BFL to not match competitors products not shipped

[meowmeowbrowncow]

From BFL_Josh at the BFL forum

I don't really want to say anything negative about the bASIC at this point... Tom is already apparently in a really bad spot and there is no sense pouring gas on that fire. We haven't decided specifically which way we want to make things even up with competitors products yet, but we have a lot of options and we will match competitors products that actually ship. We will not leave BFL customers behind the curve when it comes to hardware. I'd say there's a good chance we will be shipping before bASIC at this point.

Should BFL's customers take this to mean BFL will reserve any competitive action until competitor products are on the market?


If so, where would this leave BFL customers who have already taken delivery if BFL does ship first and 72GH/s products are on the market shortly thereafter?


IMO, at best, this is a conservative move.  At worst, it's a disingenuous ploy to deny competitive pressure.

[Fcx35x10]

This sure might get confusing. I really hope BFL compensates

[itsgoldbaby]

"Tom is already apparently in a really bad spot and there is no sense pouring gas on that fire" ?? I'd love to know what he is talking about here. Or is this just being a douchebag?

[beekeeper]

BFL stated that their chips can be overclocked to 200% of safe speed (doubling so hashrate). Probably one scenario is that they will send the devices working at announced hashrate, then, if required, distribute a new firmware which will overclock them to match bASIC devices speed. The only problem if they go this way, imo, is that their last chip versions arent tested, since they didnt get them yet. Overclocking may work or may result in lots of killed devices.
Other way is to add extra chips on Jalapeno and little Single boards, when assembling them; however, I think single (and probably mini rig) cant be upgraded this way.
And ofc, other way is to manufacture new boards.
There are many variables anyway, power circuit, heatsinks, maybe BFL designed their devices expecting such development (I think I read somewhere Inaba saying so), still, it is hard to understand how, any of this two companies, can redesign and retest their devices in less than two - three weeks.

[bcpokey]

I think this is just josh being a douche, but I don't really take too much umbrage with this because apparently Tom has been a huge douche too. Basically both companies are acting in a far more immature manner than I'd like to see out of the keyholders of the future of Bitcoin mining, but what can I do about it, just a lowly end-user.

That said, it's obvious that BFL can and will not change their design to meet the new standard set by bAsic, for their first line of ASIC devices. Which is fine really, BFL has the Watt/Hash advantage, now it seems bAsic has the $/Hash advantage. People get to choose which they value more, short-term or long-term incentives (or mix and match). They both have merit. If they unleash a wave of slightly superior asics at the same price point immediately after shipping their first gen though, that will certainly be unfortunate.

I don't think BFL will, or should advocate overclocking their devices after the fact to meet competition, murdering ASIC chips will not yield happy customers, and if their lifetime warranty supports overclocked rigs, then you will also create headache in servicing burnt out machines.

All in all though, when your product hasn't shipped, and is months behind schedule, pointing fingers at another product and saying that they haven't shipped so it's all pie in the sky, and you MIGHT ship before them now, is a little bit much.

[Stephen Gornick]

If so, where would this leave BFL customers who have already taken delivery if BFL does ship first and 72GH/s products are on the market shortly thereafter?

Well, it would probably leave them in the best position possible at this point.    I doubt there is a single person who would turn down the chance to receive BFL's 60 Ghash/s today versus waiting a month to be able to receive a 72 Ghash/s device in its place -- especially if that 72Ghash/s is competing against ASICs starting to be delivered from competitors like bASIC.

[meowmeowbrowncow]

All thoughtful responses.  Thanks.

Here's what I find odd.  It's in the details regarding BFL's chips.  Someone responded on this point, but I want to highlight it again.

Recap


Shipping delays

BFL implies that bASIC's shipping timeline will be adversely affected by the addition of additional ASIC chips, to 72 GH/s, to the bASIC PCB's.  

I think it's fair to say this is true.  bASIC will incur partial PCB redesign and without knowing how far along in their PCB design/production process it's unclear how this redesign impacts their schedule.

Being so close to reported shipping dates makes it reasonable to assume the dates will be missed.


On the BFL shipping front BFL_Josh has expanded on the bASIC 72 GH/s development by stating

We will not allow our shipping schedule to be affected by responding to questionable claims from competitors.


BFL insinuates that by responding to bASIC that they would put their shipping schedule in (further) jeopardy.  

Here's the rub.  Based on BFL's statements the current Single 60 GH/s offering has ASIC chips at 50-60% of their claimed maximum clock rate.

So, BFL increased their ASIC clock rates in the past to address Avalon.  No additional ASIC chips, no PCB redesign.  What I will assume makes this increase is a firmware tweak.


Why not another ~20% increase from BFL through the same firmware tweak?  No shipping impact.  To claim otherwise is suspicious - but there may be other factors.

[Frizz23]

Here's the rub.  Based on BFL's statements the current Single 60 GH/s offering has ASIC chips at 50-60% of their claimed maximum clock rate.

You seriously believe that? Why would BMW sell cars that only use 50% of their engine power? Why would Intel sell CPU's that run at 1,3GHz instead of 2,3GHz?

[Inaba]

Here's the rub.  Based on BFL's statements the current Single 60 GH/s offering has ASIC chips at 50-60% of their claimed maximum clock rate.

You seriously believe that? Why would BMW sell cars that only use 50% of their engine power? Why would Intel sell CPU's that run at 1,3GHz instead of 2,3GHz?

OMG... there is not enough facepalm in the world to adequately describe the fail.

[salfter]

Here's the rub.  Based on BFL's statements the current Single 60 GH/s offering has ASIC chips at 50-60% of their claimed maximum clock rate.

You seriously believe that? Why would BMW sell cars that only use 50% of their engine power? Why would Intel sell CPU's that run at 1,3GHz instead of 2,3GHz?

IBM used to sell computers with the maximum hardware configuration, but with processors, memory, etc. disabled to varying degrees according to how much money you were paying them. If you needed more power, you called them up, paid whatever amount, and they sent someone around to enable more of the hardware that was already in the machine.

[beekeeper]

OMG... there is not enough facepalm in the world to adequately describe the fail.

aha, lol, you got the last chips and you are testing them right now.. 

[Frizz23]

Here's the rub.  Based on BFL's statements the current Single 60 GH/s offering has ASIC chips at 50-60% of their claimed maximum clock rate.

You seriously believe that? Why would BMW sell cars that only use 50% of their engine power? Why would Intel sell CPU's that run at 1,3GHz instead of 2,3GHz?

IBM used to sell computers with the maximum hardware configuration, but with processors, memory, etc. disabled to varying degrees according to how much money you were paying them. If you needed more power, you called them up, paid whatever amount, and they sent someone around to enable more of the hardware that was already in the machine.

I know. And AMD/ATI disables cores to make a 7950 from a 7970. etc.

But a BFL Single is a BFL single. There is no Single 56, Single 58 or Single 60.

[crazyates]

I thought that the SC Single could go up to 200% of what it was, but that was back when it was 40GH/s. It was my impression that they said it could go up to 1GHz, but that it was running at 500mhz to make 40GHs. Since they've increased the specs to 60GH/s, I thought they increased the clock to 750mhz. To make 72GH/s, they'd have to run it at 900mhz, pretty close to the max. Inaba, you care to correct me if I'm wrong?

[Frizz23]

It's not uncommon for a product (of nearly any type) to run well below peak performance for extended lifespan ...

But this is the race for GHash my friend. I doubt that anyone (BFL, Tom, Avalon, ...) care that much about things like lifespan ...

[meebs]

Here's the rub.  Based on BFL's statements the current Single 60 GH/s offering has ASIC chips at 50-60% of their claimed maximum clock rate.

You seriously believe that? Why would BMW sell cars that only use 50% of their engine power? Why would Intel sell CPU's that run at 1,3GHz instead of 2,3GHz?

at least for the intel side.. it is due to having to have multiple products at different pricing points. chip manufacturers do this ALL the time

[MinorMiner]

It's not uncommon for a product (of nearly any type) to run well below peak performance for extended lifespan ...

But this is the race for GHash my friend. I doubt that anyone (BFL, Tom, Avalon, ...) care that much about things like lifespan ...

If BFL is offering a lifetime warranty on their units (I believe they are?) then they would be foolish to jeopardize the longevity of their hardware by clocking it too hard, since they would foot the bill. Add to that I'd rather have something that runs cooler and for longer than a unit that is producing 0GH/s as it's being shipped back to the manufacturer for repair/replacement.

[Frizz23]

If BFL is offering a lifetime warranty on their units (I believe they are?) then they would be foolish to jeopardize the longevity of their hardware ...

From Wikipedia:
"A lifetime warranty is usually a guarantee on the lifetime of the product on the market rather than the lifetime of the consumer (the exact meaning should be defined in the actual warranty documentation). If a product has been discontinued and is no longer available, the warranty may last a limited period longer."

As with many things in the marketing jargon, they might turn out different from what you'd expect ...

[creativex]

That said, it's obvious that BFL can and will not change their design to meet the new standard set by bAsic, for their first line of ASIC devices. Which is fine really, BFL has the Watt/Hash advantage, now it seems bAsic has the $/Hash advantage. People get to choose which they value more, short-term or long-term incentives (or mix and match). They both have merit. If they unleash a wave of slightly superior asics at the same price point immediately after shipping their first gen though, that will certainly be unfortunate.

Except bASIC had BFL beaten in the $/Hash battle before they announced this increase. Just, now it's a genuine woodshed thrashing.

54Gh@$1069 = $19.79/Gh
72Gh@$1069 = $14.84/Gh
60Gh@$1299 = $21.65/Gh 

...and the consolation prize for going with BFL's significantly more expensive product? They'll have a chance of shipping first. Like in October, November, December?? Fact is they've gotten the vast majority of their orders from people EXPECTING them to ship first, so if they don't it's just another steaming mug of FAIL. Yes they should have a power advantage, if they aren't way off on their estimate AGAIN, but even the estimated efficiency advantage BFL had is shrinking with increased hashing from bASIC at the same power consumption.

I've no idea why at this point anyone would order from Bunch of Friggin Liars and I feel for those that did order from them months ago expecting to be hashing with their ASICs right now.

[Dalkore]

Here's the rub.  Based on BFL's statements the current Single 60 GH/s offering has ASIC chips at 50-60% of their claimed maximum clock rate.

You seriously believe that? Why would BMW sell cars that only use 50% of their engine power? Why would Intel sell CPU's that run at 1,3GHz instead of 2,3GHz?

Actually it is quite documented that many cars can get computer chips that can increase their performance to these sorts of levels (25-35%).  Actually to create a "product line" many companies so this.  Look at the difference in GPUs  take a ATI 5850 and 5830 and look at the differences, tell me if you think that is a different chip or just some "tweaks".   Sorry to break this to you but it is standard practice.

[Inaba]

That said, it's obvious that BFL can and will not change their design to meet the new standard set by bAsic, for their first line of ASIC devices. Which is fine really, BFL has the Watt/Hash advantage, now it seems bAsic has the $/Hash advantage. People get to choose which they value more, short-term or long-term incentives (or mix and match). They both have merit. If they unleash a wave of slightly superior asics at the same price point immediately after shipping their first gen though, that will certainly be unfortunate.

Except bASIC had BFL beaten in the $/Hash battle before they announced this increase. Just, now it's a genuine woodshed thrashing.

54Gh@$1069 = $19.79/Gh
72Gh@$1069 = $14.84/Gh
60Gh@$1299 = $21.65/Gh  

...and the consolation prize for going with BFL's significantly more expensive product? They'll have a chance of shipping first. Like in October, November, December?? Fact is they've gotten the vast majority of their orders from people EXPECTING them to ship first, so if they don't it's just another steaming mug of FAIL. Yes they should have a power advantage, if they aren't way off on their estimate AGAIN, but even the estimated efficiency advantage BFL had is shrinking with increased hashing from bASIC at the same power consumption.

I've no idea why at this point anyone would order from Bunch of Friggin Liars and I feel for those that did order from them months ago expecting to be hashing with their ASICs right now.

I love how you completely leave out the part where we have already committed to matching competitors products.  Oh.. but then that would mean you don't have anything to complain about, right?  The only Big Friggin Liar here is you, I'm afraid.