The "work" that he is talking about is the total national, or even global, activity. Just as he explains with his lead-in that in 100 years the US went from requiring the vast amount of work to go towards farming to now being able to accomplish it with 2% of the workforce, he is saying likewise that the work required to produce housing, security, and the more vague "opportunity for our kids" is very small. He is speaking hypothetically and ideologically, and the misinterpretation that leads to the author calling Page clueless is laughably ironic.
@JoelH: If you change your statement to say "gaming marketshare" is affected by cryptocurrency, then that's correct. But you mentioned "desktop" (vs notebook), which doesn't differentiate between gaming or cryptocurrency.
Your point about the retailers being the beneficiary of the markup is also correct, and that's why I pointed out the situation would be more regrettable if AMD had cards unsold, such that they were actually losing out on sales.
First, I can't imagine market share would be calculated by ignoring channel sales as they are a large part of the shipments. That notwithstanding, I'm still unsure about the assertion that retail markup is affecting market share. Retailers are marking up the cards because demand is still present at those levels, and the product shortages in Q4 indicate they were selling all they could make. It would seem then that a production shortfall hindered market share more than pricing.
I think you meant 'unconcerned' :p
While it's true that the product's pricetag isn't unreasonable considering the cost to build something similar, I think that a large part of the customer segment that would be interested in an HTPC solution is equally interested in building it homegrown.
Nevertheless, I welcome HTPC efforts like these as each one continues to push us further towards the promise of a digital living room.
Superb analysis, Joel... and your follow up comment is insightful enough to justify an additional opinion article so that it can be more readily read.
Make them replace the original card. Or they COULD just give you the next generation ASUS Matrix 6870 or 6970 for your troubles.
(you suggested this, right?)
Not really sure the cause of death. I'm using a Corsair HX1000; I doubt the PSU had a hand in the untimely demise.
With a heavy heart, I'm here to report that the ASUS Matrix 5870 that I won from the Eyefinity Contest back in June has died. ASUS RMA has not been able to locate a replacement 5870 and has asked me if I would like to "upgrade" to the ENGTX480 or continue waiting (no timetable) for a Matrix 5870.
5870 over GTX480 pros: Eyefinity capability with the 3 monitors as part of the prize, more efficient, quieter, cooler
GTX480 over 5870 pros: ~10-15% faster, CUDA processing
Given this, my most likely scenarios would be:
1) Wait for a replacement ASUS 5870 (probably recertified): I would not have to invest any more money and I would maintain Eyefinity capability.
2) Elect for the GTX480. Highly likely that I would spend $130 for a waterblock. Lose 3-monitor capability.
3) Elect for the GTX480. Place it in my work machine (represents upgrade from 4870). Spend $300 on two GTX460s for SLI to put in the gaming rig to re-establish 3 monitor capability.
Which would you do?
The holiday bonus will be larger than $1000. $1000 is the portion of the bonus that they are moving into the base salary, so it's an additional salary bump.
If this is true, this is really misdirected implementation of profiling. In the example of car color, that relates directly to the property being insured, whereas a browser has a very loose and likely artificial (i.e. corporate, shared computer) coupling with the potential borrower.
I can't say I'm surprised, though... Capital One has always demonstrated bizarre marketing and research techniques. I wonder if this browser bias is also present with other banks/credit card companies.