit years and a PCB MOQ could last me a whole year but I could say cash flow on buying the components more just in time. It’s not “poor planning” it’s working within the realities of your business and it’s limitations (and he’s saving a few hundred in a month at cash low could have been the difference between me just not taking a pay check that month or paying part of an employees wage from my own savings on top of not getting paid myself)
ROFL. Yeah, I'll just do a lifetime buy of these:
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/xilinx-inc/XCVU13...
... as soon as my board hits production. If they give me any grief at DigiKey, I'll have my VP of Procurement fly up there in the company G5 to give them a piece of my mind.
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/xilinx-inc/XCVU13...
... as soon as my board hits production. If they give me any grief at DigiKey, I'll have my VP of Procurement fly up there in the company G5 to give them a piece of my mind.
Even if you did order enough to produce a run, there is no guarantee you’ll get the full quantity or any at all. Suffice it to say I know this first hand. Had a vendor come back and say, “Sorry, we know we promised your order by June, but it isn’t going to happen.” Thankfully getting a break on a new part, but respin and recertification cost and time are also causing heartburn.
Sounds like a contracting problem to me.
I had a customer years ago using a Vic-20 as the controller for his greenhouse. The Vic-20 at that time had already been discontinued.
He bought in two units to fix to have in stock since he already had a unit running his greenhouse.
I asked him why use Vic-20s when there were a number of controllers already on the market. He said the problem he never knew when the present unit may fail and the Vic-20 did the job of an $10,000 controller which he did not know how long it would take to get the present controller to work on his system and the present one works fine.
It has been decades since I did the work and I would not be surprised if the system is still working today because he was prepared.
He bought in two units to fix to have in stock since he already had a unit running his greenhouse.
I asked him why use Vic-20s when there were a number of controllers already on the market. He said the problem he never knew when the present unit may fail and the Vic-20 did the job of an $10,000 controller which he did not know how long it would take to get the present controller to work on his system and the present one works fine.
It has been decades since I did the work and I would not be surprised if the system is still working today because he was prepared.
I work at a decent-sized electronics company with several dozen products on the market at any one time. Lead times for chips were usually 12 weeks in normal times. We have forecast sales going off at least 6 months or a year away. We have known where the shortages will be for some months now.
We have already re-spun PCB designs to work in alternate ICs for some of the ones that we know will become unavailable; dual-footprint in case the originals come back. This took time and effort to design and verify and all that work could have gone into the design of new products, but it had to be done. This has put us some number of months behind our original planned dates for our new products.
The problem is that we can see shortages coming up which we cannot work around. We cannot buy enough parts, the lead-times are astonishing. At some point we are going to have to get lucky or halt production.
We have already re-spun PCB designs to work in alternate ICs for some of the ones that we know will become unavailable; dual-footprint in case the originals come back. This took time and effort to design and verify and all that work could have gone into the design of new products, but it had to be done. This has put us some number of months behind our original planned dates for our new products.
The problem is that we can see shortages coming up which we cannot work around. We cannot buy enough parts, the lead-times are astonishing. At some point we are going to have to get lucky or halt production.
Sometimes, well, actually all the time, you can’t exactly predict the eventual demand for a new, unique product.
Re-spinning a board, LOL. Dude, there's copper substrate shortage on the market, people have delays getting their already ordered PCBs delivered.
> there's copper substrate shortage on the market, people have delays getting their already ordered PCBs delivered.
Any details on this? Media/tradejournal links?
I wouldn't have believed you six months ago, but hey, everything's changed. Still, copper-clad board shortages... I mean if that really is for real we're headed back to the stone age real quick. I hope it's just a rumor.
Any details on this? Media/tradejournal links?
I wouldn't have believed you six months ago, but hey, everything's changed. Still, copper-clad board shortages... I mean if that really is for real we're headed back to the stone age real quick. I hope it's just a rumor.
Before berating someone in the industry for “source”, why don’t you try googling it? PCB shortage, ABF shortage, etc.
Scores of recent articles at your fingertips.
Scores of recent articles at your fingertips.
... and yet you post no links.
Also: I wasn't berating anybody.
Also: I wasn't berating anybody.
Very much everyone in the business is aware of it since winter.
but sure
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/crisis-printed-circuit-board-...
https://elmatica.com/portfolio/copper-foil-shortage-persists...
but sure
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/crisis-printed-circuit-board-...
https://elmatica.com/portfolio/copper-foil-shortage-persists...
Thank you for your constructive reply!
Since 14% of renters are behind on rent and evictions begin June 30, aren’t vehicle repossessions going to kick in July / August?
Presumably, due in part to eviction protection, they have been able to divert all or a portion of their rent payments to keeping up with bad car loans for commute vehicles that often will not be needed.
These folks need them for housing unfortunately.
If repossessed cars start showing up that should put downward pressure on people wanting to buy new ones. Most new cars still suck / Do not offer meaningful new features.
And of those who do buy new, that will be another fresh supply of used cars.
How long is this chip shortage due to vehicles going to last given these circumstances?
https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/05/07/are-renters-and-the-u-s...
Presumably, due in part to eviction protection, they have been able to divert all or a portion of their rent payments to keeping up with bad car loans for commute vehicles that often will not be needed.
These folks need them for housing unfortunately.
If repossessed cars start showing up that should put downward pressure on people wanting to buy new ones. Most new cars still suck / Do not offer meaningful new features.
And of those who do buy new, that will be another fresh supply of used cars.
How long is this chip shortage due to vehicles going to last given these circumstances?
https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/05/07/are-renters-and-the-u-s...
> Most new cars still suck / Do not offer meaningful new features.
In terms of bells and whistles? Yeah, not that much. But in terms of safety tech, there has been a huge progress in last 10 years and it’s not slowing down. New cars are not only getting harder to crash, but in case of crash they’re getting better and better at protecting you.
Safety is main reason why I update my cars every few years, even tho it’s pretty costly. But so is having my family seriously injured or killed.
In terms of bells and whistles? Yeah, not that much. But in terms of safety tech, there has been a huge progress in last 10 years and it’s not slowing down. New cars are not only getting harder to crash, but in case of crash they’re getting better and better at protecting you.
Safety is main reason why I update my cars every few years, even tho it’s pretty costly. But so is having my family seriously injured or killed.
> Safety is main reason why I update my cars every few years
It's probably only only worth it after a redesign (every 6 years, or so), and I'd wait for the second model year in the new generation for them to work out the kinks. That said, the EV of added safety, especially coming from a car generation build before the small overlap frontal crash test was added in 2012, is pretty good.
It's probably only only worth it after a redesign (every 6 years, or so), and I'd wait for the second model year in the new generation for them to work out the kinks. That said, the EV of added safety, especially coming from a car generation build before the small overlap frontal crash test was added in 2012, is pretty good.
A couple of days ago I was watching a dramatic video showing test collisions of old cars vs modern cars. I was surprised by how much safer a 2016 car was than a 1992 car. Not to mention the 1959 death trap Bel Air. (It's alarming though that 1992 is now the olden days.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TikJC0x65X0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TikJC0x65X0
Yeah I remember talking to my grandfather a few years ago and he made a comment about cars being so fragile now. One accident and they crumple costing thousands to fix when "back in the day" it would just be a bent bumper. I explained that in the old days the car was built sturdier and survived but the people had worse odds, now the car is sacrificed to take the brunt of the force. That finally clicked for him as he remembered quite a few friends being in life threatening crashes back then but barely any today.
I always recall the line from back to the future:
Marty, he's in a '46 Ford, we're in a DeLorean - He'd rip through us like we were tin foil!But a 2010+ car is not that far off a brand new car. Used doesn't just mean old junker!
In terms of safety technology, your average 2010 car is missing a bunch of things that are found on your average 2021 car. Automatic emergency braking, side airbags, hell even the backup camera!
Maybe that was better for society.
In those days, dare devils didnt last long.
Now, they can crash and kill, and drive again in a few hours.
In those days, dare devils didnt last long.
Now, they can crash and kill, and drive again in a few hours.
I often wonder about things like this. It reminds of Tullock's spike:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike
[deleted]
Most new cars still suck / Do not offer meaningful new features
That really depends on how old your car is. I generally buy instead of lease, and run the car until it starts having regular problems. As a result, my car is 12 years old, and any new one from the last few years is a significant upgrade in terms of features. I don't really want a monthly car payment again, but I'm almost looking forward to when my current car starts having enough problems to make the upgrade worth it.
That really depends on how old your car is. I generally buy instead of lease, and run the car until it starts having regular problems. As a result, my car is 12 years old, and any new one from the last few years is a significant upgrade in terms of features. I don't really want a monthly car payment again, but I'm almost looking forward to when my current car starts having enough problems to make the upgrade worth it.
I tend to buy around 4-6 years old and run them for 10-12 years as well, which is limited by New England tinworm from the road salt we use rather than mechanical issues.
Beyond airbags and ABS (both now ubiquitous), I don’t need the new feature faff. I just need something that will start everyday and that I can do the basic maintenance on. Fortunately, that’s still easily available and cheap in the 5-ish year-old “those cars are too old to be reliable” mindset-driven market.
I can’t believe that people are willing to borrow money to keep driving 0-4 year old cars forever, but I’m glad they do because it greatly subsidizes the cars I drive.
Beyond airbags and ABS (both now ubiquitous), I don’t need the new feature faff. I just need something that will start everyday and that I can do the basic maintenance on. Fortunately, that’s still easily available and cheap in the 5-ish year-old “those cars are too old to be reliable” mindset-driven market.
I can’t believe that people are willing to borrow money to keep driving 0-4 year old cars forever, but I’m glad they do because it greatly subsidizes the cars I drive.
I feel like each year cars get way safer. It started with blind spot detectors/cameras, and modern cars will even brake automatically and keep you in your lane (or at least warn you if you leave it).
Maybe new features like self-driving aren't as interesting, but I would buy a new car instead of a used one just for the perceived improved safety.
I don't know if there's any research showing that these features actually reduce accidents/fatalities though (plausibly if they malfunctioned it could be worse than nothing)
Maybe new features like self-driving aren't as interesting, but I would buy a new car instead of a used one just for the perceived improved safety.
I don't know if there's any research showing that these features actually reduce accidents/fatalities though (plausibly if they malfunctioned it could be worse than nothing)
Many of these features add minimal benefit if you do some common-sense stuff such as, don't drive when you're really tired (or drunk, or on drugs, etc.); don't play with your phone while you're driving; don't read, do your makeup, shave, etc. while you're driving. IOW put your focus on the task at hand and you don't really need blind spot detectors. Of course the reality is that people are pretty bad at these things.
I don't have the data, but my car insurance is considerably lower as a result of modern safety features in my vehicle. My insurer has a large checklist of things which correspond with a discount, such as automatic breaking, cameras, blind spot sensors, lane departure alerts and steering, etc. In total it comes to nearly 15% for my vehicle. I suspect it means these things actually save my insurer money on average.
Which brings me to the point of common sense. Not everyone shares it, or uses it, and so these features are useful. We can talk all day about what people should or could do, but at the end of the day, it just isn't going to happen.
Which brings me to the point of common sense. Not everyone shares it, or uses it, and so these features are useful. We can talk all day about what people should or could do, but at the end of the day, it just isn't going to happen.
Haha, automatic "breaking". Whoops.
I found them invaluable, especially BSM saved me from a lot of near-crash situations. When dealing with fast deadly chunks of metal every % of reduced chance of death is a good investment in my book.
How many serious crashes or near-serious-crashes were you in in your prior cars without BSM? Assuming no other changes, that seems the most realistic measure of risk reduction.
You can’t measure the risk of a rare event like this. Accidents are (thankfully) rare events. There is too much variability with a single person. You can really only measure these risks across an entire fleet of cars. Rare events are Poisson distributed, which requires many observations to be significant.
So your question should be, across all cars, how many accidents have there been with and without blind spot monitors? Even then, it would be hard to control for all other factors (newer cars have blind spot monitoring, but are also safer in general, you need to compare similar years, traffic conditions, etc).
All of that to say — any single comment online is just an anecdote.
So your question should be, across all cars, how many accidents have there been with and without blind spot monitors? Even then, it would be hard to control for all other factors (newer cars have blind spot monitoring, but are also safer in general, you need to compare similar years, traffic conditions, etc).
All of that to say — any single comment online is just an anecdote.
I agree. A scan of the research seems to suggest the risk reduction is bounded at around 40% on the high side of "potential risk avoided if all vehicles were equipped" with actual results of equipped cars coming in the range of 19-45% depending on the paper and type of accidents and aids focused upon.
Which is to say "quite meaningful", but when the absolute rate of serious crashes per driver is as low as it is, it's statistically impossible that driver aids are saving the typical individual driver from a serious crash multiple times in a driving lifetime, let alone multiple times since their introduction.
Which is to say "quite meaningful", but when the absolute rate of serious crashes per driver is as low as it is, it's statistically impossible that driver aids are saving the typical individual driver from a serious crash multiple times in a driving lifetime, let alone multiple times since their introduction.
Another thing to think about is that “accidents” isn’t the only outcome that could be measured. I like my blind spot monitoring. But not necessarily because it makes me safer — I always turn my head to check blind spots anyway. But what it does do is make driving less stressful. Safety aids and driver assistance tools can make driving a better experience. That, in and of itself, is a worthwhile outcome.
I'll cape up for blind spot detection. My current car doesn't have it and I out-of-the-box I found that I had to move pretty extensively to see things that are to my 5 or 7 o'clock; even with my mirrors correctly positioned there's a gap between what I can easily perceive from the wing mirror and from the rear mirror and I had to buy blind spot mirrors to compensate. (It's much better with them.)
The car isn't even that long--the back pillars and back window are just weird (Hyundai Veloster).
The car isn't even that long--the back pillars and back window are just weird (Hyundai Veloster).
Even people in good condition make mistakes and miss things. That's why airplanes have stall-warning stick shakers and pull-up alerts even for trained professionals.
As I understand it, the physical blind spots are getting larger in very recent model years as the car shapes keep changing. The blind spot monitors are partly a compensation for this, so you need to compare driving experience in these rather than with an older model where we easily drive without such electronic aid.
It's not clear to me how much of this change to the car shape is driven by competing safety standards, i.e. side impact and rollover protection, and how much it is the continuous march of fashion/stylistic tweaks.
It's not clear to me how much of this change to the car shape is driven by competing safety standards, i.e. side impact and rollover protection, and how much it is the continuous march of fashion/stylistic tweaks.
Yeah, as you say, reality is far from the ideal. But I believe that even without those obvious problems, people still make mistakes and the extra couple layers of protection could save your life.
I was in a near crash without doing any of those things (night driving on a very fast road in an area I was unfamiliar with, and misread the shape of the road). I panicked and swerved without checking my blind spot (it was an empty road, or so I thought) and almost caused the other person to crash. More advanced blind spot monitoring systems could have largely removed the danger of the situation I was in, although obviously there is a lot that I could/should have done better myself. I think the next year's model had a HUD which showed blind spot status.
I was in a near crash without doing any of those things (night driving on a very fast road in an area I was unfamiliar with, and misread the shape of the road). I panicked and swerved without checking my blind spot (it was an empty road, or so I thought) and almost caused the other person to crash. More advanced blind spot monitoring systems could have largely removed the danger of the situation I was in, although obviously there is a lot that I could/should have done better myself. I think the next year's model had a HUD which showed blind spot status.
Most of the improvements are invisible. Better crumbing zones, better shock absorption, better composite materials. If you watch crash test of a modern car Vs 10-y old car, the later is significantly more dangerous. 20+ year old? Basically a death trap.
The number of deaths per 1 million miles driven hasn't dropped in the past 10 years so that puts a huge dent in your theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
Maybe, maybe not.
Those numbers include pedestrian deaths, which the same wiki article states "began rising in 2010, and exceeded 6,000 by 2018" (constituting a higher percentage of deaths in 2018 than in 2010).
If you subtract off the 6400 pedestrian deaths in 2018 and the 4200 in 2010, then you do see a drop-off in fatalities per hundred million miles driven -- from 0.971 in 2010 to 0.935 in 2018 (and even lower in 2019 at 0.925, as the raw number of deaths went down as miles traveled went up).
(Further, this isn't even considering other non-automobile occupants in crashes, whether that's bicycles or motorcycles.)
Those numbers include pedestrian deaths, which the same wiki article states "began rising in 2010, and exceeded 6,000 by 2018" (constituting a higher percentage of deaths in 2018 than in 2010).
If you subtract off the 6400 pedestrian deaths in 2018 and the 4200 in 2010, then you do see a drop-off in fatalities per hundred million miles driven -- from 0.971 in 2010 to 0.935 in 2018 (and even lower in 2019 at 0.925, as the raw number of deaths went down as miles traveled went up).
(Further, this isn't even considering other non-automobile occupants in crashes, whether that's bicycles or motorcycles.)
You don't need it, pedestrian need it.
If you don't want a monthly car payment, start your “monthly car payment” into a savings account now. You'll end up paying less for your next car if you can maximise the up-front payment.
Current low interest rates on car loans make that approach a bit pointless.
They've been low for a while now too. As annoying as it is to have a $670 car payment each month, you really can't beat 0% interest on a $40k loan. Especially in a market where the average monthly return on $40k in stocks has been pretty substantial.
Except for the part where $0 down, 0% interest loan make people go for the 40k car they don't need instead of the 25k one.
That's really neither here nor there. The discussion was more about transforming, "save up and pay cash" to "save up and get a loan anyway because interest is so cheap."
I picked $40k because that's roughly the median price of a new car. Whether your going for a $25k car, or a $125k car, the advice is the same: get a low-interest loan.
I picked $40k because that's roughly the median price of a new car. Whether your going for a $25k car, or a $125k car, the advice is the same: get a low-interest loan.
You lose all of that and more on depreciation in the first two years.
I buy older than most people; currently my newest car is a 2009. I do maintenance and routine repairs myself, and I lose almost nothing on depreciation. But you can still come out ahead by buying 4-6 years old and letting the original buyers take the bulk of the depreciation losses.
I buy older than most people; currently my newest car is a 2009. I do maintenance and routine repairs myself, and I lose almost nothing on depreciation. But you can still come out ahead by buying 4-6 years old and letting the original buyers take the bulk of the depreciation losses.
I don't think this is a blanket rule. Sometimes 2-4 year old cars can be the same price as a new car. This seemed to happen after the GFC crash.
For me the sweet spot has been 5 years old and < 60K miles, usually cars with that description haven't been run into the ground. Currently driving a mustang with 200K miles on it and it still runs like a sewing machine. It's harder now though, pandemic has really driven up used car prices, makes more sense to buy new currently, especially if you're getting something like a honda or toyota that holds value.
Not anymore.
Car market is a bit strange right now.
Check the price on your 2009 on eBay or craiglist. Is it worth more than you think it should be?
Car market is a bit strange right now.
Check the price on your 2009 on eBay or craiglist. Is it worth more than you think it should be?
0% loan on the sticker price. The goal of coming in with cash is to get as far as possible below the sticker price.
Dealers don't care whether you pay cash or finance. Just call around dealers within a certain mile radius you are willing to drive and find the best deal. This has been, and will always be, the best way to get a deal.
Don’t dealerships make a good percentage of their profits from finance charges? The last time I bought a car, it took an hour of cajoling to get the cash price of a three year lease
Absolutely. To take Ford as an example, It’s not that huge an exaggeration to suggest Ford manufactured cars with virtually no profit margin to help sell profitable loans via its Ford Credit arm at various times in its recent history, rather than providing loans to help sell the cars at profit. Ford Credit is a huge part of Ford’ overall business.
This is a really common misconception that buyers have.
Just stop and think for a second - put yourself in the dealer's shoes - why do you think the dealer would want cash? No reason. They don't want your cash. A cash buyer is a pain. They want to sell you a loan.
The last time I bought a car I offered cash, and they countered with a four-figure discount (on total cost of ownership) if I took part of it as a loan. I now have that part of the price invested, creating money, while I gradually pay the loan.
And my credit score went up as I had a new, responsible loan!
Cash buyers are fools, unless you're really at the point of valuing not having a loan for moral reasons (maybe a German?) at four-figures.
Just stop and think for a second - put yourself in the dealer's shoes - why do you think the dealer would want cash? No reason. They don't want your cash. A cash buyer is a pain. They want to sell you a loan.
The last time I bought a car I offered cash, and they countered with a four-figure discount (on total cost of ownership) if I took part of it as a loan. I now have that part of the price invested, creating money, while I gradually pay the loan.
And my credit score went up as I had a new, responsible loan!
Cash buyers are fools, unless you're really at the point of valuing not having a loan for moral reasons (maybe a German?) at four-figures.
Yes, and the smart move there is to take the offer and pay it early, which is still stupid on the dealer's part.
Assuming you can. Some deals are set up so that you have to pay most of the interest even if you pay the loan off early, or other prepayment penalties.
Yes, prepayment penalties are a thing. But every time this comes up, we see reports of too-good-to-be -true deals that don't have them. See, for example, this thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14484615
I also had a friend do exactly what I described, and there was another thread where they only had to make two payments and then could pay off the rest without penalty (and even that was an unspoken gentlemen's agreement with the dealer) -- will find if I get a chance.
The point is, it's simply not warranted to assume as a bedrock of truth that no dealer every makes a confused deal in this respect, as chrisseaton was insisting.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14484615
I also had a friend do exactly what I described, and there was another thread where they only had to make two payments and then could pay off the rest without penalty (and even that was an unspoken gentlemen's agreement with the dealer) -- will find if I get a chance.
The point is, it's simply not warranted to assume as a bedrock of truth that no dealer every makes a confused deal in this respect, as chrisseaton was insisting.
And if you had walked out the door they would have run after you to take the cash deal AND given you the discount. You think they prefer to deal with the time and uncertainty of putting you through a loan application, when they could pocket the same sale in cash? Nobody is coming out with less money on a loan purchase vs. cash, except the buyer.
I think you're mistaken about how dealerships and car sales are structured, at least in places like the UK and the US. Maybe it's different where you are?
They get a proportion of the sale price, and they get paid a referral fee for you opening a loan, and then on top of that they can offer extras that you probably don't need like fabric protection products.
> Nobody is coming out with less money on a loan purchase vs. cash, except the buyer.
The dealer is paid to get you to get a loan. If they don't get the loan, they get less money. My understanding is that their referral fee is somewhat weak about how much the loan actually has to be, so they just care that you take it.
It's worth it to them to discount the price by less than their loan referral fee, in order to get the loan referral fee.
> And if you had walked out the door they would have run after you to take the cash deal AND given you the discount.
No they'd just have sold to someone willing to pay their price.
There's a car supply shortage... that's the whole point of the article... did you miss that? If you want to buy a new car at the moment and you go in haggling them on a mid to high end spec car they'll just tell you to fuck off and you won't get the car you want.
They get a proportion of the sale price, and they get paid a referral fee for you opening a loan, and then on top of that they can offer extras that you probably don't need like fabric protection products.
> Nobody is coming out with less money on a loan purchase vs. cash, except the buyer.
The dealer is paid to get you to get a loan. If they don't get the loan, they get less money. My understanding is that their referral fee is somewhat weak about how much the loan actually has to be, so they just care that you take it.
It's worth it to them to discount the price by less than their loan referral fee, in order to get the loan referral fee.
> And if you had walked out the door they would have run after you to take the cash deal AND given you the discount.
No they'd just have sold to someone willing to pay their price.
There's a car supply shortage... that's the whole point of the article... did you miss that? If you want to buy a new car at the moment and you go in haggling them on a mid to high end spec car they'll just tell you to fuck off and you won't get the car you want.
> they get paid a referral fee for you opening a loan
Which is added in to the finance charges or amount borrowed. Ever wonder why the salesmen always want to negotiate a "payment" amount instead of a purchase price?
> No they'd just have sold to someone willing to pay their price.
And I'd have just gone to another dealer willing to work with me on my terms.
> There's a car supply shortage
True, and that causes higher prices overall. But negotiation strategies for getting the best deal haven't changed.
Which is added in to the finance charges or amount borrowed. Ever wonder why the salesmen always want to negotiate a "payment" amount instead of a purchase price?
> No they'd just have sold to someone willing to pay their price.
And I'd have just gone to another dealer willing to work with me on my terms.
> There's a car supply shortage
True, and that causes higher prices overall. But negotiation strategies for getting the best deal haven't changed.
> Ever wonder why the salesmen always want to negotiate a "payment" amount instead of a purchase price?
Well that's the point - say you want agree a purchase price for the car before you talk about how you'll pay. Do that and get an actual number from them. Then...
Offer to pay the agreed price cash and ask for a discount based on this - you won't get one because there's no benefit to the dealer in taking cash it's just an inconvenience to them.
or...
Offer to take at least a small a loan and ask for a discount based on this - you might get one because the way they are established means there are strong incentives for them to make loans.
In either case you can of course threaten to walk away if the price isn't right, but paying cash isn't going to increase your bargaining power it's going to diminish it - 'not only is this person wanting to pay less but they also want to fuck up my loan referral rate and fee and make me unpopular with my manager'. And at some point I presume you need a car so you can't walk away forever.
The idea that you're an attractive customer if you'll pay cash is a 90s thing.
Well that's the point - say you want agree a purchase price for the car before you talk about how you'll pay. Do that and get an actual number from them. Then...
Offer to pay the agreed price cash and ask for a discount based on this - you won't get one because there's no benefit to the dealer in taking cash it's just an inconvenience to them.
or...
Offer to take at least a small a loan and ask for a discount based on this - you might get one because the way they are established means there are strong incentives for them to make loans.
In either case you can of course threaten to walk away if the price isn't right, but paying cash isn't going to increase your bargaining power it's going to diminish it - 'not only is this person wanting to pay less but they also want to fuck up my loan referral rate and fee and make me unpopular with my manager'. And at some point I presume you need a car so you can't walk away forever.
The idea that you're an attractive customer if you'll pay cash is a 90s thing.
You simply don't understand how modern franchise dealers operate. Cash discounts are no longer a thing. Due to incentives they prefer to finance through the manufacturer's captive lender. The F&I guy is already sitting there in his office with nothing else to do and as long as you have a decent credit score the approval process takes literally a few minutes.
Sure the dealer will take cash if that's how you want to pay but you're not getting any extra discount.
Sure the dealer will take cash if that's how you want to pay but you're not getting any extra discount.
Not my experience. I have always gotten the best deals paying cash, and threatening to walk away.
The key is to not get emotionally invested in owning the car before you actually own the car. A lot of people can't do that.
The key is to not get emotionally invested in owning the car before you actually own the car. A lot of people can't do that.
> Cash buyers are fools, unless you're really at the point of valuing not having a loan for moral reasons (maybe a German?) at four-figures.
German Ideal nowadays is to buy a house for a couple hundred grand on a loan that you finish paying off when retiring.
German Ideal nowadays is to buy a house for a couple hundred grand on a loan that you finish paying off when retiring.
Yes, if you're going to cash buy, you can frequently get a better deal off the sticker price by agreeing to finance and then simply paying the loan off. How you structure things really depends on priorities though. Normally I buy the car (through financing) but right now I prioritized low monthly payments during financial uncertainty, so I leased. If things are different in three years, we'll either buy a new car or buyout the lease-- I made sure the lease buyout price was something we would be comfortable with: the TCO came out to only a little more than if we financed a purchase w/ higher immediate monthly payments, and I judged that a slightly higher TCO is worth the current ability to keep monthly expenses to a minimum.
I always separate trade-in and financing from the price. Deal on the price first then the trade, then the financing.
Trade ins are good for negotiation too. Wanted the factory extended warranty. Dealers in other states will discount the extended warranty but can’t sell in my state. Dealer wouldn’t discount the warranty to the price of the out-of-state so I had them keep it that price and up the trade in value to match it. They can show they didn’t discount the warranty. I get the discount.
They did that if I would get finance thru them, matching my prearranged banks rate. Deal made.
Went in the next Monday to the local bank and refinanced the car loan.
Also made them give me so thing for signing the arbitration agreement. Everything is negotiable. I did have to walk away but they called me back on the drive home.
Trade ins are good for negotiation too. Wanted the factory extended warranty. Dealers in other states will discount the extended warranty but can’t sell in my state. Dealer wouldn’t discount the warranty to the price of the out-of-state so I had them keep it that price and up the trade in value to match it. They can show they didn’t discount the warranty. I get the discount.
They did that if I would get finance thru them, matching my prearranged banks rate. Deal made.
Went in the next Monday to the local bank and refinanced the car loan.
Also made them give me so thing for signing the arbitration agreement. Everything is negotiable. I did have to walk away but they called me back on the drive home.
Exactly - agree a sale price. Then discuss payment. And at that point cash has no benefit to the dealer, but a loan does. So the loan can get you a discount but the cash cannot.
It's actually the opposite. Most franchise dealers get incentives for financing through the manufacturer's captive lender, so you can often negotiate a slightly better deal by taking a loan.
One offer I was looking at recently was 0% OR $4k cash back off the MSRP. The interest rate on taking the cash back offer ended up working out to near exactly $4k. Though if you have good credit and went through a credit union you could probably get a much better rate.
Borrowing also means you have to carry collision insurance, the surplus value (over the expected payout) of which should also be considered a finance charge if you’d otherwise not carry it.
If you were to buy a car in cash for $40k+, would you really not bother to carry comprehensive insurance on it? Are there really that many people out there where a $40k+ oops just isn't a big deal, just go buy another?
I don't carry comprehensive insurance on my car. I drive a 2000 Honda Accord though, so the KBB value (and what they quoted me for) was only about $1000. I wouldn't carry comprehensive on that. But you bet if I've got $40k+ rolling down the road and in the elements it's going to have some insurance on it.
I don't carry comprehensive insurance on my car. I drive a 2000 Honda Accord though, so the KBB value (and what they quoted me for) was only about $1000. I wouldn't carry comprehensive on that. But you bet if I've got $40k+ rolling down the road and in the elements it's going to have some insurance on it.
I've usually dropped collision coverage on cars when they get under around $15K. (All but one of my cars was purchased for less than this, often much less.)
If I had a 0% loan on it for some reason at that point, that meant paying off the loan to let me do that. (If you assume an 8% nominal return on investments, that means when paying off the loan would cost me under $100/mo.)
I think you should insure against risks that would be a substantial impact to your life and (generally) not insure against risks that wouldn't.
If I had a 0% loan on it for some reason at that point, that meant paying off the loan to let me do that. (If you assume an 8% nominal return on investments, that means when paying off the loan would cost me under $100/mo.)
I think you should insure against risks that would be a substantial impact to your life and (generally) not insure against risks that wouldn't.
If you don’t want a monthly car payment pay a monthly car payment so later you can have a smaller monthly car payment?
I think the idea is that you accrue the interest yourself instead of paying it to someone else.
The amount of interest accrued in a savings account is pretty wimpy though.
Yeah, but a savings account? Interest rates for savings are abysmal, and auto-loans are themselves frequently near (or at) zero these days, so it's losing advice as-given.
Better advice: put the money in the market or other higher-yielding investment, then take a low or no interest loan on the vehicle when the time comes so those investments can continue to grow at the much higher clip. Money's just too cheap to give away your own cash. Obviously, if the interest rate environment changes, this should be re-evaluated.
Better advice: put the money in the market or other higher-yielding investment, then take a low or no interest loan on the vehicle when the time comes so those investments can continue to grow at the much higher clip. Money's just too cheap to give away your own cash. Obviously, if the interest rate environment changes, this should be re-evaluated.
What percentage are you talking about as being abysmal. 0.1% offered at some shitty brick and mortar bank is terrible but nearly all the online first banks offer (or offered before covid) what I thought was a decent 1-3%
Highest these days is like 0.5%. If you are really lucky you can find 0.8%
I'm not seeing anything like that. Here's the latest roundup of "the best rates" over at Bankrate [0], which includes some online-only banks. Highest I see there is 0.57%, with most at 0.4% and 0.5%.
You might be able to scrounge up a few basis points somewhere if you're really determined and/or willing to meet some requirements. Still, even with our low-inflation these days [1], you're actually losing money in these savings accounts.
Main point though is that it's more of a relative game vs your ROI elsewhere. Even indexes and ETFs that are reasonably "low-risk" are routinely returning much more these days, and of course over the long haul equity markets still beat this handily, even when smoothed for downturns.
[0] https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/rates/
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/244983/projected-inflati...
You might be able to scrounge up a few basis points somewhere if you're really determined and/or willing to meet some requirements. Still, even with our low-inflation these days [1], you're actually losing money in these savings accounts.
Main point though is that it's more of a relative game vs your ROI elsewhere. Even indexes and ETFs that are reasonably "low-risk" are routinely returning much more these days, and of course over the long haul equity markets still beat this handily, even when smoothed for downturns.
[0] https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/rates/
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/244983/projected-inflati...
TMobile Money is 4% for the first $3000 and 1% after that for customers and 1% flat for everyone else. Ally used to be pretty good but I've moved all my savings over for now
Yeah, obviously not scalable, but cool for a risk-averse T-Mobile wireless customer who wants a guaranteed 4% on $3K.
It is funny though that they give the example that at $5,000 saved your effective APY is around 2.79%. I mean, the bottom line is that as soon as you get above $3K, any additional savings drops to a lowly 1%, which doesn't keep pace with inflation (i.e. you're losing money). But they're presenting it like 2.79% is some kind of average that matters, thus implying it's a good idea to keep pouring money in.
The reality is that the offer is not an average, but two discrete terms of 4% and 1%. And, on the latter, you're trading whatever other returns you could've made elsewhere for that miserly 1%. Much better to put it elsewhere, even for those who bite on the initial $3K for 4%.
It is funny though that they give the example that at $5,000 saved your effective APY is around 2.79%. I mean, the bottom line is that as soon as you get above $3K, any additional savings drops to a lowly 1%, which doesn't keep pace with inflation (i.e. you're losing money). But they're presenting it like 2.79% is some kind of average that matters, thus implying it's a good idea to keep pouring money in.
The reality is that the offer is not an average, but two discrete terms of 4% and 1%. And, on the latter, you're trading whatever other returns you could've made elsewhere for that miserly 1%. Much better to put it elsewhere, even for those who bite on the initial $3K for 4%.
Interest on savings accounts is far less than inflation, out side of an emergency fund there is little reason to save cash.
Isn't the benefit of the car loan that you can have emergency funds? I mean, if you save up $5k and get a car loan for $25k you for years you effectively have a 2 year emergency buffer.
If you pay off the car up front you may run into liquidity issues until you have restored your emergency fund.
If you pay off the car up front you may run into liquidity issues until you have restored your emergency fund.
No one should consider using their emergency fund for anything other than emergency's, so I am not sure what your point it
The comment I was responding too talked specifically about saving money in a savings account for the purposes of buying expensive things like a car. It should go with out saying one should not use their emergency fund for these purchases (unless they are an emergency)
Once you have the 6mos to 1 year of expenses in your emergency fund you should divert any other cash to other accounts such as Debt Repayment (providing the debt is more than 5-7% interest or current inflation) and/or investments such as tax advantaged retirement accounts
The comment I was responding too talked specifically about saving money in a savings account for the purposes of buying expensive things like a car. It should go with out saying one should not use their emergency fund for these purchases (unless they are an emergency)
Once you have the 6mos to 1 year of expenses in your emergency fund you should divert any other cash to other accounts such as Debt Repayment (providing the debt is more than 5-7% interest or current inflation) and/or investments such as tax advantaged retirement accounts
You don't have to put it into a savings account. I do the same thing but into a stock fund.
Or save up enough that you can pay cash. I would think for the HN crowd it should be feasible. I think when you're spending money that's already in your account you make better decisions. Like you'll be less inclined to pay thousands more for an upgraded model with a bunch of superficial nonsense added
It would be better to take the car payment and invest that money. You can get a car loan for less that 3% interest, and you can easily make double that with low risk ETFs. Hell, you could invest your savings into a dividend fund and use that to pay your car payment directly.
A savings account is just a way to burn money at the moment. Not recommended.
Yes, we save a healthy portion of our income, but increasing that now just shifts the timing, not the pain, of when have to start a new car payment.
Depends on the interest rate of the loan, inflation rate of money between now and the time the loan is paid off, and any gains/losses you could make now investing that money.
All modern cars have amazing new features. Air bags, reverse cameras, steering by wire, ABS, direct fuel injection, massively boosted turbocharged engines (on econoboxes!) and traction control as standard. My 7 year old car has all of the above and can park itself, has adaptive cruise control, and for $400 I added a 12” touch screen stereo. Compared to my last car, my current car outputs up to 20psi of boost compared to the 6psi of four generations ago. My current car has part time AWD that is just as efficient as my old mechanical always on AWD car of yesterday. I bought my car for under $20k. The car is worth under $10k right now. That is massive value available to everyone right now.
Maybe you could upgrade your car now for much less than you think, or maybe you only want the latest shiny parts. Either way you need to be honest with yourself, cars have evolved and stayed modern over the past 2 decades compared to any time in automobile history
Maybe you could upgrade your car now for much less than you think, or maybe you only want the latest shiny parts. Either way you need to be honest with yourself, cars have evolved and stayed modern over the past 2 decades compared to any time in automobile history
Which car do you have?
I bought a perfectly ordinary second hand vehicle for £3k in 2003 (it had been built in 1999) which had ABS, air bags everywhere, direct fuel injection, turbo-charged engine & traction control. Modern cars are pretty amazing things: a lot of these features have been standard for twenty years at this point! (The vehicle I bought was much favoured by UK taxi drivers at the time, which shows you how very boring & practical it was.)
Since 2003 that has only gotten better. My turbocharged engine gets 35mpg on the highway while putting out 240hp on demand. 2003 cars couldn’t do that. my 2000 A4 with mods put out 250hp and had some sort of vacuum leak every other week, meanwhile that’s normal for my 2014 car and adding meth injection puts me as 300hp with zero problems after 2 years of continuous use
Remember when cars of the 90s were so much better than cars of the 80s? Going over 100k mi/km in most cars wasn’t a concern anymore. Now a large majority of cars are going 200-300k without a sweat
Remember when cars of the 90s were so much better than cars of the 80s? Going over 100k mi/km in most cars wasn’t a concern anymore. Now a large majority of cars are going 200-300k without a sweat
you forgot the most important thing. cas, one system (aeb) is required in european in 2022.
All modern cars have amazing new features.
Oh yes. Remote monitoring, tracking for advertising, contact list stealing through the USB charger port...
Oh yes. Remote monitoring, tracking for advertising, contact list stealing through the USB charger port...
My cars have no such remote monitoring or tracking outside of government regulation (airbag crash sensor recording). Is this going to turn into an Apple vs Google phone style debate? Let’s stop before it gets there; Buy from a company that respects your privacy, but be prepared to spend more.
Also all of your other ten year old hardware probably has vulnerabilities you are not aware of as well
Also all of your other ten year old hardware probably has vulnerabilities you are not aware of as well
My cars have no such remote monitoring or tracking outside of government regulation (airbag crash sensor recording)
There was a time when people were worried about that as a privacy invasion. Even though, to access it, someone has to dig into the wreckage and retrieve the recorder. And all it yields is details of the last 30 seconds before the crash.
There was a time when people were worried about that as a privacy invasion. Even though, to access it, someone has to dig into the wreckage and retrieve the recorder. And all it yields is details of the last 30 seconds before the crash.
Maybe not always the good kind of amazing?
We had a 2020 Corolla as a rental over Christmas/New Years 2019/20, and it was amazing. What we drive at home: a 2008 Ford Fiesta that my husband bought in 2013.
My only worry is that something will go wrong enough with it in the next year or so that we’d be compelled to get another car in this rather tight market, but otherwise, knowing that your car's current resale (and repurchase) value is approximately the secondary wage earner’s monthly after-tax income is liberating.
My only worry is that something will go wrong enough with it in the next year or so that we’d be compelled to get another car in this rather tight market, but otherwise, knowing that your car's current resale (and repurchase) value is approximately the secondary wage earner’s monthly after-tax income is liberating.
> We had a 2020 Corolla as a rental over Christmas/New Years 2019/20
How does that work? Are models named for the year after they become available?
How does that work? Are models named for the year after they become available?
Yes, new models typically start being available around September: I always thought it was absurd too as a kid growing up, but it makes sense when you consider that competitive marketing pressures would drive manufacturers to release the new cars earlier and earlier. You can check the sticker somewhere around the driver's door to see when a vehicle was actually manufactured.
Next year will probably be better. The current shortage in materials and chips is a product of so many things (supply chains) getting mothballed, they'll be up to full production by next year.
My current car is a little older. I pay a monthly car payment to myself, so when this car gets too expensive to maintain, I'll find a new car that costs what I have in savings and start the cycle again.
What do you consider "meaningful new features"? What about new cars "sucks"? They are more reliable, safer, quieter, more powerful, more fuel efficient and more full featured than ever.
With brakes connected to the internet and useless touchscreens.
We are in the iPod Video stage of individual car ownership.
Are you saying that the next step will be the best version of individual car ownership?
I sure hope so. I think car culture is bad art.
But to defend the analogy, iPod Video was iPod gen 5. Apple did two more generations on that format with the minimum additional feature set.
That might take a while. And there will be many a Zune sold in the meantime.
But to defend the analogy, iPod Video was iPod gen 5. Apple did two more generations on that format with the minimum additional feature set.
That might take a while. And there will be many a Zune sold in the meantime.
I disagree.
Whether your into sports cars or fuel efficient cars, both categories have meaningfully improved over the past few years.
For sports cars, there's a number of 500,600,700hp cars on the market. Corvettes went mid engine (2020), Miatas lost 400lbs of weight(2016), Mustangs/Camaros/Chargers are now 460+HP (2018ish), a VW Golf R will hit 60MPH in 4 seconds with a 2.0L motor, and that's not even getting into Teslas.
For economy cars, a Rav4 hybrid gets about as good of fuel economy as a 2014 Prius, while being substantially larger. There are good hybrid offerings from non-Toyota brands, such as KIA. Plug in hybrids are pretty widely available. Even non-hybrids such as the Civic improved substantially in fuel economy in the past few years. In 2016, Civic fuel economy improved about 8% across the lineup.
For many auto makers, the transition from early 2010s to late 2010s came with substantial improvements. Not just in measureable metrics either. Transmission performance has improved so much between 2010 and 2020. It's really insane to experience a 2010 6 speed automatic, then compare it to a car with a modern 8,9,10 speed. The difference is night and day for most cars.
Whether your into sports cars or fuel efficient cars, both categories have meaningfully improved over the past few years.
For sports cars, there's a number of 500,600,700hp cars on the market. Corvettes went mid engine (2020), Miatas lost 400lbs of weight(2016), Mustangs/Camaros/Chargers are now 460+HP (2018ish), a VW Golf R will hit 60MPH in 4 seconds with a 2.0L motor, and that's not even getting into Teslas.
For economy cars, a Rav4 hybrid gets about as good of fuel economy as a 2014 Prius, while being substantially larger. There are good hybrid offerings from non-Toyota brands, such as KIA. Plug in hybrids are pretty widely available. Even non-hybrids such as the Civic improved substantially in fuel economy in the past few years. In 2016, Civic fuel economy improved about 8% across the lineup.
For many auto makers, the transition from early 2010s to late 2010s came with substantial improvements. Not just in measureable metrics either. Transmission performance has improved so much between 2010 and 2020. It's really insane to experience a 2010 6 speed automatic, then compare it to a car with a modern 8,9,10 speed. The difference is night and day for most cars.
I'm sure people who pay attention to cars and their performance would agree. And I think many cars will sell.
But I think "meaningfully improved" is in the eye of the beholder.
Steve Jobs' one more thing for iPod gen five included the exclamation "calendars never looked better!"
You look at the slide he has behind him and it looks ridiculous. How useful was that calendar, how silly does that look now? What is the meaning of 0 to 60 in 4 seconds when there's traffic anyway? Isn't there a safer, less expensive way to get a rush than pushing a pedal with a foot?
I'm not arguing that these features you're describing viewed through the lens of today aren't meaningful. Breakout on iPod Video was cool too. But these improvements do not change the fundamental experience of personal transportation. They make it marginally better at best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyblf2P_q5Q
But I think "meaningfully improved" is in the eye of the beholder.
Steve Jobs' one more thing for iPod gen five included the exclamation "calendars never looked better!"
You look at the slide he has behind him and it looks ridiculous. How useful was that calendar, how silly does that look now? What is the meaning of 0 to 60 in 4 seconds when there's traffic anyway? Isn't there a safer, less expensive way to get a rush than pushing a pedal with a foot?
I'm not arguing that these features you're describing viewed through the lens of today aren't meaningful. Breakout on iPod Video was cool too. But these improvements do not change the fundamental experience of personal transportation. They make it marginally better at best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyblf2P_q5Q
> What is the meaning of 0 to 60 in 4 seconds when there's traffic anyway?
I take public transit and don't own a car ($500/m parking, insane insurance rates in SF, cars broken into within minutes in daylight), but drive rentals/carshare-by-hour periodically. Merging and accelerating onto a freeway from a rate limited entryway stopped to 60 is somewhat useful while keeping up with flow.
I take public transit and don't own a car ($500/m parking, insane insurance rates in SF, cars broken into within minutes in daylight), but drive rentals/carshare-by-hour periodically. Merging and accelerating onto a freeway from a rate limited entryway stopped to 60 is somewhat useful while keeping up with flow.
Yeah, I'm tryign to make my dino car last until I can get a $40k electric car that will go 500 mile on a single charge running AC in the Texas heat. THen I'll run that into the ground for 15-20 years hopefully.
The issue is that supply is greatly exceeding demand. It also isn't constrained to Vehicles. Apple's Q2 guidance has said that iPads and Macs supplies have been constrained. [1]. Also, if you get reposessed cars that doesn't mean you will be able to resell them. Sure the automakers made a mistake in their orders for chips but since everyone is now trying to get foundries making chips and we are still having logistic problems with Air and Ocean freight no one really knows the answer to your question. [2]
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/apple-fin...
[2] https://unctad.org/news/shipping-during-covid-19-why-contain...
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/apple-fin...
[2] https://unctad.org/news/shipping-during-covid-19-why-contain...
That's an interesting theory. Anecdotally, I occasionally pass by a lot where repossessed cars are stored. I've noticed there have considerably fewer cars in their lots of late, with whole sections completely empty. I'd guessed bad car loans just weren't being made with the pandemic, but this theory makes a lot more sense.
I like that you have this small visual indicator of vehicle repossession rates. If someone took sat photos and performed vehicle count on lots like this across the country that would be a quite an interesting set of data frames.
If might not matter if a person pays the rent, but people are definitely on the hook with both their lenders and their auto insurance providers.
It has also never been easier to recognize a vehicle marked for repo than it is today. Vigilant's (Motarola) DRN and MVTrac are mature, growing while the cost of new LPR equipment continues to go down.
When it comes to the repo man, It's never been a worse time to be in violation of a car loan or lease.
If might not matter if a person pays the rent, but people are definitely on the hook with both their lenders and their auto insurance providers.
It has also never been easier to recognize a vehicle marked for repo than it is today. Vigilant's (Motarola) DRN and MVTrac are mature, growing while the cost of new LPR equipment continues to go down.
When it comes to the repo man, It's never been a worse time to be in violation of a car loan or lease.
>> Since 14% of renters are behind on rent and evictions begin June 30, aren’t vehicle repossessions going to kick in July / August?
Americans will pay their car loan before their rent.
Americans will pay their car loan before their rent.
Because of the eviction moratorium there are many who just stopped paying rent. And some of those people bought cars they are only able to afford because they aren't paying rent. Even with prioritizing car payments there will be many who fall behind on those if they start paying rent at new places.
You can sleep in your car but you can't drive your house or apartment.
I think about this fact a lot considering the growing anti-car movement on certain parts of Twitter. Huge misconception about the value of cars, especially for people in America who don't live in extremely dense cities.
Something which doesn't need much maintenance, like a Honda or Toyota or something, is a lifeline. Fuel is still relatively cheap; modern cars are twice as efficient as similar cars from ~40-50 years ago. Housing has skyrocketed in that time compared to income. But a car is often a pre-requisite for many jobs. And with Uber/Lyft/door-dash, etc, a car can enable you to almost immediately get a modest job in most cities in the country. And it's easy to move to a new city if you have a car, as it functions as your own private room (even if you have to crash on a couch... or sleep in a Walmart parking lot). They also mean you don't need to rely on local 7/11 or delivery services for food. You can go buy in bulk, shop across town. A car gives you optionality and security. Wise or not, we've built our nation around cars, and now cheap used cars with affordable fuel are basically our main safety net.
Something which doesn't need much maintenance, like a Honda or Toyota or something, is a lifeline. Fuel is still relatively cheap; modern cars are twice as efficient as similar cars from ~40-50 years ago. Housing has skyrocketed in that time compared to income. But a car is often a pre-requisite for many jobs. And with Uber/Lyft/door-dash, etc, a car can enable you to almost immediately get a modest job in most cities in the country. And it's easy to move to a new city if you have a car, as it functions as your own private room (even if you have to crash on a couch... or sleep in a Walmart parking lot). They also mean you don't need to rely on local 7/11 or delivery services for food. You can go buy in bulk, shop across town. A car gives you optionality and security. Wise or not, we've built our nation around cars, and now cheap used cars with affordable fuel are basically our main safety net.
A somewhat not intuitive fact: Most renters prioritize their car payments over other debts/rent. Without a car they have no income…
And you can sleep in a car, if need be.
"You can sleep in your car, but you can't drive your house."
Speak for yourself, buddy. You haven't seen my house.
And in many states, your car is one of the things that cannot be repossessed in case of bankruptcy.
It’s hard to predict, even if only a couple of months ahead. As the economy picks up a lot of people who had rent relief may have some sort of income, perhaps enough to push them positively over the line. Not all of the renters on relief, obviously, but perhaps enough to chop the number of actual car repossessions significantly.
Separately, I suspect that quite a few of the ppl who had rent relief had cars that, let’s just say, wouldn’t be highly sought in he used vehicle market.
Separately, I suspect that quite a few of the ppl who had rent relief had cars that, let’s just say, wouldn’t be highly sought in he used vehicle market.
> Separately, I suspect that quite a few of the ppl who had rent relief had cars that, let’s just say, wouldn’t be highly sought in he used vehicle market.
Perhaps.
Vehicles have been pushed in every medium as status symbols. Creative financing options and cheaper insurance have allowed those affected by this to continue to participate. It isn’t just new cars but expensive restoration and customization of old ones.
I think this is beginning to fall away, in part because young people do not rely on physical presence to gain and maintain social standing among their peers as much as they used to.
So a better phone camera matters more than nicer rims. Selfies in front of a fancy car get less likes than swimming next to a sea tortoise.
That said I think groups that have been economically disadvantaged over long periods of time process and integrate culture shifts like this more slowly.
Perhaps.
Vehicles have been pushed in every medium as status symbols. Creative financing options and cheaper insurance have allowed those affected by this to continue to participate. It isn’t just new cars but expensive restoration and customization of old ones.
I think this is beginning to fall away, in part because young people do not rely on physical presence to gain and maintain social standing among their peers as much as they used to.
So a better phone camera matters more than nicer rims. Selfies in front of a fancy car get less likes than swimming next to a sea tortoise.
That said I think groups that have been economically disadvantaged over long periods of time process and integrate culture shifts like this more slowly.
[deleted]
Looking forward to major US regions becoming market-based economies again.
> Since 14% of renters are behind on rent and evictions begin June 30, aren’t vehicle repossessions going to kick in July / August?
> Presumably, due in part to eviction protection, they have been able to divert all or a portion of their rent payments to keeping up with bad car loans for commute vehicles that often will not be needed.
There are gonna be far fewer evictions and/or mortgage defaults than people think, all those ppl who have been out of work are likely making more money right now than they were at the start of the pandemic just from unemployment, additionally bec they’re unemployed they may qualify for their states’ Medicaid benefits and food stamps, not to mention the free school lunches than many states have turned into a basically tons of raw produce and other various meal-making materials delivered/picked up each week. All those extra benefits mean the raw unemployment dollars go farther compared to a normal income creating an effectively higher $/hr wage than if you just look at the $300-600/wk(+state unemployment).
All this distills down to the fact that everyone has been flush with cash the entire time so much so that I know a few people in March 2020 who were behind on rent but due to all the aforementioned benefits were able to pay the rent they owed. Meaning that people having been making rent and/or mortgage for the most part and have probably been living beyond their (normal) means for the last year. If there’s gonna be any sort of correction it’s not coming until mid-2022 at the earliest.
> Presumably, due in part to eviction protection, they have been able to divert all or a portion of their rent payments to keeping up with bad car loans for commute vehicles that often will not be needed.
There are gonna be far fewer evictions and/or mortgage defaults than people think, all those ppl who have been out of work are likely making more money right now than they were at the start of the pandemic just from unemployment, additionally bec they’re unemployed they may qualify for their states’ Medicaid benefits and food stamps, not to mention the free school lunches than many states have turned into a basically tons of raw produce and other various meal-making materials delivered/picked up each week. All those extra benefits mean the raw unemployment dollars go farther compared to a normal income creating an effectively higher $/hr wage than if you just look at the $300-600/wk(+state unemployment).
All this distills down to the fact that everyone has been flush with cash the entire time so much so that I know a few people in March 2020 who were behind on rent but due to all the aforementioned benefits were able to pay the rent they owed. Meaning that people having been making rent and/or mortgage for the most part and have probably been living beyond their (normal) means for the last year. If there’s gonna be any sort of correction it’s not coming until mid-2022 at the earliest.
It is going to come sooner than that, people keep talking about inflation "coming soon" I think those people are blind because it is already here.
Right now if we just get off with a little stagflation that would be a blessing, unfortunately I think it is going to far far worse. All those people depending on government checks are going to get hit hardest by the combination of inflation and the required austerity measures
Right now if we just get off with a little stagflation that would be a blessing, unfortunately I think it is going to far far worse. All those people depending on government checks are going to get hit hardest by the combination of inflation and the required austerity measures
I treated myself to a medium frozen yogurt yesterday, no toppings, after carrying a sheet of peg board about a mile. It was $8 after tip. Maybe that's small tourist town price rather than inflation, but all the restaurants in the area definitely jacked prices up 50% over the last two years.
I had to carry the peg board from the in-town hardware store because it wouldn't fit in my Mustang. A Ford Mustang has the same sticker price as it did when I bought mine 10 years ago. So, if there's inflation, Mustangs have comparatively gotten cheaper.
The peg board itself was $18 for a 4'x4' sheet. I haven't looked it up, but I suspect I could have paid 4x cheaper by area by buying full sheets at Home Depot. I would have paid the difference in transportation costs just buying the one sheet, though.
I had to carry the peg board from the in-town hardware store because it wouldn't fit in my Mustang. A Ford Mustang has the same sticker price as it did when I bought mine 10 years ago. So, if there's inflation, Mustangs have comparatively gotten cheaper.
The peg board itself was $18 for a 4'x4' sheet. I haven't looked it up, but I suspect I could have paid 4x cheaper by area by buying full sheets at Home Depot. I would have paid the difference in transportation costs just buying the one sheet, though.
>>A Ford Mustang has the same sticker price as it did when I bought mine 10 years ago. So, if there's inflation, Mustangs have comparatively gotten cheaper.
I am not sure where you are getting your prices, in 2011 Base Mustang v6 coupe sticker was $22,145. Adjusted for CPI to official 2021 dollars that would be $26,076.
Base model 2021 Mustang v6 Coupe starts at 27,155, which is about 4% more than CPI indicated would be accounted for by official inflation
The difference is even more if we look at the GT500, which in 2011 was $53,645 which in official 2021 dollars would be $63,169 yet the 2021 GT500 has a sticker price starting at $72,900 a full 13% higher than inflation.
So please tell me where you are getting a 2021 Ford Mustang new for the EXACT same price as one would have paid in 2011??? Or you got massively ripped off 10 years ago... My current vehicle today has book value of about $1,500 MORE than when I bought it used 3 years ago (about a 1% increase in value), late model cars do not normally go UP in value as they age, but mine has in the last year or so....
as to the Peg Board, in my area right now a 4x8 sheet of Peg Board @ the local home depot is $25.. Definitely not $5 as you seem to believe, lumber prices (and peg board is in that) is up somewhere around 400% this year as there are MASSIVE shortages for building supplies of all types but especially wood based products
I am not sure where you are getting your prices, in 2011 Base Mustang v6 coupe sticker was $22,145. Adjusted for CPI to official 2021 dollars that would be $26,076.
Base model 2021 Mustang v6 Coupe starts at 27,155, which is about 4% more than CPI indicated would be accounted for by official inflation
The difference is even more if we look at the GT500, which in 2011 was $53,645 which in official 2021 dollars would be $63,169 yet the 2021 GT500 has a sticker price starting at $72,900 a full 13% higher than inflation.
So please tell me where you are getting a 2021 Ford Mustang new for the EXACT same price as one would have paid in 2011??? Or you got massively ripped off 10 years ago... My current vehicle today has book value of about $1,500 MORE than when I bought it used 3 years ago (about a 1% increase in value), late model cars do not normally go UP in value as they age, but mine has in the last year or so....
as to the Peg Board, in my area right now a 4x8 sheet of Peg Board @ the local home depot is $25.. Definitely not $5 as you seem to believe, lumber prices (and peg board is in that) is up somewhere around 400% this year as there are MASSIVE shortages for building supplies of all types but especially wood based products
I think you're possibly reading more into my statements than there was. No need to be so confrontational.
Retail price for the V6 premium trim Mustang I bought was about $26000 retail. The modern equivalent I would say is a V4 with basic trim, because the 2021 base model comes with considerably more technology than the 2011 premium. The only practical difference is leather vs. cloth seats. The retail price for that car is about 27000. So yeah, I think you can get the roughly the same amount of Mustang today for the same price 10 years ago.
If you look at the V4 premium, then yeah it's about 20% more expensive than the base model which tracks estimated inflation. You're getting considerably more technology than the premium model a decade ago, though. It's a better car. Maybe not 20% better though.
I'm laughing about the peg board prices. You're calling me out with numbers, but it seems like you're ignoring the dimensions, and I explicitly claimed that my estimate was unsubstantiated. I just looked it up as well, and the equivalent quality sheet is $19 per 4'x8' sheet at the closest Lowes. I bought a 4'x4' sheet locally for $19. So, I only paid 2x. Seems like a high premium still. I wonder what home improvement stores pay wholesale?
Retail price for the V6 premium trim Mustang I bought was about $26000 retail. The modern equivalent I would say is a V4 with basic trim, because the 2021 base model comes with considerably more technology than the 2011 premium. The only practical difference is leather vs. cloth seats. The retail price for that car is about 27000. So yeah, I think you can get the roughly the same amount of Mustang today for the same price 10 years ago.
If you look at the V4 premium, then yeah it's about 20% more expensive than the base model which tracks estimated inflation. You're getting considerably more technology than the premium model a decade ago, though. It's a better car. Maybe not 20% better though.
I'm laughing about the peg board prices. You're calling me out with numbers, but it seems like you're ignoring the dimensions, and I explicitly claimed that my estimate was unsubstantiated. I just looked it up as well, and the equivalent quality sheet is $19 per 4'x8' sheet at the closest Lowes. I bought a 4'x4' sheet locally for $19. So, I only paid 2x. Seems like a high premium still. I wonder what home improvement stores pay wholesale?
>> No need to be so confrontational.
Not about being confrontational it about dealing in actual facts
I disagree with your comparison of a v6 premium to a Base v4 and calling it "the same". Also I think it is unfair to account for technology in the way you have, if we looked at technology in that way then we would have MASSIVE deflation in the world, as a $1500 computer 10 years go would cost $35 to buy a comparable processing power. Saying that technology has gotten better there for no inflation is on of the biggest problems I have with the CPI in general
On the Peg Board, I am not sure what "locally" is but assuming you live in a large city the cost of operating a business in the city can easily increase the prices that high compared to where most lowes are located which often have less taxation, lower properly costs, and over all lower expenses. I am not surprised a local hardware store would charge a premium for a product, convenience it worth something. Clearly you thought the price was worth that vs driving out to the Lowe's to get your sheet. The excuse of "it would not fit" does not work either as Lowe's would cut it down for you to the dimensions you need for free
Not about being confrontational it about dealing in actual facts
I disagree with your comparison of a v6 premium to a Base v4 and calling it "the same". Also I think it is unfair to account for technology in the way you have, if we looked at technology in that way then we would have MASSIVE deflation in the world, as a $1500 computer 10 years go would cost $35 to buy a comparable processing power. Saying that technology has gotten better there for no inflation is on of the biggest problems I have with the CPI in general
On the Peg Board, I am not sure what "locally" is but assuming you live in a large city the cost of operating a business in the city can easily increase the prices that high compared to where most lowes are located which often have less taxation, lower properly costs, and over all lower expenses. I am not surprised a local hardware store would charge a premium for a product, convenience it worth something. Clearly you thought the price was worth that vs driving out to the Lowe's to get your sheet. The excuse of "it would not fit" does not work either as Lowe's would cut it down for you to the dimensions you need for free
I dunno, I think technological progress does cause deflation to some degree, and it's perhaps one reason why folk haven't perceived inflation as much as otherwise over the last couple decades.
Burritos, blue jeans and Honda Civics haven't changed much technologically over the years, and their prices seem to track with average inflation.
From a user experience, a $1500 computer from 10 years ago is still likely to be usable and able to run modern software. Buying a $1500 computer today is a significant upgrade.
Burritos on the other hand aren't changing, and yet they're seemingly 50%-100% more expensive than they were 10 years ago.
Is it not possible that certain markets are deflating while others are inflating?
Burritos, blue jeans and Honda Civics haven't changed much technologically over the years, and their prices seem to track with average inflation.
From a user experience, a $1500 computer from 10 years ago is still likely to be usable and able to run modern software. Buying a $1500 computer today is a significant upgrade.
Burritos on the other hand aren't changing, and yet they're seemingly 50%-100% more expensive than they were 10 years ago.
Is it not possible that certain markets are deflating while others are inflating?
Perhaps inflation and technological advancement is analogous to a temperature during a phase change in matter, i.e. there's energy going in but the temperature is holding steady. Maybe we'll soon reach a saturation point and inflation will start tracking again?
For fun I looked up a 2011 vs. 2021 Honda Civic. That's likely a much more apples-to-apples comparison. About $16k to $21k, or 31%. That's about 2.7% per year, which seems to be slightly more than claimed inflation as well.
That's interesting, I think. I suspect cars are becoming more expensive to manufacture over time due to more stringent regulations. Lower emissions, more active safety features, etc. Maybe certain raw materials have become more expensive as well? Or maybe NRE costs have gone up across the board now that electric cars are becoming mainstream?
That's interesting, I think. I suspect cars are becoming more expensive to manufacture over time due to more stringent regulations. Lower emissions, more active safety features, etc. Maybe certain raw materials have become more expensive as well? Or maybe NRE costs have gone up across the board now that electric cars are becoming mainstream?
The economy is projected to grow quickly in 2021 though and even 2022 is projected to grow 3.5% which is still higher than trump's 2.5% average. The debt burden may shrink from sheer growth alone.
Those projections are based on Modern Monetary Theory and Keynesian modeling....
Sorry to say I so not support either one of those economic schools of thought... Time will tell who is right
To believe we can just create from thin air 6+ trillion dollars in 18 mo's and plan to create 4-6 trillion more it will not result in massive inflationary pressures is a folly.
You might be right in the debt disappears, because people will be buying bread with figurative wheel barrow's of money as the dollar collapses...
grated that is the worst case, but these rosy predictions that everything will just continue on with no more than 3% inflation is lunacy at the highest order. We are seeing massive inflation in many market segments all being labeled as "shortages" for other reasons than currency problems. 400% in lumber,300% in food, etc. I submit it is not only shortages driving those numbers
Sorry to say I so not support either one of those economic schools of thought... Time will tell who is right
To believe we can just create from thin air 6+ trillion dollars in 18 mo's and plan to create 4-6 trillion more it will not result in massive inflationary pressures is a folly.
You might be right in the debt disappears, because people will be buying bread with figurative wheel barrow's of money as the dollar collapses...
grated that is the worst case, but these rosy predictions that everything will just continue on with no more than 3% inflation is lunacy at the highest order. We are seeing massive inflation in many market segments all being labeled as "shortages" for other reasons than currency problems. 400% in lumber,300% in food, etc. I submit it is not only shortages driving those numbers
Trumps 2.5% avg which includes a global pandemic that all democrats decided required shutting down their economies for. I think context matters and those types of comparisons are dishonest.
I think it is called bullwhip effect:
The bullwhip effect is a distribution channel phenomenon in which demand forecasts yield supply chain inefficiencies. It refers to increasing swings in inventory in response to shifts in consumer demand as one moves further up the supply chain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect
Its the whole JIT inventories stuff they preach in business school. Toyota actually stocked enough chips to handle something like this.
I'm starting to think historians will look back at our age and say "it was the MBAs who doomed them", much the same way that historians look at China's history and point to an excess of court eunechs as the reason this or that dynasty fell.
The eunechs being blamed was mostly a "polite" fiction as they had no descendants to offend, especially important if the same dynasty is in place. Badmouthing the current emperor's ancestors isn't good for your health.
A very fair point. It was my impression that the bloating of the court eunech population was considered a sign of imperial decline. If the empire wasn't expanding, advancement was mostly available through court intrigue, and drama was internal to the class that was jockeying for the emperor's favour.
In one sense, it's like the bloating of university administrations over the last couple decades in the U.S. as Pell grants unleashed a torrent of money at post-secondary education. The easiest way to soak up the excess was to bloat the bureaucracy trying to spend it.
In one sense, it's like the bloating of university administrations over the last couple decades in the U.S. as Pell grants unleashed a torrent of money at post-secondary education. The easiest way to soak up the excess was to bloat the bureaucracy trying to spend it.
It's funny because systems dynamics have been known in supply chain optimisation for like 4 decades and the research itself is from the 60S. JIT is an obvious case of overoptimising leading to fragility so the fact that its accepted as the ideal is ludicrous.
And auto makers are estimating they won’t be able to ship 1M cars this quarter because of chip shortages, but that’s less than 4% of demand. That’s no crisis.
Let’s face it, automakers not only made their own bed here, but as soon as they canceled their orders PC makers swooped in and claimed the released production because PC sales were through the roof.
Next year Pc sales aren’t likely to continue at this pace. We are less than 2 years from a semiconductor glut.
Let’s face it, automakers not only made their own bed here, but as soon as they canceled their orders PC makers swooped in and claimed the released production because PC sales were through the roof.
Next year Pc sales aren’t likely to continue at this pace. We are less than 2 years from a semiconductor glut.
The shift to JIT ("Just In Time") inventory has proven problematic:
"Coronavirus pandemic exposes fatal flaws of the 'just-in-time' economy"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-02/coronavirus-pandemic-...
"Coronavirus pandemic exposes fatal flaws of the 'just-in-time' economy"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-02/coronavirus-pandemic-...
Nothing wrong with JIT. The mistake was thinking you could dole penalties for late deliveries, but stop purchasing whenever you like without consequences.
They also seem to point the finger towards hoarding by electronics companies in china to prepare for possible future sanctions.
It does highlight the problem with having the origins of your supply chains in a potentially unfriendly country.
Chinese companies produce those chips, that explanation makes little sense. Rather than the companies "hoarding", it may be they're simply not exporting as much to the US and Europe anymore, for political reasons. Any major company in China is under CCP supervision and towing the party line. It's not like it's a free market where private corporations do as they please.
Turns out relying on a single region and in that region mainly on a single country for producing most essential goods wasn't such a good idea. Especially when said country is ruled by a rival regime.
Turns out relying on a single region and in that region mainly on a single country for producing most essential goods wasn't such a good idea. Especially when said country is ruled by a rival regime.
https://archive.is/0LTBa from financial times seems to suggest a lot of hoarding is going on.
But the shortage has been worsened by hoarding by sanctions-hit Chinese groups, which has made it harder for some companies to secure components for everyday electronics such as washing machines and toasters.
But the shortage has been worsened by hoarding by sanctions-hit Chinese groups, which has made it harder for some companies to secure components for everyday electronics such as washing machines and toasters.
Automakers don’t carry much inventory. Issues at any of the suppliers can cause big holdups in production.
It's all their lean manufacturing concentration. Inventory is anathema to lean manufacturing and should only have a little bit of anything extra on hand. It works well when everything is running smooth, but in a pandemic shit is going to happen and now they have to pay the opportunity cost. Car purchases are fairly elastic and they'll make up for it next year though but the "quarterly" mentality of WallStreet likes to make mountains out of mole hills.
Yes - it was obvious that the pandemic had a finite life and the that demand would re bound.
Sounds like accountants who know the cost and not the value of things over ruled the production engineering teams who should have accepted the one off cost to stockpile.
Sounds like accountants who know the cost and not the value of things over ruled the production engineering teams who should have accepted the one off cost to stockpile.
I think the reality of the economy is more obvious than any of this.
In other words if the economy "stops" in the automotive department, how fucked are we in general?
In other words if the economy "stops" in the automotive department, how fucked are we in general?
Same for bicycles manufacturers. At the beginning, nobody knew what's gonna be in the future, low orders and then high demand.
That should be the headline, really, lol.
Regarding cars:
"Some carmakers are now leaving out high-end features as a result of the chip shortage, according to a Bloomberg report on Thursday.
Nissan is reportedly leaving navigation systems out of cars that would normally have them, while Ram Trucks has stopped equipping its 1500 pickups with a standard “intelligent” rearview mirror that monitors for blind spots"
I have an unpopular opinion, especially when we start to look at the increase of safety features and increase in pedestrian injuries, that we may be better off going back to smaller trucks designed for good visibility and less reliance on features. (bias: I drive a 16 year old wagon, and feel panicked around bicycling with what feels like more trucks in the US)
---
"Hertz said it is “supplementing” its fleet “by purchasing low-mileage, preowned vehicles” from auctions and dealerships."
I find it wild that just a year ago Hertz filed for bankruptcy [0] and was selling vehicles by end of year [1].
[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/business/hertz-bankruptcy/ind...
[1]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/hertz-must-offload...
"Some carmakers are now leaving out high-end features as a result of the chip shortage, according to a Bloomberg report on Thursday.
Nissan is reportedly leaving navigation systems out of cars that would normally have them, while Ram Trucks has stopped equipping its 1500 pickups with a standard “intelligent” rearview mirror that monitors for blind spots"
I have an unpopular opinion, especially when we start to look at the increase of safety features and increase in pedestrian injuries, that we may be better off going back to smaller trucks designed for good visibility and less reliance on features. (bias: I drive a 16 year old wagon, and feel panicked around bicycling with what feels like more trucks in the US)
---
"Hertz said it is “supplementing” its fleet “by purchasing low-mileage, preowned vehicles” from auctions and dealerships."
I find it wild that just a year ago Hertz filed for bankruptcy [0] and was selling vehicles by end of year [1].
[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/business/hertz-bankruptcy/ind...
[1]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/hertz-must-offload...
Yeah, the size of these trucks has completely put me off ever wanting one. I miss the small ones from a few decades ago... great for surfing, hauling the ver occasional bit of stuff, just as useful as the ugly beasts of today but far cheaper and more maneuverable and safer.
I think we need to start requiring commercial drivers licenses on some of these beasts.
They are intentionally designed to be difficult to see out of, difficult to see around. And the high point of contact on a human body means that they are deadly. Definitely should not be allowed on a residential street without an explicit commercial purpose, IMHO.
I think we need to start requiring commercial drivers licenses on some of these beasts.
They are intentionally designed to be difficult to see out of, difficult to see around. And the high point of contact on a human body means that they are deadly. Definitely should not be allowed on a residential street without an explicit commercial purpose, IMHO.
I don't disagree, but there would be a political shitstorm if you tried to take away their trucks.
Not doing things for fear of political shitstorms is a large part of why everything is so broken these days.
Terrible leadership!
Terrible leadership!
You have to pick your fights. I'm not sure this is the hill to die on.
I don't do certain unpopular things at work because I know it will be a political shitstorm, and even if I try to, everyone else will not cooperate and I could possibly lose my job or not get promoted. That is why. They usually cannot even do it if they wanted to.
If your voters will vote you out because you do unpopular things, that's democracy at work.
If your voters will vote you out because you do unpopular things, that's democracy at work.
Politics is about figuring out what to expend community energy on that'll actually
A) Work
And
B ) Not have to be undone the next time the winds change.
Terrible leadership I can agree with wholeheartedly though.
Terrible leadership I can agree with wholeheartedly though.
Trucks are vehicles. How can they be political? I know plenty of people from all kinds of backgrounds owning a truck.
The same reasons usually apply to large BMW and Mercedes SUVs. The correct people own those so they don't attract the same Attention.
Up until this year I would have agreed with you, but grills this year have gotten completely out of control. The lack of visibility and the height of the impact zone has really changed on some trucks.
"Rolling coal" (modifying a diesel engine to run rich and increase soot in the exhaust, a.k.a. incompletely combusted fuel) has become a statement in many places of the U.S. that you are opposed to the EPA, clean air rules, regulation, and in general the perceived nanny state.
My friend is a Tesla owner in Georgia and has been deliberately blasted by these guys at stoplights a few times. They tried, anyway—hard to do this to a car with superior acceleration and a HEPA cabin filter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
My friend is a Tesla owner in Georgia and has been deliberately blasted by these guys at stoplights a few times. They tried, anyway—hard to do this to a car with superior acceleration and a HEPA cabin filter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
I don't understand it myself. I'm fascinated by the energy extraction from a properly calibrated diesel engine. They get more efficient the more air you pump in.
Ruining that for the sake of pissing people off seems a travesty against the machine.
Ruining that for the sake of pissing people off seems a travesty against the machine.
Ah yes, we have tons of these folks in AZ, frequently they're the same people with the "Don't tread on me" stickers and flags that seem to think "don't tread on me" means "But I can tread on you."
This is something entirely different and reprehensible. I was mostly concerned with the utility of Trucks and how politicization of it is absurd and dangerous. Next time someone wants to buy a truck, they’ll think twice what the society would think of them. What would the neighbors say? All they wanted is a utility vehicle.
This is just one example of many things that are dividing the society into factions.
This is just one example of many things that are dividing the society into factions.
You don't have to "take away" the trucks, but just make them more impractical:
- sales tax on cars/trucks is by weight and exponentially increases the heavier the vehicle gets
- increase taxes on gasoline
- require a special license to operate a vehicle over XXXX lbs.
- rewrite laws or encourage DAs to prosecute drivers that injure other people in cars or pedestrians even if it's unintentional
- illegal to have passengers in the truck bed (some states still allow this).
These are just off the top of my head.
- sales tax on cars/trucks is by weight and exponentially increases the heavier the vehicle gets
- increase taxes on gasoline
- require a special license to operate a vehicle over XXXX lbs.
- rewrite laws or encourage DAs to prosecute drivers that injure other people in cars or pedestrians even if it's unintentional
- illegal to have passengers in the truck bed (some states still allow this).
These are just off the top of my head.
Have you seen what pickemuptrucks cost these days? None of these financial changes would matter.
People will wail and cry and scream about their freedom being taken from them...
Do a Carbon Dividend and other people will scream when taking away the gas tax means taking away the dividend.
We need to stop these cowardly politics appeasing automobile users. This is how.
We need to stop these cowardly politics appeasing automobile users. This is how.
Because it is in fact taking away their freedom
The public roadways have never been especially free, not as in beer nor as in speech. It's a pretty unfortunate choice of setting for expressing individualism. Many have put some of their identity into how or what they drive anyway, of course.
Yes: Their freedom to pollute the environment and to endanger other people's lives. Hey, there are laws against murder and robbery too. "How dare they take away my freedom to relieve others of their life and property!"
Perhaps it's time Americans stopped reacting like conditioned Pavlovian dogs to the mere word "freedom"? Not all "freedoms" are unequivocally good.
Perhaps it's time Americans stopped reacting like conditioned Pavlovian dogs to the mere word "freedom"? Not all "freedoms" are unequivocally good.
sure, although metaphorically salting the earth through global warming for future generations arguably is also taking away freedom
Do you really think what you're suggesting doesn't map to "taking away" to the people involved?
News flash: People aren't stupid, and you're not that smart. NFA tax stamps aren't still a thing because people don't see the tax loopholes as a ban or infringement on the 2nd Amendment. They absolutely do. They've just grudgingly accepted there may be some positive utility to it. What you're talkong about is nothing but velvet gloved taking by policy.
And other posters are right. It'd be a shitstorm.
News flash: People aren't stupid, and you're not that smart. NFA tax stamps aren't still a thing because people don't see the tax loopholes as a ban or infringement on the 2nd Amendment. They absolutely do. They've just grudgingly accepted there may be some positive utility to it. What you're talkong about is nothing but velvet gloved taking by policy.
And other posters are right. It'd be a shitstorm.
Yes it would be a shitstorm, but only because some grown adults act like big babies. None of these ideas are "taking away," they are merely requiring that people finally take some personal responsibility for their actions.
And the sort of person that is big about "personal responsibility" for others but calls personal responsibility for themselves "taking away" is actually somewhat stupid in their hypocrisy.
Unless all that "personal responsibility" is actually just backwards justification for a system that's rigged against people without wealth and power and the right skin color, but it couldn't be that could it?
And the sort of person that is big about "personal responsibility" for others but calls personal responsibility for themselves "taking away" is actually somewhat stupid in their hypocrisy.
Unless all that "personal responsibility" is actually just backwards justification for a system that's rigged against people without wealth and power and the right skin color, but it couldn't be that could it?
True. In Florida, 1/3 of trucks are raised so there occupants have to literally climb in. These are commonly adorn with "Trump" and "Don't tread on me" bumper stickers and even massive flags (because you know, big truck means big flag...)
I once drove one to move something (the cab/bed being five feet off the ground wasn't as helpful as you'd think \s). The experience was somewhat surreal, like driving in an air traffic control tower. Much different than a u-haul (my only other trucking experience).
Edit: oh yeah, they do this to go "mudding" (drinking and driving in a giant muddy mess with guns, so much fun!).
I once drove one to move something (the cab/bed being five feet off the ground wasn't as helpful as you'd think \s). The experience was somewhat surreal, like driving in an air traffic control tower. Much different than a u-haul (my only other trucking experience).
Edit: oh yeah, they do this to go "mudding" (drinking and driving in a giant muddy mess with guns, so much fun!).
Mudding doesn’t mean drinking and driving with guns. It means tearing up the wet muddy ground with your vehicle. Spinning your tires, getting stuck, getting unstuck - just goofing off off-road. I personally don’t see the appeal of it but have friends that enjoy it. They don’t drink and drive (with or without guns).
> The park does not sell alcohol, according to its website, but patrons bring their own beverages.
https://www.yoursun.com/charlotte/news/redneck-mud-park-has-...
https://www.yoursun.com/charlotte/news/redneck-mud-park-has-...
Destroying forests and wetlands while spewing carbon into the air.
You can take away the CAFE rules that can be gamed by making trucks bigger than necessary.
Do pick up trucks cause more accidents? Is there data that supports this?
Or are modern pickup-pedestrian accidents more deadly than other classes of cars?
This will be a weird number because I rarely see pickups in urban centers with lots of pedestrians, but I see them all the time in rural places.
They are actually useful vehicles in rural places.
This thread is filled with ignorant city boys who have never done any useful farm work.
I cannot imagine how excrutiating it would be for my wife to have to pay a bunch of stupid taxes and follow a bunch of fascist new laws in order to grow her 100sq ft garden every year which, even so small, STILL requires truckloads of compost and mulch since we are just in the process of building our soil. And that's just for the gardens. I don't have any idea how many times we've hauled in cow, pig, and goat panels. I propose that the assholes proposing taxes and limits on trucks find a way to bring us these goods.
I cannot imagine how excrutiating it would be for my wife to have to pay a bunch of stupid taxes and follow a bunch of fascist new laws in order to grow her 100sq ft garden every year which, even so small, STILL requires truckloads of compost and mulch since we are just in the process of building our soil. And that's just for the gardens. I don't have any idea how many times we've hauled in cow, pig, and goat panels. I propose that the assholes proposing taxes and limits on trucks find a way to bring us these goods.
[deleted]
Lol, one would have to be an "ignorant city boy" to believe your claims here, don't BS us.
We are talking about the poorly designed showboats that do nothing to improve hauling capacity or utility. In my experience, I'd vastly prefer a lower bed for any of the tasks you mention. The extended crew cabs, stubby beds, and jacked to hell trucks are for aesthetics, not hauling mulch.
Plus you don't even seem to realize the distinction, just emotionally (and perhaps intentionally?) misunderstand what is under discussion.
We are talking about the poorly designed showboats that do nothing to improve hauling capacity or utility. In my experience, I'd vastly prefer a lower bed for any of the tasks you mention. The extended crew cabs, stubby beds, and jacked to hell trucks are for aesthetics, not hauling mulch.
Plus you don't even seem to realize the distinction, just emotionally (and perhaps intentionally?) misunderstand what is under discussion.
Well the fact that we're complaining from the city means there's trucks in the city that don't belong in the city, not that these things are being used for farming or hauling. My wife's family owned a ranch, I know what a practical truck for farming looks like - it's not what these people are driving. These vehicles are statement vehicles, not work vehicles.
in europe you'd just use a trailer for this kind of work on a (compared to american cars) small car
Come to texas. Everyone has a truck, including me. But I bought the smallest one i could with a diesel to get 30mpg+ and its still the size of a 2009 F150.
I'm guessing the answer to your question is "yes" but I don't know how much insight this gives to GP's question.
> I think we need to start requiring commercial drivers licenses on some of these beasts.
In the EU the maximum authorized mass (US: GVWR) you can drive with a standard car license is 3500kg or 7700lbs. That means for some models of the F150 you do need a commercial license.
In the EU the maximum authorized mass (US: GVWR) you can drive with a standard car license is 3500kg or 7700lbs. That means for some models of the F150 you do need a commercial license.
There are no F150 models in the US that weight 7700 lbs or even close to it. The heaviest one is 5517 lbs.
https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America...
https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America...
It's not dry vehicle weight that counts. GCWR must not be above 3500 kg for the basic car driver's license.
PS: Actually, the limits for the basic German driver's license (B) are: Max GVWR of 3500 kg. With trailer, if GTWR not above 750 kg, no GCWR restriction, otherwise max GCWR of 3500 kg.
There's an extended license (BE) for max GTWR of 3500 kg and no GCWR restriction. (Max GVWR still 3500 kg.)
https://www.adac.de/verkehr/rund-um-den-fuehrerschein/klasse... (German text).
PS: Actually, the limits for the basic German driver's license (B) are: Max GVWR of 3500 kg. With trailer, if GTWR not above 750 kg, no GCWR restriction, otherwise max GCWR of 3500 kg.
There's an extended license (BE) for max GTWR of 3500 kg and no GCWR restriction. (Max GVWR still 3500 kg.)
https://www.adac.de/verkehr/rund-um-den-fuehrerschein/klasse... (German text).
The curb weight of the F150 tops out at ~5000 pounds, the GVWR [which is what it is when full of people and stuff] tops out at ~7000 pounds.
The F250 line tops out at a curb weight of ~7500 lbs with a GVWR of an even 10,000.
The F250 line tops out at a curb weight of ~7500 lbs with a GVWR of an even 10,000.
And the GCWR can top 15000 pounds (my personal spec, though I had to custom order to get that combination). My 2018 F150 can tow a little over 10000 pounds vs the 6000 that my dad's 1995 F250 could tow. Things have definitely shifted a category or more. Similar comparisons for a current Ranger and an older F150. Basically, the older Ranger is an Escape with a hitch.
I am from Brazil, I've heard plenty of stories of people that bought imported Ford trucks and then are confused when their trucks get impounded because they drove without a license, not realizing that trucks here require a different license unless they are literally car-sized.
Example: Fiat Fiorino: https://www.hojeemdia.com.br/polopoly_fs/1.792949!/image/ima...
It used same Chassis as Fiat Uno https://quatrorodas.abril.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/...
So it was obviously a car, with the rear-part modified to carry cargo.
Meanwhile the 1980s F150: https://i.pinimg.com/564x/89/50/8a/89508a513b5076ef6413543f2...
It is obvious that thing is NOT a car, when you learned to drive in a UNO you can't expect a F150 to drive the same!
Example: Fiat Fiorino: https://www.hojeemdia.com.br/polopoly_fs/1.792949!/image/ima...
It used same Chassis as Fiat Uno https://quatrorodas.abril.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/...
So it was obviously a car, with the rear-part modified to carry cargo.
Meanwhile the 1980s F150: https://i.pinimg.com/564x/89/50/8a/89508a513b5076ef6413543f2...
It is obvious that thing is NOT a car, when you learned to drive in a UNO you can't expect a F150 to drive the same!
[deleted]
The needless bloat of pickups is what got me more interested in minivans
>Yeah, the size of these trucks has completely put me off ever wanting one. I miss the small ones from a few decades ago.
<rolls eyes>
You (statistical you as a HN user, not you personally) say this with one breath but one look at the B pillar of an 80s minivan and you'd start coming up with excuses for why it's not safe enough for your kid.
The same demographics that complain about cars growing do a hell of a lot more complaining about safety and efficiency. So the OEM adds space for crumple zones, thick strong doors, a bulbous front end that pedestrians can gently (lol) bounce off of. And the OEM makes smooth sculpted curves so the vehicle can punch the cleanest possible hole in the air. And then they realize there's no room for people, so they scale it up to make more space so we get a Civic that's bigger than a 90s Accord.
You can't have it all HN, so which is it?
<rolls eyes>
You (statistical you as a HN user, not you personally) say this with one breath but one look at the B pillar of an 80s minivan and you'd start coming up with excuses for why it's not safe enough for your kid.
The same demographics that complain about cars growing do a hell of a lot more complaining about safety and efficiency. So the OEM adds space for crumple zones, thick strong doors, a bulbous front end that pedestrians can gently (lol) bounce off of. And the OEM makes smooth sculpted curves so the vehicle can punch the cleanest possible hole in the air. And then they realize there's no room for people, so they scale it up to make more space so we get a Civic that's bigger than a 90s Accord.
You can't have it all HN, so which is it?
Modern trucks are still huge relative to other vehicles on the road. I want smaller trucks.
Small trucks are available. A base model, 2wd, 2-door Tacoma is not big.
They don't make a 2-door Tacoma any more (for the US market). The smallest now is an "access cab".
I bought a 2-door Tacoma 5 years ago, and the dealer struggled to find one for me. It shipped from over 1000 miles away, meanwhile they had 20+ 4-door Tacomas on the lot.
I bought a 2-door Tacoma 5 years ago, and the dealer struggled to find one for me. It shipped from over 1000 miles away, meanwhile they had 20+ 4-door Tacomas on the lot.
It may be poor memory, or maybe different styling, but a 2020 Tacoma feels a lot bigger than a late 80s Toyota Pick Up or Ford Ranger.
Looking it up, the longest fourth-generation Hilux was 195.5 inches long, and the shortest Tacoma is 212 inches. Similarly its ~60 inches vs ~70 inches of height. For the single cab, long-bed it's 10 inches higher and 16 inches longer and the Hilux was available with a single-cab short bed that was even 12 inches shorter.
Looking it up, the longest fourth-generation Hilux was 195.5 inches long, and the shortest Tacoma is 212 inches. Similarly its ~60 inches vs ~70 inches of height. For the single cab, long-bed it's 10 inches higher and 16 inches longer and the Hilux was available with a single-cab short bed that was even 12 inches shorter.
It's comparable to the Dodge Dakota. And the Dakota was supposed to be larger than the compact trucks.
Not to mention that a full sized F150 is less than an inch wider than one from 25 years ago. What people see when they see truck size is vertical size and hood lines which is what has changed the most. Trucks look much bigger now, which is partly aesthetics and partly for safety, but I think people have internalized a belief that they have grown outward too, which is not the case.
The small trucks that the HN demographics tend to err toward have grown substantially.
Smaller trucks are available for those who want them. Most buyers prefer larger trucks.
The Toyota Tacoma is now the size of older F150s, there aren’t many or really any good options for buying a small truck currently.
Can you give examples of model years and decisions to back up your claim? Last I checked this (common) misconception is patently false.
> Can you give examples of model years and decisions to back up your claim?
Actually, I think the burden of proof is on the GP who made the original claim that there are plenty of small trucks for those who want them. Additionally, it's easier for them —or you— to provide a single example of a common small truck than for the parent to provide a comprehensive breakdown of the sizes of all trucks over decades of model years. Plus, they have already pointed out the Tacoma, at least, as having grown.
> Last I checked this (common) misconception is patently false.
This is merely an assertion with no more evidence than the parent. To flip your question: Can you provide examples of small truck models to back up your claim?
Actually, I think the burden of proof is on the GP who made the original claim that there are plenty of small trucks for those who want them. Additionally, it's easier for them —or you— to provide a single example of a common small truck than for the parent to provide a comprehensive breakdown of the sizes of all trucks over decades of model years. Plus, they have already pointed out the Tacoma, at least, as having grown.
> Last I checked this (common) misconception is patently false.
This is merely an assertion with no more evidence than the parent. To flip your question: Can you provide examples of small truck models to back up your claim?
No, I'm not the one claiming a modern Tacoma is as big as an old F150. Why is the burden on me to prove information presented as fact with no supporting evidence?
Well, the burden of proof is on you for saying that there are small trucks on the market. But, it turns out that the complaint about the Tacoma is spot on.
The Tacoma's weight has increased from the 3155 lbs. - 3877 lbs range when it was first released [0], to now being in the 4,425 lbs. – 4,480 lbs range [1]. In comparison, the 2020 Ford F-150 weighs in the range of 4,069 lbs – 4,653 lbs [2]. For fairness, a Ford F-150 from 1995, the first year that the Tacoma came out, weighed around 4,316 lbs [3]. So, they are in fact the same weight.
Similarly, the length of the Tacoma was 30-40 inches shorter when it was released [0][1]. Now, it is within the range of a modern F-150 [2].
In conclusion, the Tacoma has increased substantially in size since its introduction (the Wikipedia page mentions it was reclassified from a compact pickup to a midsize pickup), and is now on par with a Ford F-150 (both modern and the 1995 version) in terms of weight and length.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Tacoma#First_generation... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Tacoma#Third_generation... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_F-Series_(thirteenth_gene... [3] https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/1995/features-specs/
The Tacoma's weight has increased from the 3155 lbs. - 3877 lbs range when it was first released [0], to now being in the 4,425 lbs. – 4,480 lbs range [1]. In comparison, the 2020 Ford F-150 weighs in the range of 4,069 lbs – 4,653 lbs [2]. For fairness, a Ford F-150 from 1995, the first year that the Tacoma came out, weighed around 4,316 lbs [3]. So, they are in fact the same weight.
Similarly, the length of the Tacoma was 30-40 inches shorter when it was released [0][1]. Now, it is within the range of a modern F-150 [2].
In conclusion, the Tacoma has increased substantially in size since its introduction (the Wikipedia page mentions it was reclassified from a compact pickup to a midsize pickup), and is now on par with a Ford F-150 (both modern and the 1995 version) in terms of weight and length.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Tacoma#First_generation... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Tacoma#Third_generation... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_F-Series_(thirteenth_gene... [3] https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/1995/features-specs/
Couple of notes. Length numbers are more like 10-15 inches different between generations if you account for trim configurations. Single cab trucks just aren’t sold anymore which is separate from this discussion. The Taco is also more narrow than an F150 which I think is relevant to this discussion.
What small trucks even exist anymore? There used to be lots of options, but I can't think of a single one in the last decade at least.
And it's so hard to find a 2 door. A giant 4 door with a HUGE cab, but a tiny bed?! What's the point of that over an SUV.
I'm buying a car for first time in a decade. I used to want to dirtbag out of a tacoma and have been looking for one but it's hard. Even a 13 year old one seems big - and also crazy expensive ;)
I'm buying a car for first time in a decade. I used to want to dirtbag out of a tacoma and have been looking for one but it's hard. Even a 13 year old one seems big - and also crazy expensive ;)
Because companies aren't buying trucks anymore, they're buying vans instead. Manufacturers have realized that people are buying trucks for their daily driver, so they've optimized the product around that. They've moved to a more car-like comfortable interior and they've stopped selling the regular cab (2 door) models because they don't sell. They pretty much make mostly double cabs because you need a backseat to drive around kids (again, car like). The 5 foot bed is fine because you're not hauling a 4x8 sheet of plywood anymore and a 8 ft 2x4 fits diagonally fairly comfortably.
The old Ranger was the last small truck in North America. A clean, low miles 2011 would still have some good life left in it.
i havent seen that one been focused on toyota. It sounds reliable? That's the old size I love!
For you what would be the max miles you'd buy a Ranger? A tacoma?
For you what would be the max miles you'd buy a Ranger? A tacoma?
I have a 2004 that has done 210K in rust country. They can last to 300K. I would shoot for anything less than 80K. Many retirees buy them and leave them garaged with little miles put on. the 4 liter engine was made in Germany and comes with upgrades to the transmission internals. The truck is half Mazda and benefits from that relationship (unlike on the car side).
thanks for the info! Buying cars is hard. I know nothing about cars and haven't owned one in 10 years so trying to learn. Getting one so i can get out climbing outside more (mountains) so that's why I was leaning toward a tacoma with the larger engine. The climbing gyms here are no joke 10% 100k+ sprinter vans, 40% subaru, 20% tacoma, the rest mixed ;)
Can you give an example? Modern "compact" pickups like the Tacoma are significantly larger than something from 20 years ago like an S10.
A 1995 Tacoma xtracab length was ~ 200 inches. Today's Double Cab is ~ 212 inches. The Tacoma really hasn't changed in length in over 25 years. They have gotten about 10 inches wider in 2004 and a few inches taller (every model is the Off Road height now).
Side note, no one would call a Tacoma "compact". It was a small pickup in 1995 when it was introduced and now people call a 'midsize' truck.
Side note, no one would call a Tacoma "compact". It was a small pickup in 1995 when it was introduced and now people call a 'midsize' truck.
Cars are getting larger in general, not just trucks.
Most "cars" in the US are classified as trucks so that fuel economy regulations can be gamed. It's all been downhill ever since the PT Cruiser managed to get a truck designation.
Where are they? Look at these explicitly 'small trucks': https://www.motortrend.com/news/best-small-trucks/
What am I supposed to search for, small small trucks? Trucks that are actually small? Looking for cheap trucks still delivers large vehicles, just with fewer features: https://www.motortrend.com/news/cheapest-pickup-trucks-frill...
I even searched 'smallest trucks' and...guess what. The Honda Ridgeline seems like the most compact but they're all pretty chunky. https://www.web2carz.com/autos/buying-and-selling/8257/these...
If you suggest used trucks, that just shores up the point that manufacturers keep building bigger trucks. Please show us these small trucks of which you speak, even if they're more expensive or whatever.
What am I supposed to search for, small small trucks? Trucks that are actually small? Looking for cheap trucks still delivers large vehicles, just with fewer features: https://www.motortrend.com/news/cheapest-pickup-trucks-frill...
I even searched 'smallest trucks' and...guess what. The Honda Ridgeline seems like the most compact but they're all pretty chunky. https://www.web2carz.com/autos/buying-and-selling/8257/these...
If you suggest used trucks, that just shores up the point that manufacturers keep building bigger trucks. Please show us these small trucks of which you speak, even if they're more expensive or whatever.
> What am I supposed to search for
SUV?
You won't find small car footprint trucks anymore because of CAFE standards. The small size pickup is infeasible to get to happen while still getting "truck" performamce characteristics at that size. At least as far as I understand, that and safety requirements are the main driver of truck size increases over time.
To honest, when I think of a small truck I just want something with about the power of a sedan or estate car but with a flat bed instead of more seats. I get why people like big trucks, but I think there's a lot of people who want storage space without necessarily needing massive towing power.
Like the first-generation (scroll down) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Caddy
I definitely agree that car size inflation is a real problem. Cars are too big and getting bigger every year.
That said, "good visibility" is not a replacement for safety tech. The sensors and cameras in a car are always going to be better at spotting danger than a human for things like blind spot monitoring and backup cameras.
You sound a bit like the teachers that would drill mental math because "you won't always have a calculator in your pocket". It's good to be able to do mental math, and it's good to be an alert driver, but let's not ignore the massive capabilities that technology allows.
That said, "good visibility" is not a replacement for safety tech. The sensors and cameras in a car are always going to be better at spotting danger than a human for things like blind spot monitoring and backup cameras.
You sound a bit like the teachers that would drill mental math because "you won't always have a calculator in your pocket". It's good to be able to do mental math, and it's good to be an alert driver, but let's not ignore the massive capabilities that technology allows.
> Cars are too big and getting bigger every year.
/me waves from my tiny Corolla, slightly larger than my 2002 Prius, which a Camry has shrunk in size to meet relative to the 2009 model.
/me waves from my tiny Corolla, slightly larger than my 2002 Prius, which a Camry has shrunk in size to meet relative to the 2009 model.
The Toyota Corolla has grown 8 inches longer, 4 inches wider, and a full 500 pounds heavier from 2001 to 2021. It may be a small car by today's standards but it's as big as mid sized sedans used to be.
https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/corolla/specs
https://www.autoblog.com/buy/2001-Toyota-Corolla-CE__4dr_Sed...
https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/corolla/specs
https://www.autoblog.com/buy/2001-Toyota-Corolla-CE__4dr_Sed...
Yep. I noticed that as well when I bought my 2018 Corolla.
The size comparison to a 2003ish Camry is very similar.
2003 Camry:
189″ L x 71″ W x 58″ H
2018 Corolla:
183″ L x 70″ W x 57″ H
The size comparison to a 2003ish Camry is very similar.
2003 Camry:
189″ L x 71″ W x 58″ H
2018 Corolla:
183″ L x 70″ W x 57″ H
I disagree about the safety tech.
There are some situations where it’s great, but those features make the driver feel a false sense of security. Let the people feel like they’re entirely responsible so they’re more careful.
For example, widening the roads in the suburbs used to seem like a great idea - more space, less accidents, right? But that’s untrue. Narrower streets with trees blocking visibility on the sides are actually safer because the driver is forced to be more aware [1] [2].
Another good example is road markings and street/stop signs. Surely, having street signs and lane markings is safer right? Well, this is early on, but at least on city streets, it appears that’s not true either. [3] [4]
Now, to your point, it does appear that automatic car safety systems do make cars safer right now [5]. But those types of things are pretty new, so I wonder how long it’ll be until they have the same fate as those other safety innovations of the past. Where taking them away will make driving safer because people feel personally responsible, so they drive slower.
[1] https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2015/06/14/studies...
[2] https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/narrow-streets-are-safest
[3] https://gizmodo.com/this-street-has-no-lanes-signals-or-sign...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/world/europe/a-path-to-ro...
[5] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-...
There are some situations where it’s great, but those features make the driver feel a false sense of security. Let the people feel like they’re entirely responsible so they’re more careful.
For example, widening the roads in the suburbs used to seem like a great idea - more space, less accidents, right? But that’s untrue. Narrower streets with trees blocking visibility on the sides are actually safer because the driver is forced to be more aware [1] [2].
Another good example is road markings and street/stop signs. Surely, having street signs and lane markings is safer right? Well, this is early on, but at least on city streets, it appears that’s not true either. [3] [4]
Now, to your point, it does appear that automatic car safety systems do make cars safer right now [5]. But those types of things are pretty new, so I wonder how long it’ll be until they have the same fate as those other safety innovations of the past. Where taking them away will make driving safer because people feel personally responsible, so they drive slower.
[1] https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2015/06/14/studies...
[2] https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/narrow-streets-are-safest
[3] https://gizmodo.com/this-street-has-no-lanes-signals-or-sign...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/world/europe/a-path-to-ro...
[5] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-...
All of your points are valid, and seem to be backed up by data, but only apply to urban driving.
In my opinion, the majority of the benefit from safety tech is in parking lots or the highway. You don't need blind spot monitoring or adaptive cruise control on a stop-and-go single lane city street. These features only make sense cruising at highway speed or pulling out of a parking spot.
It's possible that ""full"" self driving cars will make drivers feel less responsible in the cities. I think the transition to genuinely autonomous cars is going to be slow and painful regardless.
In my opinion, the majority of the benefit from safety tech is in parking lots or the highway. You don't need blind spot monitoring or adaptive cruise control on a stop-and-go single lane city street. These features only make sense cruising at highway speed or pulling out of a parking spot.
It's possible that ""full"" self driving cars will make drivers feel less responsible in the cities. I think the transition to genuinely autonomous cars is going to be slow and painful regardless.
> The sensors and cameras in a car are always going to be better at spotting danger than a human for things like blind spot monitoring and backup cameras.
Any data to back this up? Note that there is a difference between "always better" and "generally better". The former needs only one counterexample.
My car has on several occasions failed to detect that there is a car in front of me, and would have happily crashed into it. About once a year, it also suddenly applies the brake hard thinking there is a car in front of me when there isn't. That is quite dangerous - were there a car behind me it would have rear ended me.
Any data to back this up? Note that there is a difference between "always better" and "generally better". The former needs only one counterexample.
My car has on several occasions failed to detect that there is a car in front of me, and would have happily crashed into it. About once a year, it also suddenly applies the brake hard thinking there is a car in front of me when there isn't. That is quite dangerous - were there a car behind me it would have rear ended me.
> Any data to back this up? Note that there is a difference between "always better" and "generally better".
Maybe I should clarify again that I am talking about "basic" safety features like backup cameras or blind spot monitoring. My parent was talking specifically about the intelligent rearview mirror some trucks have.
These things, by definition, see more than the driver because of where they are placed. It is physically impossible for you to see what is behind your rear bumper, so having a camera that can see it is strictly better.
I can't make quite as strong a claim for the more advanced safety features like automatic braking and lane departure warnings, but the data says cars with these systems are safer on average[1].
[1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-...
Maybe I should clarify again that I am talking about "basic" safety features like backup cameras or blind spot monitoring. My parent was talking specifically about the intelligent rearview mirror some trucks have.
These things, by definition, see more than the driver because of where they are placed. It is physically impossible for you to see what is behind your rear bumper, so having a camera that can see it is strictly better.
I can't make quite as strong a claim for the more advanced safety features like automatic braking and lane departure warnings, but the data says cars with these systems are safer on average[1].
[1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-...
> That said, "good visibility" is not a replacement for safety tech. The sensors and cameras in a car are always going to be better at spotting danger than a human for things like blind spot monitoring and backup cameras.
One area where I strongly believe (yeah, personal feelies, no empirical study to back it up) misguided priorities have led to sub-optimal safety results is forward visibility. Some sibling comment mentioned "car didn't detect / erroneously 'detected' vehicle in front"... Since when do we need technology to "detect" vehicles in front of us; aren't we supposed to be able to SEE those, in order to be qualified to drive?!?
A: Since A-pillars have gotten as fat as your thigh, obscuring huge swaths of your field of vision.
Now sure, I understand that it's a good thing you won't get crushed flat if your car rolls over. But it's a bad thing if you crash into a vehicle, or run over a pedestrian, because you can't see out of your own vehicle. And how often do roll-over accidents really happen? My guess would be, a lot less often than collisions caused by impeded forward visibility.
(If my opinion that "visual aids shouldn't be necessary" in the forward direction makes me a "mental maths-advocating teacher", then so be it.)
One area where I strongly believe (yeah, personal feelies, no empirical study to back it up) misguided priorities have led to sub-optimal safety results is forward visibility. Some sibling comment mentioned "car didn't detect / erroneously 'detected' vehicle in front"... Since when do we need technology to "detect" vehicles in front of us; aren't we supposed to be able to SEE those, in order to be qualified to drive?!?
A: Since A-pillars have gotten as fat as your thigh, obscuring huge swaths of your field of vision.
Now sure, I understand that it's a good thing you won't get crushed flat if your car rolls over. But it's a bad thing if you crash into a vehicle, or run over a pedestrian, because you can't see out of your own vehicle. And how often do roll-over accidents really happen? My guess would be, a lot less often than collisions caused by impeded forward visibility.
(If my opinion that "visual aids shouldn't be necessary" in the forward direction makes me a "mental maths-advocating teacher", then so be it.)
> Nissan is reportedly leaving navigation systems out of cars that would normally have them
Wonder if this will begin a trend. The car navigation system is pretty worthless these days except if you find yourself unexpectedly out of phone range (I still carry paper maps, but these days many phone navigation apps allow you to pre-download your route so you don’t have to worry about being out of coverage).
Wonder if this will begin a trend. The car navigation system is pretty worthless these days except if you find yourself unexpectedly out of phone range (I still carry paper maps, but these days many phone navigation apps allow you to pre-download your route so you don’t have to worry about being out of coverage).
Awesome. I won’t consider any vehicle with a touchscreen for controls. Everybody already has phone navigation, so why duplicate it with a craptastically different UX?
And then half the cars can’t sync your phone without a dozen menu selections.
And then half the cars can’t sync your phone without a dozen menu selections.
And cans update the maps, except in a rare, cumbersome and expensive manner.
Yeah, in spite of Google's best efforts to the contrary you can still download maps for offline use.
In all of the recent cars I’ve been in, the navigation system wasn’t present but the screen was for CarPlay/Android Auto. I wonder if the screen is not there at all in these cars or just the GPS parts of the head unit.
the only recent-ish safety feature i've found genuinely useful is the backup camera, which does aid low-ground reverse visibility. all the rest can go in the trash bin, especially lane-keeping warnings and auto-braking, which tend to reduce driver alertness and increase distractedness, the overwhelming principal cause of collisions and death (not speed or intoxication, as are commonly assumed).
The hertz bankruptcy was just weird. My understanding of it: They have massive loans with their cars as collateral, when the pandemic started, used cars went down in value so their creditors margin-called them. Hertz didn’t have the money and couldn’t come to an agreement so filed for bankruptcy. Used cars returned to more normal values so hertz isn’t really insolvent anymore so will probably get to survive bankruptcy.
The Accenture software outsourcing debacle was probably a big contributing factor to the Hertz bankruptcy too.
Driving would be pretty damn safe if every single car stopped being an enormous truck or SUV. 99% of the population does not need one. American roads are just so damn unsafe
i might have an even more unpopular opinion: we might have too many cars.. in switzerland, we have 6.3 mio cars for 8.4 mio ppl, almost none of my friends have one, i just don't understand how it's even possible. but what's shocks me the most is their size, every swiss city is packed with huge +100k vehicles, i know we're rich, but WTF honestly: when one knows one third of the time they're used to do -1km trips. i know i know i have free work schedule, no children, and the best (and most expensive) public transportation system and can afford to commute without one... yet, soon more (huge) cars than ppl in my country.. i'm not a big patriot, i know how my country can be evil (we call that "neutrality" lol), yet i'm shocked again
I think a lot of folks underestimate how fabulously complicated it is to fab a chip. Yes, you can diy it in your garage, here's a wonderful implementation. http://sam.zeloof.xyz/first-ic/
But take a look at the specialized tools they used. Heck, think about proper handling of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid and this is just a simple amp. imagine trying to make something with lots of gates?
Making a single chip is _hard_. And that's just for a one off. doing that at scale requires an amazing amount of process control. And that diy chip is, according to the author "5µm (1975 tech. level)"
Anyway, yes, you could make a chip in your garage, but it'd take a lot of time to ramp up, and you'd only have 1.
But take a look at the specialized tools they used. Heck, think about proper handling of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid and this is just a simple amp. imagine trying to make something with lots of gates?
Making a single chip is _hard_. And that's just for a one off. doing that at scale requires an amazing amount of process control. And that diy chip is, according to the author "5µm (1975 tech. level)"
Anyway, yes, you could make a chip in your garage, but it'd take a lot of time to ramp up, and you'd only have 1.
We are also dealing with a global logistics network that may rival microchips in complexity.
Food, and fuel for the humans and planes, trains, trucks, ships and bicycles that are essential to get things places to keep the global economy functioning.
Food, and fuel for the humans and planes, trains, trucks, ships and bicycles that are essential to get things places to keep the global economy functioning.
I worked in a semiconductor facility as a systems engineer for a few years. I would have a hard time believing that global logistics management is fundamentally more complex than what happens in just one of the factories responsible for producing a modern HPC chip.
The material handling systems are a sight to behold. Most may not be aware, but automation rates of 95% and beyond are feasible in these facilities. Many times, a lot can be moved through the entire manufacturing process without a single human touching or even looking at it. The amount of code and engineering around the material handling system is a mind boggling expanse of complexity. When million dollar product is flying around at 30+mph overhead on robots, you tend to take your time and do it right.
Add on top of this the same time domain concerns you have in global logistics, but with far more acute consequences. It's probably ~OK if a cargo ship is 15 minutes late to port. If lots miss a special process timeout by the same duration, you are potentially looking at millions of dollars in scrap. These intervals can be as short as 30 minutes. Imagine trying to schedule high priority lots through special tools, intermixing with unrelated (but also urgent) manufacturing nodes, while also allowing for preventative and break-fix maintenance on these same tools.
By far, the most complex parts of these semiconductor manufacturing operations are the business rules for the overall manufacturing environment, followed closely by the IT infrastructure required to tie together tens of thousands of hyper-complex technology systems. You better believe this is the one time it 100% makes sense to use pub/sub messaging.
Oh and don't forget about all the HF acid, ultrapure water, EUV lasers, hyper-scale cleanrooms, exotic power distribution systems, et. al.
The material handling systems are a sight to behold. Most may not be aware, but automation rates of 95% and beyond are feasible in these facilities. Many times, a lot can be moved through the entire manufacturing process without a single human touching or even looking at it. The amount of code and engineering around the material handling system is a mind boggling expanse of complexity. When million dollar product is flying around at 30+mph overhead on robots, you tend to take your time and do it right.
Add on top of this the same time domain concerns you have in global logistics, but with far more acute consequences. It's probably ~OK if a cargo ship is 15 minutes late to port. If lots miss a special process timeout by the same duration, you are potentially looking at millions of dollars in scrap. These intervals can be as short as 30 minutes. Imagine trying to schedule high priority lots through special tools, intermixing with unrelated (but also urgent) manufacturing nodes, while also allowing for preventative and break-fix maintenance on these same tools.
By far, the most complex parts of these semiconductor manufacturing operations are the business rules for the overall manufacturing environment, followed closely by the IT infrastructure required to tie together tens of thousands of hyper-complex technology systems. You better believe this is the one time it 100% makes sense to use pub/sub messaging.
Oh and don't forget about all the HF acid, ultrapure water, EUV lasers, hyper-scale cleanrooms, exotic power distribution systems, et. al.
the author of that post and creator of the chip was a high schooler at the time. (now in college).
it’s a lot of detailed work. it was hard for the creators of the process. for us builders, the steps are there and reproducible. maybe you’re using hard in a different way than i am taking it.
gate count isn’t really the hard part either, to my best understanding.
just like software dev, hobby level and professional level are far apart in terms of what is the hard part. so i think i’m taking offense at your example as being exemplary of the “hard part”
it’s a lot of detailed work. it was hard for the creators of the process. for us builders, the steps are there and reproducible. maybe you’re using hard in a different way than i am taking it.
gate count isn’t really the hard part either, to my best understanding.
just like software dev, hobby level and professional level are far apart in terms of what is the hard part. so i think i’m taking offense at your example as being exemplary of the “hard part”
Ah, no offense intended. There were a lot of calls to just build more fabs. I personally, and I think it's a common belief, that for a lot of software I could build a simple version, alone, over the weekend. When stackoverflow was new, replicating stack overflow was practically a meme.
I was trying to highlight, if you want to make a chip, you can, but it'll take a long time to build up the knowledge and skills. So maybe, you hire people with that knowledge and those skills. Of course, a lot of speed comes from not having to coordinate with lots of people. Small teams don't have as many communication channels, solo work has no communication channels.
There's probably a group of people and a set of supplies that could get a fab built surprisingly quickly. I don't think automakers are suffering from 5nm chips, they can get away with older processes. Good luck finding all those resources funding, coordinating, and building the process.
Perhaps not hard like discovering new process, but a _lot_ of work. It's not going to be a weekend project. This is what I meant by, It's going to be hard.
I was trying to highlight, if you want to make a chip, you can, but it'll take a long time to build up the knowledge and skills. So maybe, you hire people with that knowledge and those skills. Of course, a lot of speed comes from not having to coordinate with lots of people. Small teams don't have as many communication channels, solo work has no communication channels.
There's probably a group of people and a set of supplies that could get a fab built surprisingly quickly. I don't think automakers are suffering from 5nm chips, they can get away with older processes. Good luck finding all those resources funding, coordinating, and building the process.
Perhaps not hard like discovering new process, but a _lot_ of work. It's not going to be a weekend project. This is what I meant by, It's going to be hard.
If making a chip is so hard, then why do the FAANG companies own this world, not e.g. TSMC or Samsung?
TSMC, and Samsung are both very glad at FAANG trying to "own the world" — more business for them!
I don't see Morris Chang running to open an advertising shop, webhosting company, or mine bitcoins, thought the later was much speculated.
I don't see Morris Chang running to open an advertising shop, webhosting company, or mine bitcoins, thought the later was much speculated.
I think this year has proven that TSMC does have a very dominant position in the industry.
I think your comment is being misunderstood because of the ambiguity of "this world".
I'm not quite sure I follow. I guess the same reason AMF isn't really much of a thing anymore? I don't think making a pinsetter would be a big deal now with ready access to parts and tools, but I'd imagine it was quite a feat in the 40's.
I think I need more description around "owning the world". Sure, those leisure focused companies are pocketing big dollars, good for them! But they don't really do much, they're only meaningful given the backdrop of the larger economy.
I think I need more description around "owning the world". Sure, those leisure focused companies are pocketing big dollars, good for them! But they don't really do much, they're only meaningful given the backdrop of the larger economy.
One reason I'd say is because there's an at best weak relationship between "hard" and "well-paid".
Coca Cola has a larger market cap than Pfizer. mRNA vaccines are definitely a lot harder to make than sugar water. At an individual level sales people are often paid more than the engineers in the org, despite the latter doing much more complex work and having specialized training.
Coca Cola has a larger market cap than Pfizer. mRNA vaccines are definitely a lot harder to make than sugar water. At an individual level sales people are often paid more than the engineers in the org, despite the latter doing much more complex work and having specialized training.
If you have a taste for irony, my company makes critical components for semiconductor equipment. If we can't ship, they can't ship. If they can't ship, semiconductor fabs can't increase capacity to meet the demand and solve the shortage.
We went line down last week due to shortage of a critical chip for our component.
In reality, the shortage is likely self-inflicted, like toilet paper a year ago, but for whatever combination of real demand + hoarding, we can't get them.
We went line down last week due to shortage of a critical chip for our component.
In reality, the shortage is likely self-inflicted, like toilet paper a year ago, but for whatever combination of real demand + hoarding, we can't get them.
Interesting. I always imagined supply chains as a flow in one direction, with each further step of the chain making more complicated stuff. But your comment made me realise that supply chains can be more like a loop, with the more complicated components going back to make the earlier steps more efficient.
And a semiconductor factory requires lots of semiconductors themselves. It's like bootstraping a compiler.
And a semiconductor factory requires lots of semiconductors themselves. It's like bootstraping a compiler.
I guess it will always be possible to make critical components by delaying a customer's batch that would have been delayed anyway.
> Production of low-margin processors, such as those used to weigh clothes in a washing machine or toast bread in a smart toaster, has also been hit. While most retailers are still able to get their hands on these products at the moment, they may face issues in the months ahead.
I understand why the new advanced chips could face shortages, but why are there shortages for these basic chips. Can’t they be made anywhere, and more easily?
I understand why the new advanced chips could face shortages, but why are there shortages for these basic chips. Can’t they be made anywhere, and more easily?
> why are there shortages for these basic chips? Can’t they be made anywhere, and more easily?
Not really. Semiconductor fabs are built around "tools" from manufacturers like AMAT and Nikon. Those tool vendors make most of their money from selling new tools for fancy new processes, not supporting 20-year-old stuff. Eventually stuff breaks, and fabs have to offline these older processes.
The way this works in the tech industry is that "chips" are actually software, so if your old manufacturer isn't keeping up you resynthesize your VHDL or Verilog for a new fab, rev your board design or whatever, and keep going.
But other industries aren't so agile. They have older designs without design teams to support them, or even chip designs that they retain only as masks and not HDL. Those parts don't port cleanly to newer high-volume logic.
Not really. Semiconductor fabs are built around "tools" from manufacturers like AMAT and Nikon. Those tool vendors make most of their money from selling new tools for fancy new processes, not supporting 20-year-old stuff. Eventually stuff breaks, and fabs have to offline these older processes.
The way this works in the tech industry is that "chips" are actually software, so if your old manufacturer isn't keeping up you resynthesize your VHDL or Verilog for a new fab, rev your board design or whatever, and keep going.
But other industries aren't so agile. They have older designs without design teams to support them, or even chip designs that they retain only as masks and not HDL. Those parts don't port cleanly to newer high-volume logic.
Actually, ASML provides lifetime support for their machines. I don't know for the rest.
But lifetime support doesn’t help if the parts for your machine aren’t available anymore. If your 20 year old machine breaks and there aren’t parts available to fix it, you might get offered an equivalent replacement. If your old chip masks are incompatible with the replacement machine, you’re not immediately able to make what you need. So for some companies, having lifetime support might not help with the manufacturing slowdown when an old machine breaks.
I can't vouch for the parts, but they supported machines from the eighties. This is not some cheap consumer product that has half-lifetime of 13 months.
The parts were made by humans once, they can be made by humans again. The only question is is it worth it
Underrated comment. Though the "worth it" bit is the trick.
In my estimation these older parts that "just werk" should be getting inherited and iterated on as a public good.
The idea that means of production should phase into public trust tends to get everyone in a tizzy though. I'd like to see a public "foundry of last resort" that focuses on being able to make anything.
In my estimation these older parts that "just werk" should be getting inherited and iterated on as a public good.
The idea that means of production should phase into public trust tends to get everyone in a tizzy though. I'd like to see a public "foundry of last resort" that focuses on being able to make anything.
Most 20-30 years old machines on the market are Japanese, ASML wasn't that dominant in the long tail market up until DUV era.
And Japanese almost as a rule have whack a good leasing, and service business, including replacement parts for close to 30 years old equipment.
And Japanese almost as a rule have whack a good leasing, and service business, including replacement parts for close to 30 years old equipment.
> Eventually stuff breaks, and fabs have to offline these older processes.
Absolutely not. You just made this up.
Absolutely not. You just made this up.
The first is a statement of the third law of thermodynamics. The second clause is just obviously true. Go call up Fujitsu and try to order more of a chip they made for you in 1.5um in 1988.
Yes of course the equipment breaks down but older equipment is easy to repair. It is very rare for a fab to be decommissioned and the equipment scrapped - in fact I have never heard of this happening to any production facility with 6” or larger wafers. That equipment will go to de-bottlenecking at some other fab and net production capacity for the node will increase.
Obviously many very old chips are out of production but not because the equipment broke down and was never repaired.
Obviously many very old chips are out of production but not because the equipment broke down and was never repaired.
The corrollary to your point then is that all these fabs have immense idle capacity of exiting installed tools which they aren't using but retain simply because nothing ever "broke down"? Obviously that's ridiculous.
You're interpreting me pedantically while actually agreeing with my point, I think. Old processes don't have the capacity they used to[1]. If you don't like "stuff breaks" then how about "eventually the ROI on the equipment goes negative relative to the business so the line is idled and the fab real estate repurposed to make more profitable modern stuff." OK?
[1] Which, again, is just a "duh" kind of point and I can't believe we're arguing about it.
You're interpreting me pedantically while actually agreeing with my point, I think. Old processes don't have the capacity they used to[1]. If you don't like "stuff breaks" then how about "eventually the ROI on the equipment goes negative relative to the business so the line is idled and the fab real estate repurposed to make more profitable modern stuff." OK?
[1] Which, again, is just a "duh" kind of point and I can't believe we're arguing about it.
No, old processes have very nearly the same capacity the used to, some even more. Several foundries are adding 8” capacity right now.
[deleted]
It’s not just about supporting new processes. Many tool/machine vendors are backlogged by years because they simply don’t have the capacity to make more than a few of those machines every year. Even if someone wanted to invest in new manufacturing, they would likely have to wait a few years to start production.
Secondly, some legacy manufacturers of semiconductor parts lost money on their capacity-building investments during the dot-com burst. The semiconductor industry is brutal and there is a genuine fear that overcapacity will make it hard to deal with any bust that happens after this boom.
Secondly, some legacy manufacturers of semiconductor parts lost money on their capacity-building investments during the dot-com burst. The semiconductor industry is brutal and there is a genuine fear that overcapacity will make it hard to deal with any bust that happens after this boom.
Correct me if I'm wrong, it seems like in the modern economy you have a situation where for many companies, most spending decisions are made long term, on the principle of what promises profits long term, regardless of immediate factor and with the perspective not overcompensating.
This has all sorts of bizarre consequences. In the middle of the PPE shortage - hospitals prevented their employees from buying PPEs themselves but would still only buy PPEs at the lowest price with a long term contract. And you had the Texas company that loudly proclaimed they couldn't sell their PPEs but they also only sold by long term contract. And this was all with people dying.
It's easy to see how manufacturer isn't going to be adding capacity for a puny short-term shortage.
This has all sorts of bizarre consequences. In the middle of the PPE shortage - hospitals prevented their employees from buying PPEs themselves but would still only buy PPEs at the lowest price with a long term contract. And you had the Texas company that loudly proclaimed they couldn't sell their PPEs but they also only sold by long term contract. And this was all with people dying.
It's easy to see how manufacturer isn't going to be adding capacity for a puny short-term shortage.
I don't know but maybe one of the factors is that given how cheap microntrollers have become it's not uncommon to use an "overpowered" integrated chip just for ease of development. Suppose that you have to drive some LEDs on a washing machine, do you bother developing some optimized bespoke circuitry with discrete components or do you just slap a ~2$ 100+MHz 32bit Cortex controller that will let you implement all the logic in C and just reflash if you find an issue?
It makes me wonder if it would be possible to build a chip-manufacturing plant for any reasonable amount of money to produce these chips that don't need to be 7nm GPU powerhouses, but like the old clunker chips that can't get attention from the big guys.
Almost like starting a "generics" business in pharma medication but for older chipsets.
I'm sure there's a great trade to be had in producing the lower end stuff.
Almost like starting a "generics" business in pharma medication but for older chipsets.
I'm sure there's a great trade to be had in producing the lower end stuff.
> It makes me wonder if it would be possible to build a chip-manufacturing plant for any reasonable amount of money to produce these chips that don't need to be 7nm GPU powerhouses, but like the old clunker chips that can't get attention from the big guys.
> Almost like starting a "generics" business in pharma medication but for older chipsets.
There is actually a great interest in this business, but mainly from Chinese. World's biggest 200mm fab is in Shanghai. A decision to build a brand new 200mm fab would've never flew in the West.
Chinese 3rd-4th-n-th tier fabs been vacuuming the market for old equipment for last 5 years.
> I'm sure there's a great trade to be had in producing the lower end stuff.
At this very moment, production on 150mm-200mm wafers is actually few times more profitable than on the latest process because everybody is now ready to pay absolutely ridiculous premiums.
> Almost like starting a "generics" business in pharma medication but for older chipsets.
There is actually a great interest in this business, but mainly from Chinese. World's biggest 200mm fab is in Shanghai. A decision to build a brand new 200mm fab would've never flew in the West.
Chinese 3rd-4th-n-th tier fabs been vacuuming the market for old equipment for last 5 years.
> I'm sure there's a great trade to be had in producing the lower end stuff.
At this very moment, production on 150mm-200mm wafers is actually few times more profitable than on the latest process because everybody is now ready to pay absolutely ridiculous premiums.
Most of the chips in these shortages are being produced on either older process nodes, or on slightly specialized nodes. The typical micro that's been hit by this is using anywhere from a 28nm to 180nm node.
The trouble is, this is a temporary shortage, so it makes no sense to spend serious cash (you're talking hundreds of millions) to make a new fab when the demand won't be there in a year or two.
The trouble is, this is a temporary shortage, so it makes no sense to spend serious cash (you're talking hundreds of millions) to make a new fab when the demand won't be there in a year or two.
> The trouble is, this is a temporary shortage
It isn't. Designs on 200mm were in dire shortage for half a decade, and Chinese foundries were making very decent money on decades old chips.
For the last 3-4 years, 200mm-180nm had a 12 month+ backlog across the whole market.
It isn't. Designs on 200mm were in dire shortage for half a decade, and Chinese foundries were making very decent money on decades old chips.
For the last 3-4 years, 200mm-180nm had a 12 month+ backlog across the whole market.
I wonder if there's a good business in the mix of these ideas. If a lot of manufacturers actually are using over powered chips because they are a) more available and b) easier to program with newer tooling then one might be able to find a niche making cheaper/simpler/older style chips if they also provided modern tooling making it easier to program them for simple tasks like weighing things, blinking lights, playing little tunes, reading a sensor, etc. I've heard good things about PlatformIO so leveraging that ecosystem could be a win as far as avoiding creating your own IDE. Producing great documentation for the products would also go a long way towards gaining adoption.
No the challenge is exactly the opposite.
Tons of chips still made at >130nm, and 200mm equipment for simple reasons that companies don't make much money, or not having much volume in this stuff.
Tons of chips still made at >130nm, and 200mm equipment for simple reasons that companies don't make much money, or not having much volume in this stuff.
> The trouble is, this is a temporary shortage, so it makes no sense to spend serious cash (you're talking hundreds of millions) to make a new fab when the demand won't be there in a year or two.
While true, one could say it’s a bet on inflation to borrow dollars now for productive assets.
While true, one could say it’s a bet on inflation to borrow dollars now for productive assets.
The problem with your idea is that you are competing against obsolete high-end fabs, which have already paid back all their capital costs long ago. In a normal market, it's pretty much impossible for you to match them in price if you still need to pay yours.
Still, GloFo basically made this their plan, when they pivoted from the very highest-end chipmaking into FD-SOI, which is less performant but cheaper to design for.
Still, GloFo basically made this their plan, when they pivoted from the very highest-end chipmaking into FD-SOI, which is less performant but cheaper to design for.
You could dip your toe in by getting a design produced, if you're interested in the process.
Google and efabless accept submissions every few months for designs that use a free 130nm process development kit:
https://efabless.com/open_shuttle_program
130nm is plenty ancient; it's the same feature size as a >10-year-old STM32F1, I think. And I hear that those MPW runs are starting to accept ~$10K for a guaranteed spot with a closed-source design.
So you'd probably be looking at charging 6 figures per wafer. I don't have good insight into startup costs, but I would guess high 8-low 10 figures. Running costs would not be negligible either.
Is that possible? I haven't crunched the numbers and I don't have enough information or context to do so accurately. But my gut says that it might depend on how many billionaires you're on good terms with.
Google and efabless accept submissions every few months for designs that use a free 130nm process development kit:
https://efabless.com/open_shuttle_program
130nm is plenty ancient; it's the same feature size as a >10-year-old STM32F1, I think. And I hear that those MPW runs are starting to accept ~$10K for a guaranteed spot with a closed-source design.
So you'd probably be looking at charging 6 figures per wafer. I don't have good insight into startup costs, but I would guess high 8-low 10 figures. Running costs would not be negligible either.
Is that possible? I haven't crunched the numbers and I don't have enough information or context to do so accurately. But my gut says that it might depend on how many billionaires you're on good terms with.
> Is that possible? I haven't crunched the numbers and I don't have enough information or context to do so accurately. But my gut says that it might depend on how many billionaires you're on good terms with.
130nm is quite ancient, but there are digital parts from early nineties still on the market. They are way bigger than 130nm.
Right now I have an ongoing project with a company making aircons. Their kit supplier uses a really, really ancient, and rare Hitachi MCU made on 600nm, and they are paying few dollars for it — more than some modern ARM SoCs.
They really want to change their kit supplier, or compel the chip supplier to cut cost, but the kit supplier itself can't migrate from Hitachi MCU because they don't have firmware sources as they themselves only copypasted the firmware as a binary for decades..
130nm is quite ancient, but there are digital parts from early nineties still on the market. They are way bigger than 130nm.
Right now I have an ongoing project with a company making aircons. Their kit supplier uses a really, really ancient, and rare Hitachi MCU made on 600nm, and they are paying few dollars for it — more than some modern ARM SoCs.
They really want to change their kit supplier, or compel the chip supplier to cut cost, but the kit supplier itself can't migrate from Hitachi MCU because they don't have firmware sources as they themselves only copypasted the firmware as a binary for decades..
> but the kit supplier itself can't migrate from Hitachi MCU because they don't have firmware sources as they themselves only copypasted the firmware as a binary for decades..
That’s seems like a rather existential problem. If I’m understanding correctly, the kit supplier makes the control board and the manufacturer does final assembly?
That’s seems like a rather existential problem. If I’m understanding correctly, the kit supplier makes the control board and the manufacturer does final assembly?
Yes, and the Chinese kit supplier seemingly got the tech from a Japanese aircon maker somewhere in nineties, and then copied the board verbatim ever since.
I wonder if you could run the firmware in emulation on a more recent CPU.
I don't think one can even fund assembler docs for a chip so old, rare, and obscure as first SH-1,2,3 families.
This is a weird comment. One of the key features of the SuperH ISA is that it's more or less backwards compatible. I worked on them in the 00s/10s, but I can't imagine they had an entirely different ISA in the 90s. I also know that commercial SH3 emulators exist because I've used them. Heck, Renesas used to ship one with the toolchain.
I'm surprised to hear this, maybe trying to salvage the old binary might have had some sense, but the client already went for a complete re-engineering, recognising the low availability of this rare chip as a great threat.
Yeah, they definitely got rare in the normal supply chain. I'd be surprised to see one in anything other than a japanese design today.
I don’t know anything about these, but found it interesting that people have ported Linux to these chips as they’ve come off patent:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperH#J_Core
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperH#J_Core
That is for much more recent, and bigger cores.
The one I talk about has a kilobyte of ROM, and is an original SuperH from early nineties.
The one I talk about has a kilobyte of ROM, and is an original SuperH from early nineties.
> And I hear that those MPW runs are starting to accept ~$10K for a guaranteed spot with a closed-source design.
That is absolutely not true.
That is absolutely not true.
I suspect the ultimate outcome of RISC-V is that it will be the commodity CPU the same way any fab can make DRAM.
I think that's exactly what some of the old fabs are doing.
When a new process node comes out not all fabs are immediately upgraded. Fabs with older tech simply start producing simpler chips while the new ones pump out cutting edge ones.
When a new process node comes out not all fabs are immediately upgraded. Fabs with older tech simply start producing simpler chips while the new ones pump out cutting edge ones.
You can also put a 16MHz 8bit which can cost you a few dozens of cents max (Outside of shortage)
You gotta take a second and respect how powerful these chips are that usually costs a few pennies each.
And not need a 32-bit bus, so it saves on board cost, too.
With the amount of horrible infotainment systems in the wild i honestly doubt they’re using overpowered chips. I’m sure any consumer grade APU (ie. CPU with an iGPU) from the past 5 years would do better than the chips currently in cars.
I've worked in that industry. The problem with infotainment systems (be it in planes or in cars) is that they're usually designed years before the planes/cars enter production, they have very strong constraints in terms of price and component choice (you need automotive-certified parts, not smartphone parts, and they need to last a long time even if they have to go through Arizona summers) so they're already outdated by the time the car comes out.
These systems are also usually integrated with other systems to provide additional functionality using largely custom code that somewhat prevents quick iteration and code reuse, especially since the people writing the code are largely not in-house but various contractors (that's where a company like Tesla has the upper hand since I suppose that they control the software stack a lot more than the average).
Beyond that these systems suffer heavily from design-by-committee and worse yet, committees whose core competence really isn't computer UI.
These systems are also usually integrated with other systems to provide additional functionality using largely custom code that somewhat prevents quick iteration and code reuse, especially since the people writing the code are largely not in-house but various contractors (that's where a company like Tesla has the upper hand since I suppose that they control the software stack a lot more than the average).
Beyond that these systems suffer heavily from design-by-committee and worse yet, committees whose core competence really isn't computer UI.
Don't underestimate the ability of lazy, incompetent, or (most likely) rushed developers to fill the headspace given to them by overpowered hardware.
How much of that is the APU? I’d imagine the bottleneck would lie with manufacturers using the cheapest panels and digitizers they can.
I think the panels and digitizer used in automotive applications are pretty specialized and relatively expensive. They have environmental requirements that far surpass that of typical consumer products.
Eh, no, that's not how it works in high-volume manufacturing. There are 70 million washing machines sold per year. Suppose your large conglomerate employer sells 0.7% of that total, or 700,000 units. It doesn't take much of a per-unit savings to pay for the salary of a FTE to optimize the design.
Maybe, you have to see if the cost of having independent components (dev time, prototyping etc...) is worth the few cents saved on the BoM.
Then you have to consider that IC designs are usually easier to reuse since they're more flexible, if you can have a single design with different firmwares for your entire line of products vs custom hardware for every design. Even if you sell 700k units/year you probably have a few models in your inventory, each selling for a fraction of that.
Beyond that it's pretty common for modern appliances to come with so-called "smart" features that require more processing and more IO capabilities. It's not rare for modern coffee makers to come with a color screen instead of the good old 7 segment displays.
So really the equation is not that simple, especially for higher end models that will have a more expensive BoM overall and a lower number of units sold.
Then you have to consider that IC designs are usually easier to reuse since they're more flexible, if you can have a single design with different firmwares for your entire line of products vs custom hardware for every design. Even if you sell 700k units/year you probably have a few models in your inventory, each selling for a fraction of that.
Beyond that it's pretty common for modern appliances to come with so-called "smart" features that require more processing and more IO capabilities. It's not rare for modern coffee makers to come with a color screen instead of the good old 7 segment displays.
So really the equation is not that simple, especially for higher end models that will have a more expensive BoM overall and a lower number of units sold.
It doesn't matter for this, but it's definitely the case in the hobbyist segment. Look at how many people use Raspberry Pis for things better suited to a microcontroller.
It's true that RPi are often overpowered but I'd contend that Linux is the platform being targeted more than the RPi itself. Development is much easier if you can assume a full fledged OS is running.
There’s still a limit to the production capacity available, these are still incredibly complex manufacturing processes, just not cutting edge.
Personally my take away from that was “what is a smart toaster and why would anyone need that”.
Personally my take away from that was “what is a smart toaster and why would anyone need that”.
My understanding is there is a substrate shortage as well as a foundry slot shortage.
And even then, process nodes aren't fungible. Taping out a design for a totally new (to you) node is probably at least a year of time. And for what? Will the chip shortage be over then anyway?
This is correct. The industry is currently constrained on everything from water to wafers, in addition to fab time slots. Everyone is panic buying too, so shortages are getting amplified.
... and while there is lots of "real" demand we also get the cryptocrazies exerting additional pressure not just on the finest and best silicon available, but now even on HDD/SSDs. Prices have already risen 50+ % in the last few weeks.
F--- t---- m-----.
F--- t---- m-----.
I'm a bit out of the loop. What is the cause of this? Since they are hitting multiple constraints at once I guess it's a demand spike?
Not who you responded to but newly released consoles are tons of chips, having to stay home meant more people buyer gaming PCs as well, everyone who started working from home required tons of new hardware while their desktops at work go unused, and money flowed from governments like water so everyone has money to buy all these things at once. Then on the supply side you had basically everyone stop working for at least a couple months some longer not only out of restrictions on the ability to work but restrictions that make a lot of processes much less efficient plus fear of going to work on top, then you had no one willing to return to many jobs because unemployment benefits have lasted for over a year (rather than normally a few months) and unemployment pays higher than your typical minimum wage job anyways with even the current the extra $300 per week, which was an extra $600 per week for a long time as well. This also means people that used to spend their time on higher wage and producing jobs end up spending a lot of their time doing things they would normally delegate off because no one wants to work those jobs. If you look at chips they are just one of many industries all with shortages for similar reasons, chips are just the worst shortage of all, mainly from all the work from home needs. In 2020 last year my computers power supply died.. there wasn’t one available with 100 miles. I drove to every store within about 20 miles to try to get back online same day. Even online Newegg and Amazon were all sold out, I had to spend about triple normal to by a power supply that was way too much for what I needed and pay extra for shipping it quickly. Not the same as chips but it was a similar need and far fewer people are needing power supplies versus chips.
Also assembly houses are way backed up
It is a new Bitcoin for Chinese businessmen and they buy up all stocks and stockpile. If you go on Chinese sites, you can buy any chips you want even thousands of them. Of course you'll pay 10x the price and have a high chance getting a counterfeit product.
I've always wondered what it would be like to suddenly lose the ability to build higher technology like computer chips. Obviously this is just a shortage and not the same as manufacturing just vanishing, but the effects will be interesting to observe.
Many products like water boilers, ovens or toasters can be built more robust without digital chips. I would argue we would see a overall quality improvement from having a bad chip shortage.
I would be careful to conflate internet connected trash with enough ARM cores and LoC to make your brain melt with the likes of a well placed humble microcontroller.. the mechanical or analogue components they replaced were usually far more temperamental, bulky, expensive and bad at their job. There are exceptional environments like in nuclear power, but for most purposes integrated electronics have improved reliability when done well.
Ye well I agree. As sibling comment pointed out I rather have a chip then a motor driven timer switch with fancy grooves.
My point is that simple systems like coffee cookers don't benefit much from having microcontrollers and you introduce alot of complexity.
My 3yo Mocca Master just have a timing relay and a switch for the aux. heater.
If they added a IC to have eg. a 'smart heater' or what ever the complexity and risk for making design errors would explode. With two switches you can enumerate the states of the system. With code you can't just look at the coffee machine and figure out exactly how it works while reviewing the design for production.
No code, no bugs.
My point is that simple systems like coffee cookers don't benefit much from having microcontrollers and you introduce alot of complexity.
My 3yo Mocca Master just have a timing relay and a switch for the aux. heater.
If they added a IC to have eg. a 'smart heater' or what ever the complexity and risk for making design errors would explode. With two switches you can enumerate the states of the system. With code you can't just look at the coffee machine and figure out exactly how it works while reviewing the design for production.
No code, no bugs.
I don't know, I wouldn't automatically assume that an arbitrary timing relay is more reliable than an arbitrary 8-bit chip. And it's pretty easy to debug ten lines of code.
If it's added complexity for no fundamental improvement to the device then I'd agree it's bad. I find that avoiding buying devices with "smart" in the name eliminates most such designs... i'm starting to worry about the availability of dumb cars in the future though (consider that dumb cars are packed full of microelectronics and sensors that do a fantastic job of managing the engine, they work more independently, simply, almost mechanically compared to the "smart" bits).
Anyone who ever tried to fix a broken washing machine mechanical timer/programmer agrees with you. I did try and failed miserably, those things were a nightmare to fix and broke quite easily.
I'd agree that mechanical mechanisms may break more easily than microprocessor equivalents, but I'm not sure about the argument that they are more difficult to repair.
With microprocessor-driven systems, the solutions seems to be to replace the entire PCB, which is often completely custom to the manufacturer or even the specific model of machine. Trying to source a reasonably priced replacement is often difficult, and there's no easy way to diagnose and repair a broken PCB.
With microprocessor-driven systems, the solutions seems to be to replace the entire PCB, which is often completely custom to the manufacturer or even the specific model of machine. Trying to source a reasonably priced replacement is often difficult, and there's no easy way to diagnose and repair a broken PCB.
Right to repair should come in to fix this. My off the top of the head thoughts would be
* For a device like washing machine, parts should be supplied for a time of about 10 years.
* Every part should be available to purchase either on its own or as part of a replacement kit like a PCB.
* The sum of the cost of all replacement parts shouldn't be above x% of the initial item price.
* If an OEM physically can not get you a replacement part (Chip discontinued, etc) and your product breaks, the OEM pays you for the remaining expected lifetime. (If it was 5 years old they pay you 50% of the initial cost)
So in theory you should be able to build an entirely new product from parts and it would only cost you x% more than a pre built one which stops OEMs setting insane prices on replacements. The end result would likely be that OEMs would have to slim down on their product variations and sell the same designs for longer rather than releasing a new model of printer every year since this would make it much easier to stock parts. Some companies already do this, I have noticed Brevile has sold the same kettle and coffee machine models for almost 10 years now.
* For a device like washing machine, parts should be supplied for a time of about 10 years.
* Every part should be available to purchase either on its own or as part of a replacement kit like a PCB.
* The sum of the cost of all replacement parts shouldn't be above x% of the initial item price.
* If an OEM physically can not get you a replacement part (Chip discontinued, etc) and your product breaks, the OEM pays you for the remaining expected lifetime. (If it was 5 years old they pay you 50% of the initial cost)
So in theory you should be able to build an entirely new product from parts and it would only cost you x% more than a pre built one which stops OEMs setting insane prices on replacements. The end result would likely be that OEMs would have to slim down on their product variations and sell the same designs for longer rather than releasing a new model of printer every year since this would make it much easier to stock parts. Some companies already do this, I have noticed Brevile has sold the same kettle and coffee machine models for almost 10 years now.
Done so, still prefer analog up until things get so small or fragile they can't hold up anymore. As long as the part is still manufactured, you're good.
PCB's? Forget it. E-waste central.
PCB's? Forget it. E-waste central.
Genuine question: how is the lack of digital chips going to make a toaster more robust?
Not internet connected, no unsafe touch screen, no chance of software glitches or reprogramming... the list is long. A humble analog toaster is normal, a digital toaster is a step backwards.
Yeah. What I need from a toaster is that it makes toast. I don't need it to order the bread from Amazon Home Delivery. I even more don't need it to open the house door when the delivery arrives. Just make my toast. And when you're not doing that, just sit there and be a paperweight. That's all I need.
As an easy answer: the fewer parts there are, usually the less there is to potentially break down.
A more classic style of toaster can be as simple as a heating element that's triggered by some kind of mechanical timer you set contained within some kind of container. There's much less that can possibly break down with age and burn out. There's no internal sensors, multiple buttons and electronics that can burn out, maybe some sort of WiFi component that might mess up, and more that can go wrong.
Additionally with fewer parts, the manufacturing quality can hypothetically (but not always) be better. It seems easier to get the manufacturing right on a machine with 10 separate components versus say 60.
A more classic style of toaster can be as simple as a heating element that's triggered by some kind of mechanical timer you set contained within some kind of container. There's much less that can possibly break down with age and burn out. There's no internal sensors, multiple buttons and electronics that can burn out, maybe some sort of WiFi component that might mess up, and more that can go wrong.
Additionally with fewer parts, the manufacturing quality can hypothetically (but not always) be better. It seems easier to get the manufacturing right on a machine with 10 separate components versus say 60.
YouTuber Technology Connections was featured in the recent discussion on diswashing machines and detergents. He's done a video on a lovely ancient toaster, too: https://youtu.be/1OfxlSG6q5Y
Fully automatic brownness selection, and hands-free insertion and pop-up -- all without any electronic chips at all.
Fully automatic brownness selection, and hands-free insertion and pop-up -- all without any electronic chips at all.
[deleted]
The industry has largely forgotten how to make stuff without chips.
That's why I am telling people that a global chip shortage, if something happens to Taiwan, would bring the industry not back into fifties, but into the iron age.
The further the tech ladder you go, the harder you fall if somebody takes out your engineering bay.
That's why I am telling people that a global chip shortage, if something happens to Taiwan, would bring the industry not back into fifties, but into the iron age.
The further the tech ladder you go, the harder you fall if somebody takes out your engineering bay.
I don’t think that would happen. Firstly, the US government and army (like it or not) has an interest in not falling behind technologically. Additionally, Intel has most of its fabs in the US already. Samsung and TSMC are currently building fabs in the US too. Finally, the US still has a strong tech culture. So I think it would not take long with an increased demand (and higher salaries) for computer engineers to attract a lot of good talent.
I mean, I agree it wouldn’t be good. But back to the 50s? Or even the “Iron Age”? That seems awfully pessimistic.
Like, I get that Intel is not doing great, but it’s only like a handful of years bad, not decades bad
I mean, I agree it wouldn’t be good. But back to the 50s? Or even the “Iron Age”? That seems awfully pessimistic.
Like, I get that Intel is not doing great, but it’s only like a handful of years bad, not decades bad
No Intel fab will run more than a few weeks without consumables coming from Asia. A giant lot of semi supplies are single vendor globally, and much of them are in Taiwan.
It's likely that no fab in the West past the I-line era will be able to resume, and continue production with local supplies, even with immediate nation-state level effort to recreate the supply chain.
It's likely that no fab in the West past the I-line era will be able to resume, and continue production with local supplies, even with immediate nation-state level effort to recreate the supply chain.
> if something happens to Taiwan
TSMC is building a megafactory in Phoenix AZ which should help distribute that risk. It will take several years to complete however.
TSMC is building a megafactory in Phoenix AZ which should help distribute that risk. It will take several years to complete however.
What could happen to Taiwan? I’m interested.
Invasion by the PRC seems the most plausible threat. So obvious, in fact, that I'm wondering why you ask.
Because everything I’ve read indicates that scenario is not in fact plausible. I’m wondering what the more likely but potentially equivalent alternatives are.
You need to understand, China does not want to reclaim Taiwan for any kind real political goal.
Nobody in Beijing really cares for an armed to the teeth mountainous island.
A threat of Taiwan invasion is not a threat they project to Taiwan itself, but to the world.
- "Do this, and that or we are sending the world, and all your business interests back to iron age"
That pretty much sums it.
For this purpose, even just a missile exchange across the straight will suffice to kill world trade in a way you haven't seen even during CoVID.
Nobody in Beijing really cares for an armed to the teeth mountainous island.
A threat of Taiwan invasion is not a threat they project to Taiwan itself, but to the world.
- "Do this, and that or we are sending the world, and all your business interests back to iron age"
That pretty much sums it.
For this purpose, even just a missile exchange across the straight will suffice to kill world trade in a way you haven't seen even during CoVID.
Hard for me to see what the profit in that is, and China seems to like profits.
No need to wonder, it's not the first time something like this has happened: https://tedium.co/2016/11/24/1988-ram-shortage-history/
https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2960606/qualcomm-snapdrag...
There's an OS for that :
http://collapseos.org/
http://collapseos.org/
U.S. tech giant Intel has offered to help but it reportedly wants 8 billion euros in public subsidies toward building a semiconductor factory in Europe.
my immediate reaction is "then it should be a public foundry, if payed for by the public"... but maybe im missing some detail/nuance...
> "then it should be a public foundry, if payed for by the public"
It sounds to me like Intel is willing to set up a fab in Europe, and they've stated their asking price. Why does this immediately result in people saying that it should be a public foundry just because it would ultimately be paid for by the public?
It sounds to me like Intel is willing to set up a fab in Europe, and they've stated their asking price. Why does this immediately result in people saying that it should be a public foundry just because it would ultimately be paid for by the public?
Because it would ultimately be paid for by the public.
I guess this would be similar to the way a lot of sports arenas are built. The public foots the bill to build it, and the team gets a cheap 20-year lease to use it. And the public the gets a sports team.
The public foots the bill, and the owners of the team profit handsomely from selling the public the chance to watch the team play in the stadium they already paid for.
Sports arenas built with public money are a scam, and so is the idea of having taxpayers subsidize the construction of for-profit privately-owned chip fabs.
Sports arenas built with public money are a scam, and so is the idea of having taxpayers subsidize the construction of for-profit privately-owned chip fabs.
It's a voluntary exchange. If Intel's requirements for participating don't work for the locality, nobody is required to participate.
If the locality chooses to pay with public funds, that's their decision to make. But it doesn't immediately erase the history and override the terms of the exchange that was made.
If the locality chooses to pay with public funds, that's their decision to make. But it doesn't immediately erase the history and override the terms of the exchange that was made.
The parent was asking why public funding implied public ownership. That is the default. Multibillion dollar negotiations are a series of complicated compromises, so that the public would be willing to finance a fab they will neither own nor hold power over to satisfy global demand is well beyond the 'burden of proof' line.
I guess it's a case of "if you hold the cards..."
IIRC doesn’t Intel have an (older) Ireland-based fab in Lexlip? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leixlip
"Starting to have consequences"? The situation is absolutely dire. Shelves are empty; common parts like DC/DC converters have lead times of 52 weeks. Maybe big companies who can afford to hoard parts are fine... the small ones are absolutely screwed. You can't even get enough parts to build prototypes. I'm in the position where I have to cannibalize rev A boards just to be able to build and test rev B boards.
It's weird that you can buy chips on Chinese sites in their thousands and western usual suppliers have no stock and the lead times are more than a year on some parts.
Unfortunately you cannot just buy these Chinese parts and use in the products as they will likely have no certification or may even be fake. At least can be useful for prototyping although risky as well.
I know many projects are on hold because of that.
This is the legacy of offshoring most production. We've lost the ability to drive our own supply chains based on nowhere for talent to work or land.
Once you lose that as a nation, the tail wags the dog.
Once you lose that as a nation, the tail wags the dog.
How hard would it be to fly an engineer to Shenzen and physically test the supply?
I get it. Chinese vendors are not as reliable as Western suppliers. But it's not like ICs are black magic, it certainly wouldn't be that to enforce third-party quality control on them. Sure every now and then you'll pay for a batch you gotta throw out. But that sure as hell beats business killing 52-week lead times.
I get it. Chinese vendors are not as reliable as Western suppliers. But it's not like ICs are black magic, it certainly wouldn't be that to enforce third-party quality control on them. Sure every now and then you'll pay for a batch you gotta throw out. But that sure as hell beats business killing 52-week lead times.
I run into this in Factorio all the time
It's fascinating: because Factorio is deterministic, I always build out one massive, consolidated chip factory and distribute chips to other factories from there. But as we see here, in the real world, with droughts and pandemics, this is a risky strategy.
Maybe Factorio needs some random disasters like SimCity or RimWorld?
Biters effectively do this though it’s technically entirely deterministic - and you can build a defense strong enough to make it not an issue, but that’s quite involved.
The most common “production” disasters are caused by an oversupply of one item, which stockpiled, and you go into under supply but don’t notice until you’re off doing something else (and that can cause critical self-defense mechanisms to shut down at bad times).
The most common “production” disasters are caused by an oversupply of one item, which stockpiled, and you go into under supply but don’t notice until you’re off doing something else (and that can cause critical self-defense mechanisms to shut down at bad times).
Running out of plastic production because the productivity of your oilfields dropped effectively simulates this.
I love clicking on the power poles and watching the interference for segments of the network.
It's awesome how quickly the noise emerges from the deterministic rules.
It's awesome how quickly the noise emerges from the deterministic rules.
I recommend this read about the origins of the semiconductor industry in Silicon Valley: They Would Be Gods [1].
Making a chip has been something that has been done completely methodically since their invention (I wonder if the less disciplined or less methodical and messy shops simply went out of business).
Add decades of automation and scaling in every part of that process and we get to AMSL machines sold for hundreds of millions of dollars.
Making software can feel so ad-hoc in comparison.
I am also reminded of the Such Great Heights music video by Postal Service filmed in a clean room. [2]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=71705
[2] https://youtu.be/0wrsZog8qXg
Making a chip has been something that has been done completely methodically since their invention (I wonder if the less disciplined or less methodical and messy shops simply went out of business).
Add decades of automation and scaling in every part of that process and we get to AMSL machines sold for hundreds of millions of dollars.
Making software can feel so ad-hoc in comparison.
I am also reminded of the Such Great Heights music video by Postal Service filmed in a clean room. [2]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=71705
[2] https://youtu.be/0wrsZog8qXg
> Making a chip has been something that has been done completely methodically since their invention
The yield improvement process seems like it has a lot common with e.g. baking and intuition.
The yield improvement process seems like it has a lot common with e.g. baking and intuition.
Why is there a shortage rather than a price hike, similar to what would happen with fuel? Long term contracts?
Well if I take a look at the GPU market the prices have nearly doubled over the past 6 months and there still isn’t any supply.
In other words, the price hiked to a point where people will otherwise say “I’ll just wait longer”, and this is what’s happening.
In other words, the price hiked to a point where people will otherwise say “I’ll just wait longer”, and this is what’s happening.
That is always what happens when prices go up. The whole point is to reduce the number of buyers who want the product at that price so that there is enough supply to fill the remaining demand. That is how a supply and demand curve works.
But you still have a shortage, right? People still want microchips. In ideal conditions, the price will stabilize at the level where every chip gets sold, but nobody who wants to pay that price has to wait in line for too long. But if you reach that point, you still have a whole lot of buyers who still want a microchip, but who are unable to pay for them at those elevated prices - i.e a shortage.
With fuel, you can reduce your car usage for a while and when prices get back down you can just go back to your old level of fuel consumption. But with microchips, a reduction in "consumption" results in pent-up demand; people who have been waiting a while to buy a new GPU still want to buy that GPU when the prices go down.
With fuel, you can reduce your car usage for a while and when prices get back down you can just go back to your old level of fuel consumption. But with microchips, a reduction in "consumption" results in pent-up demand; people who have been waiting a while to buy a new GPU still want to buy that GPU when the prices go down.
The idea is that if you need it bad enough, you can find one at the higher price. If prices didn’t go up, you wouldn’t be able to find one at any price.
Some of the people who would want a chip at $x don’t want it at $x*2, and will just never buy one unless the price drops. If the price never drops because supply is never increased, then they will simply never purchase it.
Some of the people who would want a chip at $x don’t want it at $x*2, and will just never buy one unless the price drops. If the price never drops because supply is never increased, then they will simply never purchase it.
To me that just sounds like an indefinite microchip shortage.
Well, a lot of people would buy yachts if they were only $1000.... since the price will never get there, they will never get their yacht that they want.
Does that mean there is a yacht shortage?
If chip costs stay high, that just means that is how expensive chips are.
Does that mean there is a yacht shortage?
If chip costs stay high, that just means that is how expensive chips are.
So what's your definition of a shortage then? We're in a situation where a lot of people who want microchips aren't able to buy them because the suppliers aren't able to produce enough of them. What is the difference between that and a shortage?
If we don't produce enough food for everyone to eat, we would be in a similar situation: the price would rise until only the people with the most money could afford food. We would call that a food shortage. Replace food with microchips and that's still a shortage, right? (Albeit a less dire one.)
Or do you follow an ideology where there is no such thing as a shortage, there is only the almighty supply and demand curve?
EDIT: To respond to the yacht thing: It's my understanding that the price of yacths aren't elevated because we're unable to produce enough of them. It is my understanding that yachts are expensive A) because producing them genuinely requires a lot of resources and B) because they're luxury goods which are priced according to their target market. If loads and loads of people suddenly started demanding yachts at their current price, and yacht factories weren't able to keep up with the demand, and the price of a yacht went up significantly due to supply constraints, I would certainly call that a "yacht shortage".
If we don't produce enough food for everyone to eat, we would be in a similar situation: the price would rise until only the people with the most money could afford food. We would call that a food shortage. Replace food with microchips and that's still a shortage, right? (Albeit a less dire one.)
Or do you follow an ideology where there is no such thing as a shortage, there is only the almighty supply and demand curve?
EDIT: To respond to the yacht thing: It's my understanding that the price of yacths aren't elevated because we're unable to produce enough of them. It is my understanding that yachts are expensive A) because producing them genuinely requires a lot of resources and B) because they're luxury goods which are priced according to their target market. If loads and loads of people suddenly started demanding yachts at their current price, and yacht factories weren't able to keep up with the demand, and the price of a yacht went up significantly due to supply constraints, I would certainly call that a "yacht shortage".
You can see the definition of a shortage here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortage
The tl;dr is that a shortage is when there are people who are willing to pay more than the market price for an item but something is preventing the market from raising prices.. either because of laws against price gouging, price caps, or because manufacturers have some other incentive not to raise prices.
The tl;dr is that a shortage is when there are people who are willing to pay more than the market price for an item but something is preventing the market from raising prices.. either because of laws against price gouging, price caps, or because manufacturers have some other incentive not to raise prices.
So to be clear: You wouldn't consider my food shortage example to be a "shortage", as long as nothing is preventing the market from raising prices to meet the demand?
Because if that's the case, then that's okay. We're not actually disagreeing on anything substantial, we're just using different definitions of the word "shortage". It seems like this is perfectly summed up by this paragraph from the wikipedia page you linked:
> In common use, the term "shortage" may refer to a situation where most people are unable to find a desired good at an affordable price, especially where supply problems have increased the price. "Market clearing" happens when all buyers and sellers willing to transact at the prevailing price are able to find partners. There are almost always willing buyers at a lower-than-market-clearing price; the narrower technical definition doesn't consider failure to serve this demand as a "shortage", even if it would be described that way in a social or political context (which the simple model of supply and demand does not attempt to encompass).
It would seem like calling the chip shortage a "shortage" is completely within the common usage of that term.
Because if that's the case, then that's okay. We're not actually disagreeing on anything substantial, we're just using different definitions of the word "shortage". It seems like this is perfectly summed up by this paragraph from the wikipedia page you linked:
> In common use, the term "shortage" may refer to a situation where most people are unable to find a desired good at an affordable price, especially where supply problems have increased the price. "Market clearing" happens when all buyers and sellers willing to transact at the prevailing price are able to find partners. There are almost always willing buyers at a lower-than-market-clearing price; the narrower technical definition doesn't consider failure to serve this demand as a "shortage", even if it would be described that way in a social or political context (which the simple model of supply and demand does not attempt to encompass).
It would seem like calling the chip shortage a "shortage" is completely within the common usage of that term.
It is within the common usage of the term, yes, but not the technical usage.
What I meant to say is that, even with these inflated prices, everything is sold out: even if I want to pay $2500 for that 3090 GPU, I cannot get it.
You can get them for around $3000 on auction sites.
Because real markets are inefficient.
Think of it like a highway : why is there a traffic jam on this highway ? Because there was a slowdown somewhere 20 miles up the line and there is massive inertia in the system.
A slowdown somewhere has ripple effects and the inertia of those systems, in the case of semi-conductor manufacturing it takes a long time to increase production capabilities, and the theoretical elasticity of price/volume doesn't hold when you cannot increase volume magically in a week.
A slowdown somewhere has ripple effects and the inertia of those systems, in the case of semi-conductor manufacturing it takes a long time to increase production capabilities, and the theoretical elasticity of price/volume doesn't hold when you cannot increase volume magically in a week.
Maybe we have both? A price hike won’t necessarily fix a shortage, right? (Price hikes didn’t exactly fix n95 mask demand, for example.)
The video in the article explains that the auto industry stepped out of the queue by cancelling all their orders. Now demand is high and they want to cut back in line. So this story about auto makers is taking advantage of a loose and slightly misleading use of the word “shortage”. It implies there’s only a supply-side shortage, when in fact car makers dropped demand before and are now spiking demand.
Plus a chip fab can take months, and I have no idea what the lead time on ordering one is, but it’s probably not zero, right? Especially with other customers in the queue. The process of ordering fuel is somewhat different and doesn’t need to serialize the buyers.
The video in the article explains that the auto industry stepped out of the queue by cancelling all their orders. Now demand is high and they want to cut back in line. So this story about auto makers is taking advantage of a loose and slightly misleading use of the word “shortage”. It implies there’s only a supply-side shortage, when in fact car makers dropped demand before and are now spiking demand.
Plus a chip fab can take months, and I have no idea what the lead time on ordering one is, but it’s probably not zero, right? Especially with other customers in the queue. The process of ordering fuel is somewhat different and doesn’t need to serialize the buyers.
>Price hikes didn’t exactly fix n95 mask demand
I'm not sure about n95s specifically but generally we saw mask prices hike, and then production increased quickly enough that there were masks for the majority of the population within a couple of months.
I'm not sure about n95s specifically but generally we saw mask prices hike, and then production increased quickly enough that there were masks for the majority of the population within a couple of months.
There are sophisticated financial markets for trading fuel, but not for chips. In such a market, firms are incentivised to buy when they anticipate demand will rise (or supply will fall), which increases the price. Then after the price has risen (the demand has materialised), they sell. This distributes the consumption of the underlying resource more evenly across time, making shortages less likely.
Well no, not really.
Fuel (or really, oil) is a single commodity that everybody is after. If the price is low, and you're anticipating a shortage in the near future, you can buy now and sell later for a higher price. That's as simple as a market can get. buy low, sell high, whilst gambling on future price rises.
However, ICs are not a single commodity - you can't take whatever the foundry is putting out and slam it in place of whatever you actually needed. Each circuit is specific to its application. Sure, you could take a similar chip and rework your product to use the new chip instead of the old, but that isn't how a foundry works. They sell capacity.
Each company that wants their chips made will (or should) have done their forecasting for demand in the short-medium term. The problem is that those term limits have lapsed at a time when manufacturing is in a crunch. So now everybody needs new chips made, and nobody has the capacity to make them all.
Those that can rework their products to use similar chips that are already available should be doing so to maintain business. Those that can't do that, or are unwilling to do that, are paying through the nose to pay off other foundry customers to take their slots. meanwhile, there aren't enough chips to continue product manufacturing, so that's on hold until the new chips come out of the foundry and then everything can resume.
Prices will rise to cover the lull in production. And then businesses will see that people are willing to pay that amount, and so prices will not go back down.
If that isn't a more complicated financial market than oil, then I have no idea what is.
Fuel (or really, oil) is a single commodity that everybody is after. If the price is low, and you're anticipating a shortage in the near future, you can buy now and sell later for a higher price. That's as simple as a market can get. buy low, sell high, whilst gambling on future price rises.
However, ICs are not a single commodity - you can't take whatever the foundry is putting out and slam it in place of whatever you actually needed. Each circuit is specific to its application. Sure, you could take a similar chip and rework your product to use the new chip instead of the old, but that isn't how a foundry works. They sell capacity.
Each company that wants their chips made will (or should) have done their forecasting for demand in the short-medium term. The problem is that those term limits have lapsed at a time when manufacturing is in a crunch. So now everybody needs new chips made, and nobody has the capacity to make them all.
Those that can rework their products to use similar chips that are already available should be doing so to maintain business. Those that can't do that, or are unwilling to do that, are paying through the nose to pay off other foundry customers to take their slots. meanwhile, there aren't enough chips to continue product manufacturing, so that's on hold until the new chips come out of the foundry and then everything can resume.
Prices will rise to cover the lull in production. And then businesses will see that people are willing to pay that amount, and so prices will not go back down.
If that isn't a more complicated financial market than oil, then I have no idea what is.
Beause you have only several types of fuel, but you have many thousands types of chips and electronic elements and market for each single element type is not that high. Plus if you store a chip too long, it's no longer useful for automated assembly.
I think there were DRAM futures contracts at some point, but looks like the idea never panned out (probably for the reasons you mentioned)
There is a price hike. But paying 2x more for silicon inside e.g. a car that retails for $40k isn't going to be felt by the consumer as a change to the demand curve, it's going to look like "car shortage". So the car manufacturers have to explain that it's due to silicon manufacturing capacity, so now it's a "chip shortage".
Total production is inelastic in the short to medium term, as it increases in units of a whole fabrication plant. Increasing price can only get your chip order in at the expense of someone else's order.
I think the assumption there is that these are running as efficient markets, but the reality likely is that these are negotiated contracts that have not caught up with supply and demand.
[deleted]
I suspect it's because fuel is a much more elastic product.
While you can't just throw up a new pump, you have lots of producers can increase their existing output.
Fuel doesn't change. The hydrocarbons pumped out 100 years ago still work fine. So it can be stored.
It's also a simple commodity. Basically everything runs on either gas, petrol or diesel. Not whatever ridiculous amount of chip variations.
But I'm not an economist so this is just a guess
While you can't just throw up a new pump, you have lots of producers can increase their existing output.
Fuel doesn't change. The hydrocarbons pumped out 100 years ago still work fine. So it can be stored.
It's also a simple commodity. Basically everything runs on either gas, petrol or diesel. Not whatever ridiculous amount of chip variations.
But I'm not an economist so this is just a guess
There's useful technology, like computer controlling your engine to make it more fuel-efficient or whatever. And then there're "smart appliances", like a fridge with a screen. Do we really need it? The companies try to sell us more useless stuff, that's what it is.
Just to add on to this (because I think it's interesting)... the Engine Computer (PCM - Powertrain Control Module) does so much! Just to name a few:
- Coordinates the engine and the transmission for smooth shifts - Holds a gear while the engine is in the power band if the throttle position meets a certain threshold - Makes diagnosing complex problems much easier, even remembering data so it can be diagnosed when the problem is not happening at the time you drop your car off with a technician - Shuts the engine and fuel pump off if it receives a message on the vehicle bus that an airbag was deployed - Can advance or retard ignition timing depending on the grade of fuel you put in the tank - Reads/Adjusts combustion parameters thousands of times per second on each cylinder (prioritizing fuel economy, power output, and emissions depending on the situation).
- Coordinates the engine and the transmission for smooth shifts - Holds a gear while the engine is in the power band if the throttle position meets a certain threshold - Makes diagnosing complex problems much easier, even remembering data so it can be diagnosed when the problem is not happening at the time you drop your car off with a technician - Shuts the engine and fuel pump off if it receives a message on the vehicle bus that an airbag was deployed - Can advance or retard ignition timing depending on the grade of fuel you put in the tank - Reads/Adjusts combustion parameters thousands of times per second on each cylinder (prioritizing fuel economy, power output, and emissions depending on the situation).
If people do not want a screen on the fridge, then the sales numbers will tell manufacturers not to make that model. So much of product is experimentation, and often times the research and experiments ends up being wrong. So many products and companies fail when they go to market and find out nobody wants it. The other side of the coin are the products that are unexpected hits... There are so many things that have to go right... and it takes so few to go wrong.
It's not really about sales.
First, sales numbers can only really ever tell you part of the story. If every fridge has a screen, sales numbers won't tell you about the demand for screenless fridges. If, at that point, some manufacturer tests a screenless fridge, the sales numbers might tell you about a lack of demand or might tell you about a failure in marketing. Additionally, if fridges with screens can be used to advertise to customers, get them to sign up for subscription services, steal their data, avoid the expense of bifurcating the line of fridges, or otherwise increase profit or decrease costs, they will be manufactured anyway.
First, sales numbers can only really ever tell you part of the story. If every fridge has a screen, sales numbers won't tell you about the demand for screenless fridges. If, at that point, some manufacturer tests a screenless fridge, the sales numbers might tell you about a lack of demand or might tell you about a failure in marketing. Additionally, if fridges with screens can be used to advertise to customers, get them to sign up for subscription services, steal their data, avoid the expense of bifurcating the line of fridges, or otherwise increase profit or decrease costs, they will be manufactured anyway.
> then the sales numbers will tell manufacturers not to make that model
Doesn't really matter... if Fridge with a Screen makes 4x the profits or simply has a recurring revenue per unit where Fridge Without a Screen does not, then the market will become purely Fridge With a Screen.
Doesn't really matter... if Fridge with a Screen makes 4x the profits or simply has a recurring revenue per unit where Fridge Without a Screen does not, then the market will become purely Fridge With a Screen.
I think it's rather short-sighted to refer to one application of technology as useful and another as not needed. Is the computer controlling the engine to be more fuel-efficient needed? No. Is the car even needed? No. But we have found a use for that technology that improves our daily lives.
Perhaps for you a fridge with a screen is not useful; however for others it may be.
Perhaps for you a fridge with a screen is not useful; however for others it may be.
> Is the computer controlling the engine to be more fuel-efficient needed? No. Is the car even needed? No.
We can continue ad absurdum, but it's clear that more screens is added to our lives to:
1. Consume more content
2. As a result, see more ads
3. Finally, buy more stuff
I'm not against technology, but electronics producers have been going out of their way to continue growth. That's fine, but I'd love to have a robot doing dishes and cooking for me. Instead, there's a fridge that "Cameras recognize the food in your fridge so you can search for recipes based on what you have." [0]. That's such a marginal benefit.
[0] https://www.samsung.com/us/connected-appliances/#get-app
We can continue ad absurdum, but it's clear that more screens is added to our lives to:
1. Consume more content
2. As a result, see more ads
3. Finally, buy more stuff
I'm not against technology, but electronics producers have been going out of their way to continue growth. That's fine, but I'd love to have a robot doing dishes and cooking for me. Instead, there's a fridge that "Cameras recognize the food in your fridge so you can search for recipes based on what you have." [0]. That's such a marginal benefit.
[0] https://www.samsung.com/us/connected-appliances/#get-app
With those gimmicky features there's also only a slim chance that anyone is actually using them because it's often hard to impossible, especially for people with less interest in tech.
For example, in a large company like Samsung some product manager might show up and require that users of the food scanning feature have a Samsung account. Now you have to register for a Samsung account on your fridge, but the embedded web view is being redirected to a new thing with 35% heavier Javascript which doesn't really run on your fridge anymore and that's the end of that.
This example is made up but it wouldn't surprise me if things very close to this have happened on these fridges, and they definitely happen all the time in consumer electronics.
For example, in a large company like Samsung some product manager might show up and require that users of the food scanning feature have a Samsung account. Now you have to register for a Samsung account on your fridge, but the embedded web view is being redirected to a new thing with 35% heavier Javascript which doesn't really run on your fridge anymore and that's the end of that.
This example is made up but it wouldn't surprise me if things very close to this have happened on these fridges, and they definitely happen all the time in consumer electronics.
> especially for people with less interest in tech
Hum... I can program in something around a dozen languages, can find my way around the Linux kernel code as well as enterprise software, can administer OSes...
Yet, I am completely unable to set my fridge's clock (why does it have one?) since I lost its manual. I have spent some time trying.
IoT and smart things are a great equalizer. Nobody can handle them. Some times it's even not possible.
Hum... I can program in something around a dozen languages, can find my way around the Linux kernel code as well as enterprise software, can administer OSes...
Yet, I am completely unable to set my fridge's clock (why does it have one?) since I lost its manual. I have spent some time trying.
IoT and smart things are a great equalizer. Nobody can handle them. Some times it's even not possible.
The great VCR clock boss. Ah... Those were the days. Those were how I learned to finagle things that the manual was gone for.
Still not sure whether I should consider the result brain damage though. I can set a VCR clock, but I can't grok people.
Longer I live the more I wonder if I learned patience for the wrong thing.
Still not sure whether I should consider the result brain damage though. I can set a VCR clock, but I can't grok people.
Longer I live the more I wonder if I learned patience for the wrong thing.
Oh, I've never met a VCR that the clock I could not set.
But they usually had a panel with lots of instructions and well named buttons. That's nothing like today's devices.
For the notice, my fridge has a single button, and 2 independent displays (temperature and clock). Both short and long presses change the temperature.
But they usually had a panel with lots of instructions and well named buttons. That's nothing like today's devices.
For the notice, my fridge has a single button, and 2 independent displays (temperature and clock). Both short and long presses change the temperature.
> With those gimmicky features there's also only a slim chance that anyone is actually using them because it's often hard to impossible, especially for people with less interest in tech.
True life example: I have a washer. It was sold as being internet-connected. There are some mildly interesting use cases I could see for being able to control or check the status of a wash remotely.
Well, it's internet-connected, sure, but you can only connect it to your network with WPS, many app reviews suggest the remote app doesn't work, the feature set is small, and the features it does have are hobbled in ways that make even that set pretty useless—seemingly in order to prevent lawsuits.
True life example: I have a washer. It was sold as being internet-connected. There are some mildly interesting use cases I could see for being able to control or check the status of a wash remotely.
Well, it's internet-connected, sure, but you can only connect it to your network with WPS, many app reviews suggest the remote app doesn't work, the feature set is small, and the features it does have are hobbled in ways that make even that set pretty useless—seemingly in order to prevent lawsuits.
A little afraid to ask what may be an obvious question, but what exactly does the shortage consist of? Computer chips aren't generally interchangeable and I assume they're mostly purpose-built. Is there a shortage of raw materials? Or is there a drop in fab capacity?
It's pretty straightforward. The demand for chips increased much faster than the manufacturers could increase capacity and meet demand.
The COVID shift in working, socializing and learning from in-person to digital drove a huge demand spike for computers and telecommunications gear. The chip fabs hit capacity and it takes a long time to increase capacity. The equipment companies are running flat out to ship additional equipment, but so far, the fabs haven't gotten back to equilibrium.
The COVID shift in working, socializing and learning from in-person to digital drove a huge demand spike for computers and telecommunications gear. The chip fabs hit capacity and it takes a long time to increase capacity. The equipment companies are running flat out to ship additional equipment, but so far, the fabs haven't gotten back to equilibrium.
We will continue to have these issues as long as companies run risky levels of cash to make investors happy. Lower inventory means more capital for your business to invest elsewhere. But one catastrophe and all that onetime cash infusion is worthless.
Used car prices going up 10% very suddenly is interesting...see the chart within this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/used-car-prices-saw-their-bi...
https://www.businessinsider.com/used-car-prices-saw-their-bi...
My wife just needed to get a new car, and the salesman was complaining that just as demand was starting to increase the chip shortage means they're barely getting any new ones in stock.
And of course the popular models are the ones that are selling out the fastest, meaning people are holding off on purchases because they can't get what they want. My wife's was one of maybe 8 in the entire state that had the features she wanted. Even that one we had to wait about a week because it was in transit from the factory to the dealership, and the other ones in the state were at dealerships a bit further away.
I know car salesman don't get a whole lot of sympathy, but they still need to make a living and that industry got hit hard by Covid, and now is getting hit again.
And of course the popular models are the ones that are selling out the fastest, meaning people are holding off on purchases because they can't get what they want. My wife's was one of maybe 8 in the entire state that had the features she wanted. Even that one we had to wait about a week because it was in transit from the factory to the dealership, and the other ones in the state were at dealerships a bit further away.
I know car salesman don't get a whole lot of sympathy, but they still need to make a living and that industry got hit hard by Covid, and now is getting hit again.
I change a car every few years and this year is the time. So while I have been looking at what can I get now, I found that my current car is worth more now than when I bought it used 3 years ago. Crazy...
I change cars every 10 years. Had the current car for 7 years so probably this chip shortage is not going to impact me.
So keep it. Many posters here might be happy to buy your "old" car and drive it another 4-6 years. Do it yourself.
I'll keep it definitely. At least for another year or two.
Or another 10 or 15.
Three months ago, I took my car camping in the Mojave Desert. I go on mostly good roads, but I go places that there aren't many people. If my car had broken down, I could have been in some degree of trouble. But it's solid enough that I wasn't worried.
This month my car is old enough to qualify for its own driver's license.
16 years old, but it's been bulletproof reliable for all 16 years. The interior isn't thrashed. It still has as much power as ever, or at least as much power as I ever use. It's long since paid for. Why would I replace it?
Three months ago, I took my car camping in the Mojave Desert. I go on mostly good roads, but I go places that there aren't many people. If my car had broken down, I could have been in some degree of trouble. But it's solid enough that I wasn't worried.
This month my car is old enough to qualify for its own driver's license.
16 years old, but it's been bulletproof reliable for all 16 years. The interior isn't thrashed. It still has as much power as ever, or at least as much power as I ever use. It's long since paid for. Why would I replace it?
There's a dead sibling comment stating that car sales won't be a job in 20 years. I would speculate that sales and other careers that are high-touch and relationship focused are precisely the kind of jobs that will be most resistant to automation.
Yeah, but car sales ain't it.
Carvana and similar are such a better experience than dealing with a salesperson whose incentive and words you have to interrogate. I'd wager that salespeople will be needed only for high ticket price, high risk deals where trust is critical in getting the job done. Anything else that can be made transactional will be and the associated sales jobs will be lost.
Carvana and similar are such a better experience than dealing with a salesperson whose incentive and words you have to interrogate. I'd wager that salespeople will be needed only for high ticket price, high risk deals where trust is critical in getting the job done. Anything else that can be made transactional will be and the associated sales jobs will be lost.
Carvana etc are not full service though. You can't go test drive in advance. Also, dealerships are tightly linked to manufacturers, very similar to other franchises, and the incentives are in the manufacturers' favor for the existing model: there's relatively little profit, especially considering the overhead, in selling the car itself. The profit center is in servicing the cars at the dealership service center: The manufacturer has decent margins on parts and the dealership gets it's money on labor. Dealerships get a little extra in the points they take on financing, and higher margins selling used trade-in cars, but service is the key.
That is an extremely tight linkage between manufacturer, sales, financing, and service that will be very difficult to break.
That is an extremely tight linkage between manufacturer, sales, financing, and service that will be very difficult to break.
I've never heard of Carvana, but test drives aren't something we should need dealerships for. Having 1 or 2 cars of each is all you need. Technically a low-end model would be fine, but I can see them only offering the highest end model to upsell features. Then you do what brick-and-mortars have complained about for years and order exactly what you want online.
Personally, I think renting a car for a medium term is way better than test driving. It's the Pepsi Challenge problem. If you can buy a new car, drop down a hundred or two to see how your commute works, how easy it is to park at home, etc.
Sure, dealerships have a rats-nest relationship that would be hard to untangle. Looking at the history I don't think manufacturers care about them them and you can run a repair shop without it.
> service is the key.
I get what you mean about certain aspects, but I would not describe the process of buying a car in that way. If you walk in with cash in hand and pointing to a car it will take 4 hours and you will be coerced into paying for something you didn't want.
Personally, I think renting a car for a medium term is way better than test driving. It's the Pepsi Challenge problem. If you can buy a new car, drop down a hundred or two to see how your commute works, how easy it is to park at home, etc.
Sure, dealerships have a rats-nest relationship that would be hard to untangle. Looking at the history I don't think manufacturers care about them them and you can run a repair shop without it.
> service is the key.
I get what you mean about certain aspects, but I would not describe the process of buying a car in that way. If you walk in with cash in hand and pointing to a car it will take 4 hours and you will be coerced into paying for something you didn't want.
I'm not saying things couldn't work differently, only that the incentives don't align to make that very easy to accomplish. Tesla did it because they had the advantage of looking at the current status quo and saying "Yeah, no thanks, we'll retain control of whole process."
I get what you mean about certain aspects, but I would not describe the process of buying a car in that way.
I don't know what you mean. I don't think I said much about the hassle of buying a car: I agree with you on that. When I say "service is the key" I mean mechanically servicing the car, not customer service.
I also wouldn't contradict you on the test drive idea, but that's almost exactly how dealerships do it already. Unless you really insist on driving the exact car you're buying, they are going to direct you towards the demo car reserved for that purpose.
Repair shops: Yes they can exist outside of dealerships, but manufacturers can't build their own service centers without bankrupting the dealerships, which is how they get sales in the first place. Dealerships do occasionally flip to another manufacturer if the local market for their cars is bad, and they would do that in a heart beat if the manufacturer opened its own independent service center nearby.
I completely agree that better models for all of this could exist, but, as you said, the intertwining factors are a real rats nest. This is why I'm extremely skeptical when someone claims everything will be different in 20 years. Breaking this rats nest requires some type of black swan event. By definition those are mostly unforeseeable, and I don't see anything right now to change things. Carvana and those like it focus on used cars, which have always been much more decoupled from the manufacturer/dealership relationship already.
As a final side note, you can avoid the 4-hour dealership visit pretty easily these days: My wife just needed a new car, and we worked with their online sales person via email, casually going back & forth 2 or 3 times over the course of a discussing options and hammering out the details. Trade-in value was determined by giving them the VIN # and pictures of the car. When we went in to pick up the car, all we had to do was review the details. There was a little bit of wait for the insurance company to put the car on our policy (they can't do that until the transaction is official) and for the finance officer to be available, after which we reviewed the paper work, signed, and were done. The whole process took under an hour.
I get what you mean about certain aspects, but I would not describe the process of buying a car in that way.
I don't know what you mean. I don't think I said much about the hassle of buying a car: I agree with you on that. When I say "service is the key" I mean mechanically servicing the car, not customer service.
I also wouldn't contradict you on the test drive idea, but that's almost exactly how dealerships do it already. Unless you really insist on driving the exact car you're buying, they are going to direct you towards the demo car reserved for that purpose.
Repair shops: Yes they can exist outside of dealerships, but manufacturers can't build their own service centers without bankrupting the dealerships, which is how they get sales in the first place. Dealerships do occasionally flip to another manufacturer if the local market for their cars is bad, and they would do that in a heart beat if the manufacturer opened its own independent service center nearby.
I completely agree that better models for all of this could exist, but, as you said, the intertwining factors are a real rats nest. This is why I'm extremely skeptical when someone claims everything will be different in 20 years. Breaking this rats nest requires some type of black swan event. By definition those are mostly unforeseeable, and I don't see anything right now to change things. Carvana and those like it focus on used cars, which have always been much more decoupled from the manufacturer/dealership relationship already.
As a final side note, you can avoid the 4-hour dealership visit pretty easily these days: My wife just needed a new car, and we worked with their online sales person via email, casually going back & forth 2 or 3 times over the course of a discussing options and hammering out the details. Trade-in value was determined by giving them the VIN # and pictures of the car. When we went in to pick up the car, all we had to do was review the details. There was a little bit of wait for the insurance company to put the car on our policy (they can't do that until the transaction is official) and for the finance officer to be available, after which we reviewed the paper work, signed, and were done. The whole process took under an hour.
> you can avoid the 4-hour dealership visit pretty easily these days
I'm not a frequent new car buyer. The last two times I bought a car (over the past 5 years) we had agreed on a specific car, had cash in hand, and did not have a trade-in to negotiate. The wait wasn't over "coming to a deal" or anything. It just seemed like bureaucratic paperwork process that would normally be built into the haggling; waiting on tags, title, insurance or some other seemingly made up step. Late in the paperwork process there were upsells already added on to the car.
I have zero idea what the average new car buyer is, but I feel like most will drive a bit to find the specific car they want but they want servicing to be nearby. I get that coupling financing, trade-in, test driving and purchasing is good for the customer. I also don't see things changing in the next 20 years, but black swan events do happen. Every decade or two someone, like Tesla, tries to shake things up and other events like auto bailouts or cash-for-clunkers has potential to disrupt things. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if EV adoption erodes dealership service center margins. I know cars.com was trying before Carvana to side-step the dealer process and Carmax seems to have found success--like you said, all eventually settled on used cars.
I'm not a frequent new car buyer. The last two times I bought a car (over the past 5 years) we had agreed on a specific car, had cash in hand, and did not have a trade-in to negotiate. The wait wasn't over "coming to a deal" or anything. It just seemed like bureaucratic paperwork process that would normally be built into the haggling; waiting on tags, title, insurance or some other seemingly made up step. Late in the paperwork process there were upsells already added on to the car.
I have zero idea what the average new car buyer is, but I feel like most will drive a bit to find the specific car they want but they want servicing to be nearby. I get that coupling financing, trade-in, test driving and purchasing is good for the customer. I also don't see things changing in the next 20 years, but black swan events do happen. Every decade or two someone, like Tesla, tries to shake things up and other events like auto bailouts or cash-for-clunkers has potential to disrupt things. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if EV adoption erodes dealership service center margins. I know cars.com was trying before Carvana to side-step the dealer process and Carmax seems to have found success--like you said, all eventually settled on used cars.
> Unless you really insist on driving the exact car you're buying
I certainly do. I thought this was the norm?
I certainly do. I thought this was the norm?
Here's full info dump you might find interesting:
Regarding your comment on test drives: Not in my experience, though it may vary between dealerships and also possibly luxury class. Side note: a good part of my knowledge comes from my father who, when he fell on hard times losing a much better job, could only find a job selling cars. (He wasn't good at it: He was blunt & honest, and while not afraid of pushing an upsell, he wouldn't use deceptive tactics.)
For test drives, luxury car dealerships or high end models at normal dealerships will get you an easy test drive in the exact car you're buying. For a "normal" cars they'd prefer or insist on their dedicated car for that purpose. Part of the reason some dealerships do this is because it's they will use a model with the highest level of options for that model-- all of the amenities. It makes the upsell easier when a customer realizes that some of the nice things they experienced in the test drive aren't included in the "trim" they want.
A customer can insist, but the way they pack cars into their lots it can take a little while for someone to maneuver cars so the one you want can be brought out for a test drive. The only time I test drove the exact car I was buying was when it was the only one on the lot with a specific requirement: manual transmission. Otherwise I drove what are called "demo cars". If you search that out, it's a common thing: Dealerships designate specific cars for test drives, which are also occasionally used by sales folks to get them familiar with the cars, and also as loaner cars to customers that need to leave their own to be serviced. You can usually get a slightly better deal on demo cars: Technically they can still be sold legally as "new" but can have up to a few thousand miles on them.
As I said though, it could vary by dealership, but it will especially vary by how busy it is when you visit: Weekends are when sales folks really make their money, and unless you're really ready to buy right then, they will try not to take the time even for the test drive unless things are slow: if they establish that you might not be ready to buy that their goal is to spend the smallest time possible that still connects you to them if you decide to buy later, but otherwise lets them move on to a customer who is really ready to buy, because: They mostly need to sell 2-3 cars on the weekend, and 1-2 cars over the course of the rest of the week to meet the lower end quota marks ~12 cars/month where small bonuses start to kick in, which is also where most salesmen land each month.
Also, despite cars being a large purchase, sales folks are paid like shit compared to the sticker price, have to work extremely long hours, and have no such thing as true paid vacation or sick days because if they take a week off, they're giving up 25% of their pay for that month. More, if it means they fall a car or two short of a bonus tier. $100-$200/car is around average for entry to mid-range cars, with a small % earned on upsells like an extended warranty and the interest earned on the loan. IIRC, that commission is about 5%: $1k for an extended warranty and $2k interest over the lifetime of the loan gets them an extra $150, but most people don't get the warranty extension and frequent 0% to 2% financing deals for people with strong credit make those extras few & far between. Salary breaks down along these lines:
1) ~50-60 hour work weeks with a pre-commission "salary" around $1000/month.
2) ~12 cars/month averaging $200/car after upsells = $2400
3) $500 bonus for hitting the minimum quota
4) $1000 + $2400 +500 = $3900/month = ~$45000/year for a job with low benefits, variable uncertain pay from month to month, zero fully paid time off, and long hours.
Again, this is for a typical dealership like honda/chevy/toyota etc. Higher-end luxury cars are very different. They have to cater to more demanding buyers. Those dealerships generally only hire sales folks with strong established track records with high sales rates. Salaries there can be $75k to $100k. I have a family member that was able to start at that level due to a friendship connection, did very well, and moved up to ultra luxury & sports cars and began earning ~$200k/year. That, however, it the top 1% of car sales.... maybe even less. Not that many people buy >= ~$150,000 cars. But when they do, the margins are higher, buyers often want a variety of upsell amenities, and even low-interest financing results in a lot more profit on the back end: $1500 commission/car plus $600 on the back end for financing @ 10 cars/month = $200k/year.
Regarding your comment on test drives: Not in my experience, though it may vary between dealerships and also possibly luxury class. Side note: a good part of my knowledge comes from my father who, when he fell on hard times losing a much better job, could only find a job selling cars. (He wasn't good at it: He was blunt & honest, and while not afraid of pushing an upsell, he wouldn't use deceptive tactics.)
For test drives, luxury car dealerships or high end models at normal dealerships will get you an easy test drive in the exact car you're buying. For a "normal" cars they'd prefer or insist on their dedicated car for that purpose. Part of the reason some dealerships do this is because it's they will use a model with the highest level of options for that model-- all of the amenities. It makes the upsell easier when a customer realizes that some of the nice things they experienced in the test drive aren't included in the "trim" they want.
A customer can insist, but the way they pack cars into their lots it can take a little while for someone to maneuver cars so the one you want can be brought out for a test drive. The only time I test drove the exact car I was buying was when it was the only one on the lot with a specific requirement: manual transmission. Otherwise I drove what are called "demo cars". If you search that out, it's a common thing: Dealerships designate specific cars for test drives, which are also occasionally used by sales folks to get them familiar with the cars, and also as loaner cars to customers that need to leave their own to be serviced. You can usually get a slightly better deal on demo cars: Technically they can still be sold legally as "new" but can have up to a few thousand miles on them.
As I said though, it could vary by dealership, but it will especially vary by how busy it is when you visit: Weekends are when sales folks really make their money, and unless you're really ready to buy right then, they will try not to take the time even for the test drive unless things are slow: if they establish that you might not be ready to buy that their goal is to spend the smallest time possible that still connects you to them if you decide to buy later, but otherwise lets them move on to a customer who is really ready to buy, because: They mostly need to sell 2-3 cars on the weekend, and 1-2 cars over the course of the rest of the week to meet the lower end quota marks ~12 cars/month where small bonuses start to kick in, which is also where most salesmen land each month.
Also, despite cars being a large purchase, sales folks are paid like shit compared to the sticker price, have to work extremely long hours, and have no such thing as true paid vacation or sick days because if they take a week off, they're giving up 25% of their pay for that month. More, if it means they fall a car or two short of a bonus tier. $100-$200/car is around average for entry to mid-range cars, with a small % earned on upsells like an extended warranty and the interest earned on the loan. IIRC, that commission is about 5%: $1k for an extended warranty and $2k interest over the lifetime of the loan gets them an extra $150, but most people don't get the warranty extension and frequent 0% to 2% financing deals for people with strong credit make those extras few & far between. Salary breaks down along these lines:
1) ~50-60 hour work weeks with a pre-commission "salary" around $1000/month.
2) ~12 cars/month averaging $200/car after upsells = $2400
3) $500 bonus for hitting the minimum quota
4) $1000 + $2400 +500 = $3900/month = ~$45000/year for a job with low benefits, variable uncertain pay from month to month, zero fully paid time off, and long hours.
Again, this is for a typical dealership like honda/chevy/toyota etc. Higher-end luxury cars are very different. They have to cater to more demanding buyers. Those dealerships generally only hire sales folks with strong established track records with high sales rates. Salaries there can be $75k to $100k. I have a family member that was able to start at that level due to a friendship connection, did very well, and moved up to ultra luxury & sports cars and began earning ~$200k/year. That, however, it the top 1% of car sales.... maybe even less. Not that many people buy >= ~$150,000 cars. But when they do, the margins are higher, buyers often want a variety of upsell amenities, and even low-interest financing results in a lot more profit on the back end: $1500 commission/car plus $600 on the back end for financing @ 10 cars/month = $200k/year.
I don’t know, I’ve been rather pleased not to have to talk to a salesman when buying car insurance for example.
If I was buying a new car the same would apply.
If I was buying a new car the same would apply.
Like travel agents, retail sales associates, or fastfood workers?
Car sales have been through the roof this entire pandemic. Car sales people haven't had to listen to customers "negotiate" in over a year (because the answer is always to take the higher than MSRP offer or pound sand since 20 others will) . I couldn't get a single salesperson to budge even 500$ across no less than 10 Lexus dealerships on anything at all.
Car sales people are doing the best they have ever done during the pandemic. They don't need your sympathy.
Car sales people are doing the best they have ever done during the pandemic. They don't need your sympathy.
I don't know where you're getting this impression from, but sales figures do no support your opinion. Sales were down about 15% in 2020, [0] and that was with a normal first quarter and sales inching back up in the 4th quarter. For large parts of 2020 sales were down as much as 40%.
Your experience with Lexus dealerships is not generalizable to the whole industry. The economic fallout of 2020 was not evenly distributed, and the only thing your personal experience tells me is that the audience for luxury cars may have had the better end of things last year.
[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/wheels/news/2020...
Your experience with Lexus dealerships is not generalizable to the whole industry. The economic fallout of 2020 was not evenly distributed, and the only thing your personal experience tells me is that the audience for luxury cars may have had the better end of things last year.
[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/wheels/news/2020...
https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a35695042/car-sales-tanked...
https://www.autonews.com/dealers/dealer-profits-surge-48-rec...
Doesn't matter if net car sales were down - dealerships of all kinds were hitting ALL TIME HIGHS for profits in 2020 everywhere as a result of huge markups brought on by massive demand. So I stand corrected, dealer profits are up, not car sales - point is that car sales people are not in need of our sympathy at this moment.
https://www.autonews.com/dealers/dealer-profits-surge-48-rec...
Doesn't matter if net car sales were down - dealerships of all kinds were hitting ALL TIME HIGHS for profits in 2020 everywhere as a result of huge markups brought on by massive demand. So I stand corrected, dealer profits are up, not car sales - point is that car sales people are not in need of our sympathy at this moment.
> Elsewhere, Renault is no longer putting an oversized digital screen behind the steering wheel of certain models
At least there is one benefit of the chip shortage...
At least there is one benefit of the chip shortage...
This idea would have been unforeseen a century ago when they were contemplating guano shortages:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.atlasobscura.com/articles/w...
It’s fun to imagine a shortage 100 years from now that isn’t even an iota of an idea yet.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.atlasobscura.com/articles/w...
It’s fun to imagine a shortage 100 years from now that isn’t even an iota of an idea yet.
What does this actually mean? Will we be forced to produce less electro junk in the near future? I see no urgency to change car, toothbrush, washing machine, dishwasher, headphones, laptop, etc. anytime soon.
Who cares about smatrphones and TVs (and cars also)? I always wanted something to happen to force people stop throwing them to landfills and getting new ones every couple years. And smart TVs (with manufacturer-implanted ads, analytics, etc) are abomination. Also the less cars there are - the better. IMHO.
So, even though Intel has been incredibly profitable for many years, they Gelsinger is asking for US and EU government support because... uh, uncertain times? That it?
How much did they ask Isreal for this 600 million investment? [0]
[0] https://www.israel21c.org/intel-announces-600-million-boost-...
The EU should invest in AMD and build fabs without Intel if we are to be "independent"
How much did they ask Isreal for this 600 million investment? [0]
[0] https://www.israel21c.org/intel-announces-600-million-boost-...
The EU should invest in AMD and build fabs without Intel if we are to be "independent"
It’s not hard to see Intel struggling in the future as AMD has produced a better architecture and Apple is starting to compete in the space.
[deleted]
starting a fab business from scratch to something like current 7-5nm nodes is a multi-decade, likely high multiples of 10B€ endeavor. while I agree having such capacity is a matter of EU security, paying Intel and TSMC to build their fabs on EU ground in ~2 years for less money is an attractive proposition and not mutually exclusive with the former to boot.
Funny, because I am saying since many years that Europe needs it's own semiconductor production and Silicon Valley.
But no, we must rely on our American friends who not only spy on us, but constantly rip us off, while themselves producing in Chine and Taiean.
But no, we must rely on our American friends who not only spy on us, but constantly rip us off, while themselves producing in Chine and Taiean.
Why do we need semiconductor production? It's a global shortage, not a European shortage
I think there was news that EU wants to invest €150B into fabs
Starting? The semiconductor issue has been going on since at least March and is only getting worse every week. The stocks of solar companies, car makers, cryptocurrency miners, appliance makers, and anyone else relying on semiconductors has been dropping since February. Some like the solar company ENPH have been cut in half. Shipments on products with semiconductors have gone from an ETA of 6-8 month from April 2021 to “12 months or more” from this month, May 2021. I heard a rumor that it takes 2 years for a new semiconductor plant to be built so we may be in for a quite a wait for the supply to catch up to the demand…
Let's hope we start making chips domestically after this.
I want an Organic & Fair Trade, Fully Open RISC-V Raspberry Pi 5
What country are you in? I know I can eliminate Taiwan and the United States from the list, as they both have semiconductor fabs!
So how much do USA-made mobile phones cost?
The Librem costs a lot! BLU was more reasonably priced. Not sure if they're still putting out new products.
https://shop.puri.sm/shop/librem-5-usa/
https://www.bluproducts.com/home/
Also relevant (since most iPhone manufacturing is not done in the US.)
https://fee.org/articles/a-made-in-america-iphone-would-cost...
Of course, that's a different goal from "making chips in the USA", which is done today, including the best-selling personal computer chips.
https://shop.puri.sm/shop/librem-5-usa/
https://www.bluproducts.com/home/
Also relevant (since most iPhone manufacturing is not done in the US.)
https://fee.org/articles/a-made-in-america-iphone-would-cost...
Of course, that's a different goal from "making chips in the USA", which is done today, including the best-selling personal computer chips.
are we talking about assemble in the USA? any low labors cost country can assemble the phone. it doesn't have to be China. Foxconn already have a factory in India and Samsung in Vietnam.
design can be done in the USA like Apple. component like corning gorilla glass is made in the USA. chips can be produce in the USA with Intel IDM 2.0 or TSMC in Taiwan.
it will cost the same since you can outsource assembly
design can be done in the USA like Apple. component like corning gorilla glass is made in the USA. chips can be produce in the USA with Intel IDM 2.0 or TSMC in Taiwan.
it will cost the same since you can outsource assembly
> are we talking about assemble in the USA?
No. Did you read the thread before asking?
> they both have semiconductor fabs!
No. Did you read the thread before asking?
> they both have semiconductor fabs!
>So how much do USA-made mobile phones cost?
this is your question and I asked if we are talking about assemble the phone in the USA or not. if not assemble in the USA then the cost won't change much.
this is your question and I asked if we are talking about assemble the phone in the USA or not. if not assemble in the USA then the cost won't change much.
USA-made is not USA-assembled.
> component like corning gorilla glass is made in the USA
Unfortunately, most GG in the world is made in China.
> any low labors cost country can assemble the phone
FYI, some parts of USA had already for a few years lower skilled labour costs than South China.
Unfortunately, most GG in the world is made in China.
> any low labors cost country can assemble the phone
FYI, some parts of USA had already for a few years lower skilled labour costs than South China.
>Unfortunately, most GG in the world is made in China.
Corning manufactures Gorilla Glass in the United States, Japan, and Taiwan. - corning website:
https://www.corning.com/gorillaglass/worldwide/en/faqs.html#....
>FYI, some parts of USA had already for a few years lower skilled labour costs than South China.
good? not really sure what you trying to say. companies will always go to the low labor cost countries.
Corning manufactures Gorilla Glass in the United States, Japan, and Taiwan. - corning website:
https://www.corning.com/gorillaglass/worldwide/en/faqs.html#....
>FYI, some parts of USA had already for a few years lower skilled labour costs than South China.
good? not really sure what you trying to say. companies will always go to the low labor cost countries.
Corning has a huge plants in Hefei, and in other parts of China. All uncut GG I saw had "Made In China" on its packaging.
> good? not really sure what you trying to say. companies will always go to the low labor cost countries.
The point I wanted to make was exactly that they don't, even with US lower taxes added to that.
> good? not really sure what you trying to say. companies will always go to the low labor cost countries.
The point I wanted to make was exactly that they don't, even with US lower taxes added to that.
Samsung has a fab in Austin, so many of their devices have USA-made chips.
They’re talking about chips, which is the topic of the article. Not complete consumer electronics devices.
?? exporting the toxic waste and slave labor has made the electronics revolution possible
The TV news version I've heard is that there is a car chip shortage because people in lockdown and working from home buy more computers.
If journalists don't question this bullshit, there is little hope for the general public.
If journalists don't question this bullshit, there is little hope for the general public.
"The vast majority of the world’s chips are made in China, while the U.S. is the second biggest producer. "
I guess CNBC doesn't recognize Taiwan?
I guess CNBC doesn't recognize Taiwan?
This is a great time to sell a car you do not need. Prices have gone up significantly just since last month on sites like carvana, carmax, etc.
This also feels like inflation.
"Electronic dog washing booth"?
What new fab facilities are currently being spun up in the US? And if the answer is "few," then why?
Building a fab takes lot of time. Plus you need to hire the right talent in the same region. And by the time you can do it may be we will be past this supply issue. (Or may be that’s why we don’t do it now? Not sure)
Is there any kind of organization where we can donate old and unused cpus? I have at least half a dozen chips in a drawer sitting and collecting dust. Some are even a decade old but I'm sure they're more than OK to run a toaster or a washing machine.
It's basically not worth it to incorporate salvaged parts into mass production assembly lines, and even if it was those things don't use CPUs, they use tiny microcontrollers.
Is there enough overlap in architecture, packaging, etc., Where collection and distribution of unused chips really makes sense?
> Production of low-margin processors, such as those used to weigh clothes in a washing machine or toast bread in a smart toaster
Oh no! What will we ever do? Have to toast bread by pushing down the lever? How barbaric.
Oh no! What will we ever do? Have to toast bread by pushing down the lever? How barbaric.
> “What we’re asking from both the U.S. and the European governments is to make it competitive for us to do it here compared to in Asia,”
Intel wanting subsidies to help be competitive, priceless.
Intel wanting subsidies to help be competitive, priceless.
This is what happens when the entire world relies on a few countries for manufacturing of computer chips. All manufactured goods should be produced and consumed in the same country. In theory, if the manufacturing is efficiently distributed the supply chain should be immune to the effects of a pandemic or even country specific issues.
I am still baffled that an electronic device produced in some province of China and shipped thousands of miles away (and incurring tariffs) is cheaper than keeping the manufacturing in the same country and shipping at a much shorter distance and not incur any import fees/taxes.
I am still baffled that an electronic device produced in some province of China and shipped thousands of miles away (and incurring tariffs) is cheaper than keeping the manufacturing in the same country and shipping at a much shorter distance and not incur any import fees/taxes.
China is massively subsidizing local manufacturing, in at least two ways: currency stabilization and lack of / lack of enforcement of environmental protections.
Consolidated production has benefits like economies of scale and world peace, but at the cost of redundancy and national security. Chip production isn't actually that bad; Micron is in the US, Intel is in the US, China, Israel, Ireland, TSMC is in China and Taiwan.
What we're seeing here has nothing to do with consolidation of manufacturing; it's entirely JIT logistics. Decentralization doesn't solve that; surplus capacity and/or inventory solve that.
What we're seeing here has nothing to do with consolidation of manufacturing; it's entirely JIT logistics. Decentralization doesn't solve that; surplus capacity and/or inventory solve that.
> Everyday appliances at risk
> Production of low-margin processors, such as those used to weigh clothes in a washing machine or toast bread in a smart toaster, has also been hit.
Maybe the silver lining of this situation is that the current push to make every appliance "smart" will slow down? I will take a "dumb" bread toaster any day over the "smart" version. And finally @internetofshit will be able to take some time off.
> Production of low-margin processors, such as those used to weigh clothes in a washing machine or toast bread in a smart toaster, has also been hit.
Maybe the silver lining of this situation is that the current push to make every appliance "smart" will slow down? I will take a "dumb" bread toaster any day over the "smart" version. And finally @internetofshit will be able to take some time off.
I expected more dumb high-res TVs as a result of chip shortage, but strangely that has not happened.
I've eyeing a gaming PC for a while. I game, do music production, amd also do i die game dev. If I buy an all in one I'll pay a $500 premium but I'll be able to actually acquire all the components.
Hackernews, please tell me: should I pull the trigger before it's too late, or hold off for the panic to subside?
Hackernews, please tell me: should I pull the trigger before it's too late, or hold off for the panic to subside?
I’d join the secret laptop club if I was in the us https://youtu.be/cFyka8Vp62Y
ATM it's mainly affecting GPUs so it depends on which GPU is included and the Delta to the prince on the secondhand market.
Like one where I'm at, the 6700xt is going at about MSRP +$500
Like one where I'm at, the 6700xt is going at about MSRP +$500
And this is the sort of thing that kills Bitcoin (long-term). At some point you are faced with sustaining the security of your network at a cost of doing real work, if silicon manufacture were ever that scarce. Worse, if Bitcoin is the dominant currency... paying for hardware is, a weird Ouroboros of power.
Inflation. It’s everywhere. It’s not a shortage.
So what happens when Moore's Other Law(tm), the one that says that the size/cost of the manufacturing facility doubles every few years, continues on?
The endgame is single sourcing from one giant company and place (or nearly so) that no one else can compete with but is inherently brittle.
The endgame is single sourcing from one giant company and place (or nearly so) that no one else can compete with but is inherently brittle.
And when there are few suppliers, they have an incentive to dial back supply to manufacture demand. When the market is not in equilibrium, they are making the most profit.
https://open.lib.umn.edu/principleseconomics/chapter/10-2-th...
https://open.lib.umn.edu/principleseconomics/chapter/10-2-th...
For years I've been asking: Why does my toothbrush have to connect to bluetooth? Why does my refrigerator twitter? These were always useless mis-features and we can hope some of them can get pared down now with the shortage. Bring back old style dumb appliances!
There are still lots, and lots, and lots of dumb appliances.
I think you’d have to go out of the way to buy a toothbrush with Bluetooth, and I see many a non-smart fridge in the best sellers at Home Depot. (https://www.homedepot.com/b/Appliances-Refrigerators-Side-by...)
For all the hooplah about smart homes and Alexa and Thread and Merlin Mann screaming about HomeKit and blah blah blah…most people have dumb lightbulbs, dumb garage doors, and dumb fridges.
The obvious exception is a smart TV, which are effectively mandatory now. And…after years of being a contrarian…guess what? I like my Roku-enabled TV. The apps are nice. I don’t have to have an external box. It’s fine. More than fine, even—I am kinda shocked at how good this Amazon-special TCL TV is.
I think you’d have to go out of the way to buy a toothbrush with Bluetooth, and I see many a non-smart fridge in the best sellers at Home Depot. (https://www.homedepot.com/b/Appliances-Refrigerators-Side-by...)
For all the hooplah about smart homes and Alexa and Thread and Merlin Mann screaming about HomeKit and blah blah blah…most people have dumb lightbulbs, dumb garage doors, and dumb fridges.
The obvious exception is a smart TV, which are effectively mandatory now. And…after years of being a contrarian…guess what? I like my Roku-enabled TV. The apps are nice. I don’t have to have an external box. It’s fine. More than fine, even—I am kinda shocked at how good this Amazon-special TCL TV is.
> For all the hooplah about smart homes and Alexa and Thread and blah blah blah…most people have dumb lightbulbs, dumb garage doors, and dumb fridges.
For now. The profits to be made on microtransactions and subscriptions from internet-requiring features are too gargantuan to pass up, to not become the new norm. And, of course, unblockable ads and tracking.
A fun recent example is a motorcycle emergency vest that stops inflating when you stop paying the subscription. An outlier for now, but the average tomorrow; The slope is real and it's coated with vaseline.
For now. The profits to be made on microtransactions and subscriptions from internet-requiring features are too gargantuan to pass up, to not become the new norm. And, of course, unblockable ads and tracking.
A fun recent example is a motorcycle emergency vest that stops inflating when you stop paying the subscription. An outlier for now, but the average tomorrow; The slope is real and it's coated with vaseline.
Or BMW’s attempt to sell subscriptions to CarPlay and heated seats.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/34547/bmw-is-planning-to-sell-...
But still…that’s high-margin subscriptions on top of a high-margin product. I am, currently, skeptical we will end up with low-end Internet of Shit for everything, because running that subscription service requires a big up-front investment that’s hard when you’re selling, I don’t know, toaster ovens.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/34547/bmw-is-planning-to-sell-...
But still…that’s high-margin subscriptions on top of a high-margin product. I am, currently, skeptical we will end up with low-end Internet of Shit for everything, because running that subscription service requires a big up-front investment that’s hard when you’re selling, I don’t know, toaster ovens.
There was recently a subscription dishwasher featured here. It turned out to be easy for the author to hack theirs, but it will get harder over time, just like ink cartridges.
No, they'll only become the new norm if the majority of people buy them. And they cost more, because internet-enabled components aren't free. And most people really don't see the value in an internet-connected light bulb. Does it emit more light? No? Then why would I pay more for it? So if they have to sell the higher-cost BOM for the same price (because people see no reason to pay more), then where are the gargantuan profits?
So I really don't see internet-connected X taking over the market, no matter how much money companies could make if customers cooperated.
So I really don't see internet-connected X taking over the market, no matter how much money companies could make if customers cooperated.
“This Motorcycle Airbag Vest Will Stop Working If You Miss a Payment”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/93yyyd/this-motorcycle-airba...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27054629
https://www.vice.com/en/article/93yyyd/this-motorcycle-airba...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27054629
If I go to “shop all” in the refrigerators section of Home Depot’s site and look at the count next to the filter for “smart” features - Only 97 out of 798 refrigerators they sell have smart features.
That was, at one time, true for "smart TVs" as well.
TVs are different as there is a large number of people who realize they don't need TVs anymore, they need gaming/computer monitors and can stream all the content they need. This increased substitutability with cheap, dumb monitors -- you no longer need a TV to watch TV -- means the pricing power of TV makers has fallen -- TV prices have plunged dramatically -- and they are desperately trying to find new business models and new value propositions, one of these is to subsidize the physical product and start monetizing attention.
I don't think washing machine makers have this option, nor is the internet a threat to replace washing machines. Of course business majors keep graduating and they will get bright ideas like selling information about what you wash to third parties, and they will have dreams of subscription revenue, but until they can provide a compelling value proposition, these are not going to get widely adopted. TVs are declining in price at 20% a year. Users are getting great value in exchange for putting up with the ads.
I don't think washing machine makers have this option, nor is the internet a threat to replace washing machines. Of course business majors keep graduating and they will get bright ideas like selling information about what you wash to third parties, and they will have dreams of subscription revenue, but until they can provide a compelling value proposition, these are not going to get widely adopted. TVs are declining in price at 20% a year. Users are getting great value in exchange for putting up with the ads.
The first smart refrigerator came out in 2000. The first smart tv came out later in 2007-2008. I think smart appliances just aren’t as popular as their dumb appliance counterparts. But yeah, maybe someday they will be.
Yeah, though I would argue that smart kitchen appliances have a lot more going against them than smart tvs.
- Historically, the TV has been used for playing media transmitted on radio waves, so an internet connected TV isn't a big surprise.
- Television media formats seem to completely shift every decade or 2, so people are very used to buying something they'll throw away soon.
- People usually take their televisions around with them when they move houses, but not appliances. Transfering "smart" things between owners is generally a pain and a security hazard.
- Historically, the TV has been used for playing media transmitted on radio waves, so an internet connected TV isn't a big surprise.
- Television media formats seem to completely shift every decade or 2, so people are very used to buying something they'll throw away soon.
- People usually take their televisions around with them when they move houses, but not appliances. Transfering "smart" things between owners is generally a pain and a security hazard.
Not in the US, but back home I clearly remember moving countless fridges of friends to new apartment.
But true that appliance seems to be attach to the houses here. And correct, smart things are private things because of the nature of their work.
I have a fridge that my grand father used. And I’m not specially young. I love that fridge, simple and frugal in energy.
I suspect the smart fridge and the like will come with incentive from large comglomerate that also sell food.
The « two day delivery » of the smart fridge. I guess a coupon.
Oh well.
But true that appliance seems to be attach to the houses here. And correct, smart things are private things because of the nature of their work.
I have a fridge that my grand father used. And I’m not specially young. I love that fridge, simple and frugal in energy.
I suspect the smart fridge and the like will come with incentive from large comglomerate that also sell food.
The « two day delivery » of the smart fridge. I guess a coupon.
Oh well.
Not sure exactly how old that fridge is but I think it’s unlikely that it’s anywhere close to as energy efficient as an equivalent fridge made today would be.
Appliances have made huge strides in energy efficiency in the last 30 years.
Appliances have made huge strides in energy efficiency in the last 30 years.
Many people I know are asking for and seeking out smart tvs. It's not being pushed on them. I don't hear those people asking for smart fridges (but occasionally I hear them talk about integrated ice makers).
TVs are Netflix terminals.
Why not get a TV with Netflix built in? At this point, it just makes sense to have apps on the TV.
Why not get a TV with Netflix built in? At this point, it just makes sense to have apps on the TV.
For me it's like separation of concerns. Give me a TV with good picture/sound and a good selection of ports. If I want a smart TV I'll stick a Chromecast/Fire stick in it; if I want a metrics displayer I'll use a Raspberry Pi; or maybe I'll use it with a games console. I'd prefer not to pay for smart features If I'm not gonna use them.
When the software is no longer supported you have an expensive security vulnerability hanging on your wall.
this is true for all appliances with any sort of networking. an appletv, roku, chromecast or fire stick have the exact same concern.
Yes, but the primary function of a TV is not causing the security vulnerability - the questionable additions are.
Not sure wanting a device to watch Netflix is questionable.
Chips in cars are decades old and are useful for things like managing fuel injection, increasing fuel efficiency.
"Dumb" cars have chips too.
"Dumb" cars have chips too.
and for all we know, if cars were still made with carbs and solenoids and old fashion-y tech, that manufacturing might be impacted by a pandemic as well. I don't think there's anything fundamental about chips that are causing this delay. A lot of it has to with cancelling orders and manufacturers winding down and then restarting a major supply chain takes time, especially if demand shuts down fast and then starts up again faster than expected.
There's a wide space between connected and dumb appliances. For instance my espresso coffeemaker is fairly dumb : I'm not even sure that it has a chip that turns the light green when the resistor is hot enough, it might be just some "dumb" sensor. (Still, because of this, it's not completely dumb.)
In comparison, my electric kettle is much smarter, and most likely requires a chip to make all the logic around the various buttons and the screen and the water temperature settings work. Still, it has zero connectivity.
In comparison, my electric kettle is much smarter, and most likely requires a chip to make all the logic around the various buttons and the screen and the water temperature settings work. Still, it has zero connectivity.
I agree.
How often do you brush your teeth? What toothpaste do you use? Maybe your dentist needs to know that or, at least, someone from some (big) (tech) company doing data science about it for whatever reason (mostly to show you ads).
Knowledge is power.
Why does my toothbrush have to connect to bluetooth?
Why does my refrigerator twitter?
How often do you brush your teeth? What toothpaste do you use? Maybe your dentist needs to know that or, at least, someone from some (big) (tech) company doing data science about it for whatever reason (mostly to show you ads).
Knowledge is power.
Sure. That's what's in it for some "them" out there somewhere. What's in it for me, the consumer who just wants to brush my teeth?
(Crickets.)
So don't hold your breath for this stuff to take off. Most people won't spend more money to buy something that will benefit someone else.
(Crickets.)
So don't hold your breath for this stuff to take off. Most people won't spend more money to buy something that will benefit someone else.
That's why they build it into everything, so you won't have a choice but to buy it.
Dollars. Somebody's going to follow the dollars. If it costs less to build a toothbrush without bluetooth (and it absolutely does), and if the most of public doesn't care enough about bluetooth to pay more for a toothbrush, then the one who makes bluetooth-less toothbrushes will make more money. Somebody will do that.
I have never owned a toothbrush that connects to bluetooth. Spend less if you find that spending more comes with features you don't want.
In this day and age its easy to forget that even "dumb" appliances still use microcontrollers.
Yes, even functions like monitoring temperature, turning a compressor on and off, and beeping if the door is left open for too long... are probably more easily and cheaply done with a low-end microcontroller than some sort of electromechanical contraption.
I'm always very sceptical when electronics and chips are used as a solution to problems that nobody had. Reliability seems to suffer most of all. When I hear from my parents how long their products lasted back then ...
Appicances with cheap membrane control panels are the worst. Mechanical dials lasted forever and when they broke you could at least still work them with some vise grips
One can also do the choice to not buy any of these. I have no trouble finding non IoT toothbrushes, fridges and so on.
Finding a dumb TV is a lot harder.
One does not need to watch TV. I haven't watched any TV program for more than 20 years. I might purchase a radio in the near future though.
Connected devices are a good thing - i.e. I should be able to make the washing machine scriptable from my computer, but I bet these solutions are always crap because they are implemented in a hurry by engineers who don't understand either the hardware or software well enough to make it work, so you end up with quasi-useless boss-pleasers like we have now.
Why should you be able to connect to run a script on a washing machine? Don't you need physically be there anyway to move the clothes around?
The only use case I can see is a notification when the cycle is done, but I think there are better ways to go about that than using an SoC.
The only use case I can see is a notification when the cycle is done, but I think there are better ways to go about that than using an SoC.
The world isn't driven by "I should have all the nice things I can imagine". How are you gonna script the washing machine to take the underwear off your bottom and put it in the drum? You'll have to do that yourself. And when you do it, you might as well "script the washing machine" by pushing the buttons on it.
I'm a programmer and honestly I can't wait for this IoT fad to die down a little. Sure, maybe it's cool to have LAN connected lightbulbs as a novelty product. But this kind of shit will never ever be the norm, simply because it makes no damn sense in terms of value proposition.
I'm a programmer and honestly I can't wait for this IoT fad to die down a little. Sure, maybe it's cool to have LAN connected lightbulbs as a novelty product. But this kind of shit will never ever be the norm, simply because it makes no damn sense in terms of value proposition.
I couldn’t imagine not having smart lights, they are one of the few iot devices that make my life a lot more comfortable- def not a novelty
What do you use them for that is really helpful? I’m considering getting some Hue lightbulbs, but it seems like a bit of a waste.
Lights turn on and off automatically, I rarely have to do anything and they are how I want them when I want them / and don’t turn on when I’m
Not at home and turn on when I arrive home. Turning on in the morning during winter helps a ton and when I do need a light on/off on demand it’s a voice command or the tap of a wireless battery less switch
Color temp and dimming-without-buzz. And you can put the switch etc wherever you want, and change color temp and brightness automatically before bed.
YMMV but having the light turn on when my alarm goes off genuinely wakes me up.
I’ve got hués through the whole house. Primary use cases are:
- Being able to trigger dimming of the lights in the house as sunset approaches. - Being able close all the lights in the house in one go (such as when leaving). - dimming lights when I don’t have dimmers wired in. - being able to adjust colour temperature of the lights (and full colours, I tend to use a mix of oranges, pinks, and purples). - turning off lamps that are not otherwise on the same circuit as the ceiling when I flick a switch.
Things like dimming and controlling lights on the same circuit could be done with electrical work, but I’m renting. The bulbs come with me wherever I move. The electrical work doesn’t. I already was bringing my own lightbulbs wherever I moved anyways (to save electricity).
- Being able to trigger dimming of the lights in the house as sunset approaches. - Being able close all the lights in the house in one go (such as when leaving). - dimming lights when I don’t have dimmers wired in. - being able to adjust colour temperature of the lights (and full colours, I tend to use a mix of oranges, pinks, and purples). - turning off lamps that are not otherwise on the same circuit as the ceiling when I flick a switch.
Things like dimming and controlling lights on the same circuit could be done with electrical work, but I’m renting. The bulbs come with me wherever I move. The electrical work doesn’t. I already was bringing my own lightbulbs wherever I moved anyways (to save electricity).
What? I want to make the washing machine starting drying after a specific amount of time after the wash stage has finished.
And guess what mr programmer, they didn't bother letting me do that with the front panel...
And guess what mr programmer, they didn't bother letting me do that with the front panel...
Most (all?) washing machines have a delayed start.
Why would you want your clothes to sit wet, collecting mold, before the drying begins?
See, part of being a good programmer is figuring out a solution using the tools you have. Which includes figuring out how existing machines address your issues without requesting they come with a fully programmable API and wi-fi, just so you can delay the drying cycle.
Why would you want your clothes to sit wet, collecting mold, before the drying begins?
See, part of being a good programmer is figuring out a solution using the tools you have. Which includes figuring out how existing machines address your issues without requesting they come with a fully programmable API and wi-fi, just so you can delay the drying cycle.
I get the best drying if the machine washes, drains for a bit, then starts drying after that.
If I were to do this it would take 4 trips to the washing machine because they didn't think to make it tick over from even washing to drying.
If I were to do this it would take 4 trips to the washing machine because they didn't think to make it tick over from even washing to drying.
What we've learned here is you need to buy a new washing machine, or maybe before that, read carefully the manual of the one you have.
Thinking you can dry your clothes better than the people who engineered the entire machine and wrote its programs is honestly cracking me up. Do you think the vendors were like "you know what, we don't need this washing machine to dry well".
Even more, what kind of a marketing campaign would such a scriptable machine even have?
"Our washing machine dries really poorly, but we hope every stay at home mom can script it to dry better, so we included a web server and a REST API with it".
They'll go bankrupt, man.
Thinking you can dry your clothes better than the people who engineered the entire machine and wrote its programs is honestly cracking me up. Do you think the vendors were like "you know what, we don't need this washing machine to dry well".
Even more, what kind of a marketing campaign would such a scriptable machine even have?
"Our washing machine dries really poorly, but we hope every stay at home mom can script it to dry better, so we included a web server and a REST API with it".
They'll go bankrupt, man.
Well they decided not to have any modes that automatically dry after washing at all so I'm going with yes.
And thanks, I'll just spend this months rent on a new washing machine.
And thanks, I'll just spend this months rent on a new washing machine.
Well if you want it to be scriptable, you might need to spend three month's rent on a new washing machine.
And yeah, uhmm... most washing machines can run drying after washing. You just took your specific model's issue, and decided to generalize it to "must be scriptable". Which is really a giant leap to make. To recap:
1. Your specific model can't dry after washing.
2. Your specific model can't be scripted either.
3. Other models can dry after washing.
4. Other models have no scripting.
Ergo whatever you do, you're buying a new washing machine. And your problem doesn't require scripting.
And yeah, uhmm... most washing machines can run drying after washing. You just took your specific model's issue, and decided to generalize it to "must be scriptable". Which is really a giant leap to make. To recap:
1. Your specific model can't dry after washing.
2. Your specific model can't be scripted either.
3. Other models can dry after washing.
4. Other models have no scripting.
Ergo whatever you do, you're buying a new washing machine. And your problem doesn't require scripting.
Why? If it didn't belong to my landlord I could've made it scriptable in a few hours with one of a litany of wifi-enabled chips I have on my desk.
I'm a professional programming language implementer why can't I use those skills to do as I please?
I'm a professional programming language implementer why can't I use those skills to do as I please?
You're really dedicated to this scriptable washing machine project. You should talk to your landlord.
You're really dedicated to being needlessly argumentative.
Wrt to your previous comment, of course I'm talking about my model of washing machine.
I genuinely cannot fathom how it's hard to work out that my point is that if they'd stuck even the most basic interface on the back, which I bet the higher end ones already have for debugging just not exposed, I could make the machine do what I want. That's not the way the world is, but it would be better if it was.
Luckily for you I'm able bodied by the way...
Wrt to your previous comment, of course I'm talking about my model of washing machine.
I genuinely cannot fathom how it's hard to work out that my point is that if they'd stuck even the most basic interface on the back, which I bet the higher end ones already have for debugging just not exposed, I could make the machine do what I want. That's not the way the world is, but it would be better if it was.
Luckily for you I'm able bodied by the way...
Does it not have a spin cycle? After that runs on mine there's nothing left to drain.
Edit: oh no apparently it's a questionably maintained communal laundry room unit, I'm so sorry
Edit: oh no apparently it's a questionably maintained communal laundry room unit, I'm so sorry
I’d argue that on average the engineers working on these things understand things just barely well enough to implement these things in whatever hardware/software combination is selected.
Any more understanding than that would be sub-optimal for shipping consumer products where cost optimisation is a primary concern as the salaries for more competent engineers would cost the company more.
You can see this effect in action with the explosion of “smart home” devices after commoditised internals were made available by the likes of Tuya. Suddenly your company only needed junior engineers who could skin the whitebox turn-key solutions and product designers who could design a moulded plastic enclosure around a standard set of postage stamp sized circuit boards.
Any more understanding than that would be sub-optimal for shipping consumer products where cost optimisation is a primary concern as the salaries for more competent engineers would cost the company more.
You can see this effect in action with the explosion of “smart home” devices after commoditised internals were made available by the likes of Tuya. Suddenly your company only needed junior engineers who could skin the whitebox turn-key solutions and product designers who could design a moulded plastic enclosure around a standard set of postage stamp sized circuit boards.
So your default assumption is that a company whose entire division may be selling washing machines, doesn't give a damn about the programs that make those machines useful.
Great.
Great.
Yes and no, my assumption is that the company only cares about the programs being useful enough to sell the washing machine.
There is no incentive to be any better than that. When the average washing machine lives long enough that the majority of consumers will come back to their next purchase without feeling annoyed about software related issues. Extra frills that pushed them over the line into purchasing a particular model didn't quite work out how they hoped, the iPhone app didn't get updates and looks bad on their new phone, etc ... these things wont factor into their next purchase. It's a psychological time horizon thing, enough water passes under the bridge and the customer stopped caring long enough ago.
So as long as it was otherwise a solid washing machine that didn't have mechanical issues mechanically or wash poorly they aren't likely to hold the manufacturer to account for their poor software quality breaking the "nice to haves".
There is no incentive to be any better than that. When the average washing machine lives long enough that the majority of consumers will come back to their next purchase without feeling annoyed about software related issues. Extra frills that pushed them over the line into purchasing a particular model didn't quite work out how they hoped, the iPhone app didn't get updates and looks bad on their new phone, etc ... these things wont factor into their next purchase. It's a psychological time horizon thing, enough water passes under the bridge and the customer stopped caring long enough ago.
So as long as it was otherwise a solid washing machine that didn't have mechanical issues mechanically or wash poorly they aren't likely to hold the manufacturer to account for their poor software quality breaking the "nice to haves".
Have you ever used Windows...
You're the first person I've ever seen who says they want a connected washing machine. I'm curious: what will your washing machine script do?
Not require me to have to go up and down the stairs about 5-10 times to see how it's getting on, and then switch to dry, then check on its progress, etc.
Why does it require so much babysitting?
The timer has a mind of its own (i.e. it displays an estimate of when it thinks it's going to be finished), and the option to automatically start drying after finishing the wash cycle is either not present or extremely well obfuscated (The model that shows up on Google definitely has the option on the rotary encoder, the one I have has no such option).
Does this machine both wash and dry clothes?
Connected washing machines continue to make little sense to me. The only benefit I can think of is a notification when it's done. Otherwise all the interactions with it are done in person. (loading/unloading etc)
What would you want to script?
What would you want to script?
The common use case is to want to set the time so that it runs not right now but later - either because for noise reasons, or so that it finishes when you're back home to unload.
Also, of course, there's the "internal scheduling" of various different activities that the machine is doing; you can do that mechanically but IMHO it's simpler now to do that with a cheap microcontroller.
Also, of course, there's the "internal scheduling" of various different activities that the machine is doing; you can do that mechanically but IMHO it's simpler now to do that with a cheap microcontroller.
All washing machines I bought in the last decade had delayed start mechanism.
My washing machine doesn't automatically starting draining or drying after finishing, so I have to go up and down the stairs, and it has a mind of its own as to when it finishes.
An ESP-32 is about 2 quid last time I checked, I have many, and I would happily attach it to the machine if not for the fact that it doesn't belong to me.
An ESP-32 is about 2 quid last time I checked, I have many, and I would happily attach it to the machine if not for the fact that it doesn't belong to me.
I have a washing machine from year 2000, and it has that functionality built in. Are you sure you read the manual?
I don't think so. I can't work out how the washing machine isn't obviously just an example.
Also, the thing that's more annoying is actually that the machine's alarm is extremely quiet and the timer very inconsistent (e.g. I made a Pizza oven that sends me an email, and it wasn't hard to do at all).
Also, the thing that's more annoying is actually that the machine's alarm is extremely quiet and the timer very inconsistent (e.g. I made a Pizza oven that sends me an email, and it wasn't hard to do at all).
Without the hardware to script moving wet clothes to a dryer, and possibly folding and sorting dry clothes, is there a point, other than to set an alarm to prevent a moldy forgotten wet load?
That would be a start (the alarm sounds like a chain smoking mouse)
Aaaaah. Yesss. Finally my dream has come true and I can start laundry by pressing a button on my computer
wait what do you mean I still need to physically walk to the washing machine to load it this is bullshit
wait what do you mean I still need to physically walk to the washing machine to load it this is bullshit
Ban cryptocurrency exchanges and some of the wafer capacity currently being dedicated to mining will return to regular use (or we can just wait for the ETH2 merge, then ban the purchase of PoW cyrpto).
Secondly get workers back to work by ending COVID-era unemployment payments and workplace restrictions.
Secondly get workers back to work by ending COVID-era unemployment payments and workplace restrictions.
I hate cryptocurrency, but trying to ban them is just dumb. It's not going to work. Ban where? How? What are the side-effects? What about people's liberty? Cryptocurrency is stupid and depletes natural resources, but trying to use the law to ban it is only going to make it stronger.
The US Government bans a lot of things which are deleterious to society. Online gambling among them.
The purpose is not to eliminate Cryptocurrencies, but to reduce the price of Bitcoin and other PoW coins such that mining (which is a misallocation of our civilization's energy and advanced manufactured goods) becomes significantly less rewarding.
Ethereum at least has a Governing body which is moving it to PoS. Bitcoin does not. Government regulation is the only answer.
The purpose is not to eliminate Cryptocurrencies, but to reduce the price of Bitcoin and other PoW coins such that mining (which is a misallocation of our civilization's energy and advanced manufactured goods) becomes significantly less rewarding.
Ethereum at least has a Governing body which is moving it to PoS. Bitcoin does not. Government regulation is the only answer.
Maybe if there was a little less regulation in the first place, things like bitcoin wouldn't have as much appeal as they do.
This is old rhetoric. Sidestepping the government no longer has anything to do with Bitcoin appeal. At this point, it's purely speculation and money laundering, all subversiveness potential has been evacuated for good.
I realize many people don't care about credit cards spying on them, but I do value cryptocurrencies offering alternatives. From what I understand the Apple Credit Card was somewhat of a similar attempt (Goldman Sachs isn't allowed to sell the information). I'm not saying that the benefits outweigh the costs, but it does seem that they allow for more than money laundering, and speculation.
Taxing the hell out of it would work. What company would want to pay 90% of their cryptocurrency in taxes? and if you can't pay your taxes in cryptocurrency, and instead have to convert it to cash, that'll drive the price down pretty quick and make everybody scatter.
edit: to head off the downvote brigade, I'm not advocating for this. Only pointing out that "banning" doesn't necessarily mean outlawing its use, but can also include making it unfavourable to use.
edit: to head off the downvote brigade, I'm not advocating for this. Only pointing out that "banning" doesn't necessarily mean outlawing its use, but can also include making it unfavourable to use.
I have a suggestion - how about we stop fucking with each other's civil liberties just because we don't like the current situation, and rather we come up with real solutions?
China banned it and something like 60% of the mining happens there. The whole thing was built to get around bans.
Also crypto was thing that just pushed us over the edge, before that Apple was buying out (preventing any chips from being manufactured at) entire node sizes, there were serious issues with semiconductor manufacturing already.
Also crypto was thing that just pushed us over the edge, before that Apple was buying out (preventing any chips from being manufactured at) entire node sizes, there were serious issues with semiconductor manufacturing already.
Enforcing and banning something is very different, especially in China.
My understanding is that most of the "shortage" is in older processes where capacity is shrinking as fabs offline older tooling. Customers with parts that are stored as masks (e.g. engine controllers from the 1990's) or whose design teams have lost the expertise to resynthesize the HDL (again: think auto manufacturers) have very few options when capacity in these older processes starts disappearing.
Crypto hardware is generally "just logic" which means that it's (1) fabbed on fairly modern processes and (2) generally quite portable to other processes just by recompiling your Verilog and wiring it to a different manufacturer's PCIe PHY or whatever.
Crypto hardware is generally "just logic" which means that it's (1) fabbed on fairly modern processes and (2) generally quite portable to other processes just by recompiling your Verilog and wiring it to a different manufacturer's PCIe PHY or whatever.
I dont know much about this, but curious why you cant re-synthesize the HDL? Should the tools just be able to move it to the new process? ( Again my knowledge in this field is very limited so this may be a dumb question)
Does Bitcoin ASICs really "steal" wafer capacity from regular GPUs? Pretty different technology, I think?
Ban this, ban that. Surrre. No problem.
Also ban activists whos solution to everything is to ban stuff. Like war on drugs didn't teach them anything
That sounds really simplistic?
There are some problems for which banning isn't a solution, but there are some problems for which banning is actually a viable solution. Should we "learn" from the war on drugs and reverse the ban on CFCs? Should we avoid banning toxic substances from food?
You're gonna need a better argument than "activists who want to ban stuff should have learned from the war on drugs". You're gonna need to argue why banning cryptocurrencies is more like banning weed and not like banning CFCs.
There are some problems for which banning isn't a solution, but there are some problems for which banning is actually a viable solution. Should we "learn" from the war on drugs and reverse the ban on CFCs? Should we avoid banning toxic substances from food?
You're gonna need a better argument than "activists who want to ban stuff should have learned from the war on drugs". You're gonna need to argue why banning cryptocurrencies is more like banning weed and not like banning CFCs.
Let’s just ban the banning of things. It’ll work out.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/03/02/how-the-global-compute...
It's at the 4m15s part of the video
I think a facepalm is in order.