Kinda the same response to be honest, the chips are fast, in my contrived example the macbook neo runs on a binned iphone 16 chip with a broken core, yet it’s fine for most people.
When I was using computers in the late 90’s, the idea of a 10 year old computer was mental. My friend would be running windows 98 on his pentium 2, and if I had a 10 year old machine it would mean a machine from the goddam 80’s, it couldn’t run anything. The difference was night and day. Now, I use a desktop PC that I built 9 years ago, intel i5, nvidia 1080ti, and it runs honestly just fine for just about everything. Wasn’t even anywhere near the top of the range back then, apart from the graphics card it was practically budget.
We’re alright. Computers are so fast now. This is my hot take of the century maybe, but the latest and greatest is always expensive and computers have honestly almost never been so affordable performance to dollar, apart from the recent ram spikes.
I am talking about electronic NON-COMPUTER devices that use computer CHIPS.
They are not going to recycle an old graphics card to build a weather radar, and it doesn’t matter how fast computers were 10 years ago when building a new elevator.
I’m saying that every modern everything needs those chips and they’re using them only for one industry, and every other industry, including but not limited to computers, is heavily impacted by that.
Well, two things. Three actually. First of all, no need to yell.
Secondly, the article didn’t make that point very well - it mentioned the mac mini (which IS a computer) and smartphones, both of which my macbook neo processor is a good analogy for. It also talked about m.2 SSD’s, and the RTX 5070 GPU in laptops. You can’t come in here and pretend you didn’t talk about computers.
But thirdly, even if that is your point, my response was mostly an example. We are not floundering for chips and you didn’t mention embedded processors or other things that “non-computer” devices use at all in the article, not even once, yet my more general point still stands. I don’t see any evidence that this will have the effect you claim it will.
This is a text medium, so yelling is literally impossible, though I did add extra punctuation to draw attention to the same point I have been making in every post in this thread that does not seem to have been heard despite being stated very plainly. Sorry if that reads as yelling, but it is meant as emphasis on a repeatedly missed point.
On the subject of the article’s contents, I am aware of its subject matter, and was making a directly adjacent point to the problem they are detailing about PCs, as one often does when engaging in conversation, rather than, say, writing an article summary. This is why I was careful to specify that I was talking about the broader electronics industry and their adjacent industries, which today encompasses many other products and supply chains beyond the obvious, because semiconductors and, yes, things made of semiconductors like memory, are present in many, many, places people don’t think of.
All of those things becoming more expensive or unavailable has the potential to slow or halt those and other industries, even ones whose products contain no electronics whatsoever. If every electronic component between Hong Kong and London costs more, a Londoner couldn’t buy so much as underpants without paying for that a dozen times because every single step of getting that underwear designed, woven, packaged, shipped, and put onto his ass costs way more or has to be done some old-fashioned slower way because some electronic gizmo is cost prohibitive or can no longer be produced.
So, in summary, the article raises alarms about the PC industry, and I am expanding the conversation to point out that PCs are merely the first and most obvious casualty of this market consolidation and resource monopolization, and discussion on this matter would be more constructive to consider the potential harms to broader society and its overall technology dependence, rather than just “Oh no, the PlayCubeBox 10,000,000 is going to cost more now!” It is quite OK to add your own context when talking about the news.
What about the literally everything else I mentioned though? Those semiconductors are in everything, not just personal computers and gaming consoles.
Kinda the same response to be honest, the chips are fast, in my contrived example the macbook neo runs on a binned iphone 16 chip with a broken core, yet it’s fine for most people.
When I was using computers in the late 90’s, the idea of a 10 year old computer was mental. My friend would be running windows 98 on his pentium 2, and if I had a 10 year old machine it would mean a machine from the goddam 80’s, it couldn’t run anything. The difference was night and day. Now, I use a desktop PC that I built 9 years ago, intel i5, nvidia 1080ti, and it runs honestly just fine for just about everything. Wasn’t even anywhere near the top of the range back then, apart from the graphics card it was practically budget.
We’re alright. Computers are so fast now. This is my hot take of the century maybe, but the latest and greatest is always expensive and computers have honestly almost never been so affordable performance to dollar, apart from the recent ram spikes.
I wouldn’t sweat it so much.
I. Am. Not. Talking. About. Personal. Computers.
I am talking about electronic NON-COMPUTER devices that use computer CHIPS.
They are not going to recycle an old graphics card to build a weather radar, and it doesn’t matter how fast computers were 10 years ago when building a new elevator.
I’m saying that every modern everything needs those chips and they’re using them only for one industry, and every other industry, including but not limited to computers, is heavily impacted by that.
Well, two things. Three actually. First of all, no need to yell.
Secondly, the article didn’t make that point very well - it mentioned the mac mini (which IS a computer) and smartphones, both of which my macbook neo processor is a good analogy for. It also talked about m.2 SSD’s, and the RTX 5070 GPU in laptops. You can’t come in here and pretend you didn’t talk about computers.
But thirdly, even if that is your point, my response was mostly an example. We are not floundering for chips and you didn’t mention embedded processors or other things that “non-computer” devices use at all in the article, not even once, yet my more general point still stands. I don’t see any evidence that this will have the effect you claim it will.
This is a text medium, so yelling is literally impossible, though I did add extra punctuation to draw attention to the same point I have been making in every post in this thread that does not seem to have been heard despite being stated very plainly. Sorry if that reads as yelling, but it is meant as emphasis on a repeatedly missed point.
On the subject of the article’s contents, I am aware of its subject matter, and was making a directly adjacent point to the problem they are detailing about PCs, as one often does when engaging in conversation, rather than, say, writing an article summary. This is why I was careful to specify that I was talking about the broader electronics industry and their adjacent industries, which today encompasses many other products and supply chains beyond the obvious, because semiconductors and, yes, things made of semiconductors like memory, are present in many, many, places people don’t think of.
All of those things becoming more expensive or unavailable has the potential to slow or halt those and other industries, even ones whose products contain no electronics whatsoever. If every electronic component between Hong Kong and London costs more, a Londoner couldn’t buy so much as underpants without paying for that a dozen times because every single step of getting that underwear designed, woven, packaged, shipped, and put onto his ass costs way more or has to be done some old-fashioned slower way because some electronic gizmo is cost prohibitive or can no longer be produced.
So, in summary, the article raises alarms about the PC industry, and I am expanding the conversation to point out that PCs are merely the first and most obvious casualty of this market consolidation and resource monopolization, and discussion on this matter would be more constructive to consider the potential harms to broader society and its overall technology dependence, rather than just “Oh no, the PlayCubeBox 10,000,000 is going to cost more now!” It is quite OK to add your own context when talking about the news.