Oops. Send this privately by accident.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Jose Hevia <[email protected]> wrote: >> Of course, most companies that set out, a priori, to be fabless and >> license IP for profit tend to fail disastrously. But we're not trying >> to sustain a company on this. Indeed, the profit margin would have to >> be painfully small in order to be the least bit competitive anyhow. >> Our objective is to put a completely open GPU design out on the >> market, and that isn't necessarily profitable. > > I disagree on that. You were three technical people with a lot of > technical engineering knowledge that tried to make a company and did > not success. This does not mean that a company could not be sustained > on it, or that the profit margin has to be small. That's only if you > try to do what giants are already doing like you did before. Actually, I was thinking of BitBoys. > > First thing you need is somebody with marketing knowledge. That is, a > person who is specialized in identifying people's needs and a better > understanding of people so you focus better instead of spreading > yourself too thin. The problem with engineers is that they disrespect > marketing and management. On doing so they are disrespecting their > customers. As you now know, is not that easy to ship. On the contrary, I think marketing is what drives every successful venture. I'm an engineer and/or scientist, but I'm fully aware of the value of PR. I founded the OGP on the basis of good PR. Sure, there's a fair amount of code I've written for this project, but I think I did a lot more PR than coding. > That way you can do something that nobody has done before. The concept > of "GPU" was created by Nvidia, you don't need to compete with Nvidia, > they are too strong to compete with them in their own terms. We do need to try to think outside of the box. > > Go for something that they will never do but benefits the community > ans start small so people can support you. People want to support you > but you need to provide with an excuse. E.g it is very hard for me to > spend money on a card that just display text graphics but I could > support a module that automatically splits a 3d model in layers and > makes a path for the 3d printer without a computer. Maybe the text > graphics display is harder design but the 3d module is more useful for > me, and the fact that is open means is much much useful that a closed > one. I'm eliminating hardware from the equation, for the foreseeable future. > >> Think about leveraging the brainpower of the FOSS community to design >> a GPU that outperforms and is more energy-efficient than PowerVR. A >> compelling-enough design would get market penetration. Eventually, it >> would make its way from embedded systems into desktop systems and >> supercomputers (GPGPU, etc.), and we would all benefit from having an >> open architecture dominate in graphics. > > Sounds good. > _______________________________________________ > Open-graphics mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics > List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com) -- Timothy Normand Miller http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti Open Graphics Project -- Timothy Normand Miller http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti Open Graphics Project _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
