SkyDekker 1,465
Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuotePrices dropped dramatically once betamax was no longer the only player in that market.
If prices dropped, according to the statements above that between cheaper, faster and better only two can happen at the same time, current recorders ahve to be either slower or of lower quality.
Apparently it is engineering 101, which would have absolutely nothing to do competition.
No different analogy is needed, however I will give you one.
1980 VHS Camcorder $1,599
2009 HD digital camcorder $800
S would you argue that the 2009 camcorder is slower or of lower quality than the 1980 model?
It's meant as an explanation of the the tradeoffs inherent in design and manufacturing, not as a physical law. Of course, you already knew that and you're just stirring shit to see if you can get a reaction.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteOf course, you already knew that and you're just stirring shit to see if you can get a reaction.
Nope, just indicating that when holding on to pre-conceived notions you limit yourself.
billvon 3,176
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I'll let you cost a DVR at Best Buy, but it's better, cheaper and faster......
Right. Now try to buy a Blu-Ray recorder for the same price. You might have to sacrifice cost to get the performance you want.
Or you could buy that DVD recorder at Best Buy for $99 - and have it crap out in a year. That would be another tradeoff.
Right. Now try to buy a Blu-Ray recorder for the same price. You might have to sacrifice cost to get the performance you want.
Or you could buy that DVD recorder at Best Buy for $99 - and have it crap out in a year. That would be another tradeoff.
jcd11235 0
Quote>Never did agree with this.....Actually I think it is a load of shit.
It may be shitty, but it reflects reality.
It only reflects reality if quality and speed have already been maximized at a particular price point. That is often not the case (e.g., software, where the best quality, fastest software options are often open source freeware).
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteRight. Now try to buy a Blu-Ray recorder for the same price. You might have to sacrifice cost to get the performance you want.
Right, so in some cases it is true, in some cases it is false. Means that the statement as a whole is false.
(Or really just far too simplistic)
billvon 3,176
>Right, so in some cases it is true, in some cases it is false.
?? No, it's pretty much always true, both in my examples and in yours.
?? No, it's pretty much always true, both in my examples and in yours.
champu 1
"Faster" in the context of the axiom means "sooner" (i.e. faster to market.) It doesn't mean "faster performance," that would fall under "better." For example, the 2009 camcorder is 19 years "slower" than the 1980 model. If someone paid me a little more or gave me some more time I'm sure I could come up with an axiom that didn't have that ambiguity.
If you want something better and cheaper, wait a while.
If you want something better, right now, pony up.
If you want something right now, and don't want to pay top dollar, you get what you pay for.
If you want something better and cheaper, wait a while.
If you want something better, right now, pony up.
If you want something right now, and don't want to pay top dollar, you get what you pay for.
SethInMI 174
Quote"Faster" in the context of the axiom means "sooner" (i.e. faster to market.)
I guess it can be thought of that way, but I have always heard without the time to market implication:
Faster means higher performance.
Better means higher quality (rugged, robust, fewer defects, etc)
Cheaper means lower cost.
The incredible shrinking transistor has made amazing exceptions to this rule (do a die shrink correctly and you can come up with lower cost parts that have higher performance with little to no loss in quality), and that has made our modern world possible.
But get outside that transistor exception and the rule is a pretty good explanation for the tradeoffs involved in design and engineering.
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".
champu 1
I was thinking of "faster, better, cheaper" as associated with Daniel Goldin (Director of NASA, 1992-2001) and his quest to improve cost, schedule, and reliability of space missions all at the same time. I thought the term was originally attributed to him, but I could be wrong.
The "pick two" trade off tends to be even more clear in the commercial world because the obvious question, "than what?" is more readily answered. If your cheaper and faster spacecraft has a reliability of 0.9 vs. another design that has a reliability of 0.99, and both manage to get the one-time only job done, which one was "better"?
The "pick two" trade off tends to be even more clear in the commercial world because the obvious question, "than what?" is more readily answered. If your cheaper and faster spacecraft has a reliability of 0.9 vs. another design that has a reliability of 0.99, and both manage to get the one-time only job done, which one was "better"?
billvon 3,176
>but I have always heard without the time to market implication:
Hmm. The way we present it is BOM, schedule, performance, pick any three. BOM is bill of materials and is basically cost, schedule is time to develop, performance is via whatever metrics we use (bit error rate, bandwidth, efficiency etc.)
Hmm. The way we present it is BOM, schedule, performance, pick any three. BOM is bill of materials and is basically cost, schedule is time to develop, performance is via whatever metrics we use (bit error rate, bandwidth, efficiency etc.)
nerdgirl 0
I understood what you meant by the comment.
Didn't know that ... neat. Thanks!
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
QuoteI was thinking of "faster, better, cheaper" as associated with Daniel Goldin (Director of NASA, 1992-2001) and his quest to improve cost, schedule, and reliability of space missions all at the same time. I thought the term was originally attributed to him, but I could be wrong.
Didn't know that ... neat. Thanks!
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
SethInMI 174
I didn't know the NASA reference either. I like your (or Daniels) idea anyway, because it is more hopeful:
With a big enough R&D budget, anything is possible!
With a big enough R&D budget, anything is possible!
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".
If prices dropped, according to the statements above that between cheaper, faster and better only two can happen at the same time, current recorders ahve to be either slower or of lower quality.
Apparently it is engineering 101, which would have absolutely nothing to do competition.
No different analogy is needed, however I will give you one.
1980 VHS Camcorder $1,599
2009 HD digital camcorder $800
S would you argue that the 2009 camcorder is slower or of lower quality than the 1980 model?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites