Re: XMOS XC-1 kits are ****pping

steveu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Oct 14, 1:31 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>>> There was nothing innovative about the design of the Transputer. The
>>> device as it was supposed to be (i.e. separate comms and execution
>>> planes), rather than the crippled one they ****pped, was similar to
>>> designs several people in the UK (and presumably elsewhere) were
>>> toying with at that time. The others did not proceed because the
>>> economics looked so wrong.
>> Toying means nothing in our industry, it's all about rolling out actual
>> product. That is what Inmos did. But:
>>
>> The economics didn't have to look wrong. They were wrong because IMHO a
>> cardinal mistake had been made: Entering the market with very high
price
>> tags. That was bound to fail and cause me to turn away. Same thing
>> happened with S/C filter chips.
>>
>> Next, they should have lined up an early licensing deal with a major
>> semiconductor manufacturer, one that engineers trust. This is extremely
>> im****tant. Nobody in their right mind would design in a single-source
>> part from a tiny manufacturer without a serious business track record.
>> My guess is that a few more business-thinkers could have potentially
>> saved the bacon at Inmos.
> 
> Going to market with an impractical product is much worse than toying
> and figuring out its impractical before you spend the big bucks. I
> remember when the Inmos people kept trying to sell their filter chip
> into a board I was doing. The board's BOM target was about 130 pounds
> (more or less met in the end), while their chip in 100k volume was
> something like 800 pounds. I guess the salesman had few other leads to
> follow if he kept wasting his time on us.
> 

That's exactly the cardinal mistake I mentioned above. Coming into the 
market with a totally unrealistic price is bound to fail. And it did.

Usually that happens after spending big bucks in NRE, it's all way 
behind schedule and the investors demand a rather quick and unrealistic 
ROI. Seen it many times, failed every single time. You should have seen 
some of the faces here when high-faluting chips were presented and then 
I told them that my discrete solution costs a buck fifty.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.