Radeon HD 7000 Revealed: AMD to Mix GCN with VLIW4 & VLIW5 Architectures

[tajoh111]

Why is it bad for the consumer?

Those who dont want to spend the money can wait 2-6 months for the prices to drop to more "acceptable" levels.



I've always found these price arguments to be rather confusing (as to why they happen). Top end new stuff costs money. New top end stuff brings previous top end stuff down in price. If there is no or little competition then you need to pay what the manufacturer thinks their product is worth. If not enough people are paying then they receive poor cash flow and either lower the price to get more transfer (10 people at $500 is more than 8 people at $600 for example) or tough it out.

end of story.

We are consumers. We vote with our wallet.

Anything that causes the consumer to spend more money is bad for the consumer, I don't see how you don't get this. Higher prices overall means everyone is spending more. Similarly, having to wait for longer for a certain level of performance or technology is also a bad thing. It should be pretty clear that when smaller group of consumers get to enjoy a particular level of performance or technology, it is not bad for the consumer. In addition with development cycles as long as they are, priced drops can take a long time to happen, especially without competition.

If there is no or little competition then you need to pay what the manufacturer thinks their product is worth.

The thing is that this is a monopoly, atleast in principle, pricing can get to unfair levels because there is no competition and the manufacturer gets to name the price.

Even the top end customer who is willing to pay 650 dollar to get the top of the line product right away can benefit from lower prices.Even though that said person was willing to pay 650, lets say that said person only had to pay 500 dollars. This means that person now has an extra 150 dollars in their product and over multiple upgradings, these can build up to significant levels. Having more money in your pocket is a good thing and with the consumer always wanting to get their most for their money, this is ultimately why higher videocard pricing is bad for the consumer.

[STEvil]

Anything that causes the consumer to spend more money is bad for the consumer, I don't see how you don't get this. Higher prices overall means everyone is spending more. Similarly, having to wait for longer for a certain level of performance or technology is also a bad thing. It should be pretty clear that when smaller group of consumers get to enjoy a particular level of performance or technology, it is not bad for the consumer. In addition with development cycles as long as they are, priced drops can take a long time to happen, especially without competition.

If there is no or little competition then you need to pay what the manufacturer thinks their product is worth.

The thing is that this is a monopoly, atleast in principle, pricing can get to unfair levels because there is no competition and the manufacturer gets to name the price.

Even the top end customer who is willing to pay 650 dollar to get the top of the line product right away can benefit from lower prices.Even though that said person was willing to pay 650, lets say that said person only had to pay 500 dollars. This means that person now has an extra 150 dollars in their product and over multiple upgradings, these can build up to significant levels. Having more money in your pocket is a good thing and with the consumer always wanting to get their most for their money, this is ultimately why higher videocard pricing is bad for the consumer.

IF this were a need and not a luxury I would probably agree with you. However this is a luxury item and you have the privilege to buy it, or the right to not as based on your personal wealth management.

Price drops are driven by market cash flow, development cycle, and competitor cycle. Wanting to pay less for something doesnt make it cost less, especially in a capitalist system.

This is in no way, shape, or form a monopoly. If you want to purchase a similar performing product from another manufacturer you can go do that today (but it will cost you more).


If you saved $150 would you really hold onto it for 2+ years it would take to save up another $500 to get your next high end card? It would be spent eventually, so your choice is to pay now, or wait until one of the three large price factors pushes prices down. You can complain until you're blue in the face if you want in the mean time, but its just inefficient in the face of the facts of how the market works.

[tajoh111]

IF this were a need and not a luxury I would probably agree with you. However this is a luxury item and you have the privilege to buy it, or the right to not as based on your personal wealth management.

Price drops are driven by market cash flow, development cycle, and competitor cycle. Wanting to pay less for something doesnt make it cost less, especially in a capitalist system.

This is in no way, shape, or form a monopoly. If you want to purchase a similar performing product from another manufacturer you can go do that today (but it will cost you more).


If you saved $150 would you really hold onto it for 2+ years it would take to save up another $500 to get your next high end card? It would be spent eventually, so your choice is to pay now, or wait until one of the three large price factors pushes prices down. You can complain until you're blue in the face if you want in the mean time, but its just inefficient in the face of the facts of how the market works.

I think you are confusing what is bad for the consumer for what it is bad for people in general. A huge basis of your argument is, that because it is a luxury item, it really doesn't effect the consumer. If the consumer only purchased items that are needs, such as food, shelter and utilities, the capitalist market as we known it would not exist and even more primitive markets would fall apart. Having the choice to spend money or not doesn't make saving money not a good thing for the consumer.


If what your saying is true about because things are luxuries, consumers are not worse off because they have a choice to pay a higher price or not, monopolies are not bad and do not effect the consumer really. For example if AMD went out of business with Intel and Nvidia slowing down their development cycles and generally raised their prices, the consumer would not be worse off.

If we take the heart of your argument, we can also interpret this as, as long as people get to live above the poverty line, they really don't need to worry about anything else and the pricing of luxury goods(most things are this) doesn't effect them because they have the choice to spend money or not and money saved means nothing.

Your justification for higher prices not being bad is, it is not a luxury item so the consumer can wait and has a choice to pay or not. What a monopoly does in most consumer cases is increase prices on what is typically a luxury item and slow down development cycles. But according to your argument, the consumer can simply wait things out. This does not make sense, because waiting things out is already bad for the consumer, saving money should always be a plus for the consumer. I don't think there can be an argument against this. This doesn't involve economics at all. It is just common sense.

Your argument below is a blanket statement.

You can complain until you're blue in the face if you want in the mean time, but its just inefficient in the face of the facts of how the market works.

Anytime the consumer saves more money, it gives them more wealth to either spend on true needs, semi luxuries like schooling, housing or more money saved for a rainy day, expensive prescriptions or retirement. Saving money is cumulative, so saving any chance a person can get is good.

[Kurz]

I think you are confusing what is bad for the consumer for what it is bad for people in general. A huge basis of your argument is, that because it is a luxury item, it really doesn't effect the consumer. If the consumer only purchased items that are needs, such as food, shelter and utilities, the capitalist market as we known it would not exist and even more primitive markets would fall apart. Having the choice to spend money or not doesn't make saving money not a good thing for the consumer.

People are consumers of something... There is no differentiation necessary. There is a difference between Goods that are basic to survival and goods that you can live without. You are completely forgetting about the Producer which is the only reason why the product exists in the first place. They have a right to sell the item at whatever cost they think its worth. If people pay for it thats good for both parties. Since both Groups are benefiting from the transaction. Though if the Producer realizes he isn't selling enough then he'll reduce the price in order to get more income/profit for his work.

If what your saying is true about because things are luxuries, consumers are not worse off because they have a choice to pay a higher price or not, monopolies are not bad and do not effect the consumer really. For example if AMD went out of business with Intel and Nvidia slowing down their development cycles and generally raised their prices, the consumer would not be worse off.

Well if the price is too high for people, people wont pay for it. Lets say for example if Intel and Nvidia increased the price for their PC goods because of the lack of competition it'll just drive more and more people away towards other platforms such as ARM, Consoles, etc.. Other example Alcoa had a Monopoly on Aluminum in the world for many years... They couldn't charge too much because consumers just bought steel instead.

If we take the heart of your argument, we can also interpret this as, as long as people get to live above the poverty line, they really don't need to worry about anything else and the pricing of luxury goods(most things are this) doesn't effect them because they have the choice to spend money or not and money saved means nothing.

Your justification for higher prices not being bad is, it is not a luxury item so the consumer can wait and has a choice to pay or not. What a monopoly does in most consumer cases is increase prices on what is typically a luxury item and slow down development cycles. But according to your argument, the consumer can simply wait things out. This does not make sense, because waiting things out is already bad for the consumer, saving money should always be a plus for the consumer. I don't think there can be an argument against this. This doesn't involve economics at all. It is just common sense.

Monopolies are not bad in themselves they are the sole producer of the good. If another corporation wants to come in to compete and can provide lower cost goods they can do so. A monopoly always has to be mindful of this.
They can't charge too much for a product or they'll attract a competitor as soon as they charge too high of a price. The wait for a product isnt that long... It takes just a few years for a product to be RD and put out to be sold.
Most electronics can last at least 10 years with proper maintenance so there is no need to upgrade. (Still using computers from 2001 in my work). If the monopoly charges too high a price they also can delay upgrade cycles for the consumers.

Anytime the consumer saves more money, it gives them more wealth to either spend on true needs, semi luxuries like schooling, housing or more money saved for a rainy day, expensive prescriptions or retirement. Saving money is cumulative, so saving any chance a person can get is good.

These are all true... though you are obviously against the businesses who provide the good/service and feel entitled to their labor.
You do not deserve a lower price. If the producer/seller lowers the price then you buy it! Vote with your wallet trying to garner Morality because you think the price is too high is short sighted and foolish.