Topic: Why QQ? - page 2. (Read 10987 times)

In the meantime BFL delivered more devices and THash than Avalon did in all their batches combined. Bye!

 Ethics are a difficult concept to grasp for some.

 It's curious how there are similar consistent personality traits amongst people defending America's favorite Bitcoin ASIC company.

 While I'm happy that you are a satisfied customer, I hope you can appreciate how many others have had differing experiences that run counter to yours.

QQ Moar

Thought I'd just bump this topic and apoloigise to Josh. He clearly defeated the refund tsunami, by simply breaking the law and refusing preorder refunds xD

Gg.

^^
This

^This.

Alright, I will join in on turning my back on the monkey.


(BFL a market leader in ASICs? What a joke!)

If your company is the first to produce a specific type of microprocessor, and it drives the entire industry to mimic you and follow with their own ASIC designs as a result, you're a leader in that field. Especially if you were already a well known leader in the industry with other microprocessors, like, say... FPGAs...

Doesn't matter how you achieved it, or if you hired people to design it while sitting in YOUR office, or you hired them to design it while sitting in somebody else's office. Your company did the legwork to get the licensed design completed, nobody else in the industry has done it. You are the leader. You win. Full stop. End of story.

Keep fuckin' that chicken... You're clearly incapable of understanding how business and industry work. And as I said, you've definitely jumped the shark.

The Dancing Queen fails again at reading comprehension.

I said "fraudulently pass off others work as their own." not other workers.

If you claim to be an industry leader in microprocessor design and it turns out that you have no expertise in microprocessor design, do not ever engage in the act of microprocessor design, and secretly have others do the design while you claim their work as your own, that constitutes fraud if you did it to trick customers.

/pats the Dancing Queen on the head.

wrenchmonkey
Re: [Call to arms] Why don't you destroy BFL rather than QQ?
Today at 09:11:33 PM
This user is currently ignored.

wrenchmonkey
Re: [Call to arms] Why don't you destroy BFL rather than QQ?
Today at 09:16:16 PM
This user is currently ignored.

wrenchmonkey
Re: [Call to arms] Why don't you destroy BFL rather than QQ?
Today at 09:21:39 PM

wrenchmonkey
Re: [Call to arms] Why don't you destroy BFL rather than QQ?
Today at 09:30:27 PM

Etc. etc. etc.

Thank God for the bozo bin.

It's cool, logic and reading aren't for everybody...

Fraudulently pass off workers as their own? LOL. You've jumped the shark, K9, I really mean that...

When I see Wrenchmonkey in this thread it reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGfNSitVQFM

His dancing act trying to make BFL into a microprocessor design company that doesn't have anyone who can actually do microprocessor design is only slighlty less of a WTF.
I am sure everyone will be glad to hear that Wrenchmonkey says they can fraudulently pass off others work as their own.

Good idea! The rant is getting tiring.

This thread looks so much nicer with the monkey being ignored. 

Subcontractors don't care about such petty horse shit. That's why they're subcontractors.

It's called whatever the companies involved want to call it. If they want to keep that information proprietary, it's highly common to do so. NDAs exist in every industry, and they exist for a reason.

Many do, many do not. For example, Colt Firearms, the company that makes M4s and M16s for the U.S. Government. They don't manufacture a SINGLE piece of the firearm. It's all subcontracted and assembled. They slap their name and roll mark (logo) on it, and ship it out the door. They don't mark the pieces with AO Precision, and Lothar Walther, and Cero Forge, and Fabrique Nationale or any of the dozens of other possible subcontractor who make those parts. It's simply not done. In fact, those companies are forced to sign non-disclosure agreements saying that they will keep mum about who they're manufacturing their parts for. About as close as those companies are allowed get to disclosing anything about it is to say "We are a military subcontractor."

Keeping subcontractors quiet and protecting sources is BIIIIG business, and there are veritable ARMIES of attorneys who work full-time making sure NDAs don't get violated.

Basically, if it isn't directly useful for the purposes of advertising, and there's not a nice non-competition agreement in place before hand, NOBODY'S name or logo is allowed anywhere NEAR the parts in question, unless the company that actually owns the licensing puts it there. End of story.


Not sure what your point is here. Boeing and Lockheed Martin also so outsourced engineering deals (both providing and utilizing). They don't advertise when they outsource, and they damn sure don't advertise it when they provide services to outside companies, unless there's some sort of advertising agreement going on.


It's also fair to leave that out. Ultimately, it's up to the license holder to decide whether it's worthwhile to release the details of any partnerships. Sometimes there's a good reason to, sometimes there's not. More often, there's not.


We don't know what all experience they had and did not have. We know that they apparently outsourced some of the ASIC design. That doesn't mean they're completely inexperienced in semiconductor design. You're speculating on that.


More speculation, and again, completely irrelevant to the function of their company, or their claims to be an industry leader in ASIC mining hardware design (which they demonstrably were, and less arguably still are).


So then, it would seem that they lost their lead in the industry. Again, irrelevant to the question (and obvious answer in the affirmative) that they WERE a leader in ASICS and, if we want to take it a step further, FPGAs, as the time of the publication of that article.


Yay! ...totally irrelevant!

Still irrelevant to the discussion. We don't know if anything was outsourced by those other companies either, and even if it wasn't it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not BFL was a leader at the time of the publication of the article in question.


This has already been completely debunked a few pages back. bASIC never had a product, nor any apparent intention of, or progress toward, creating one.

I wonder if the company that BFL bought their ASIC design from knows that BFL is pretending the design is theirs.
That might be why BFL has never identified their supplier for the design.

Thats called a partnership.

Most companies with such large contracts usually put the logos of partners (sub-contractors if you wish) and advertise it all over the place.

Some companies specialize in specific tasks. Like Boeing specifically deals in the aerospace industry. So does Lockheed Martin. (I haven't kept up with who has bought who by the way)

It's fair to say we have partnered up with a company that has lots of talent in designing microprocessors, specifically ASIC microprocessors.

-------------------

It is untrue to paint your own company as having experience in a field where it clearly did not (notice I used past tense and hindsight).

BFL's delays were caused (mostly likely) because they didn't have the experience they claimed to have. Probably not under the same roof. Therefore, the outcome was kind of obvious. All the essential processes were seemingly outsourced, this resulted in vast delays and problems that may have been cured quickly if not done by proxy.

Has everyone forgotten the fiasco that Josh had (repeatedly) with not even knowing when their chips were coming out of the fab?

It was a multi-month long show that lasted from October till sometimes in March. Then the next fiasco took place. They had no real idea what they were doing with the packager (the next stage after the fab). And of course (predictably, if you knew the setup BFL was using) that they were going to face issues with packaging their naked chips. That alone lasted (up until April or May).

Now, they seem to have finally got the hang of it. (Finally)

----------------------

Alot of this didn't happen at either ASICMiner nor Avalon.

Why is that?

By the way, bASIC used a very similar setup to BFL. Do you see them around today?

Not every company in the world claims to be a "a market leader in microprocessor design". Only companies that do microprocessor design might make that claim (and BFL). According to you, BFL does not have any engineers who do microprocessor design, therefore they are not even a member of the microprocessor design industry. BFL cannot lead an industry that they are not part of.

BFL was passing off their subcontractor's expertise in chip design as their own.