Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards?

On 2014-09-21, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote:
> Op 21-Sep-14 15:25, Grant Edwards schreef:
>> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote:
>>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef:
>>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code.  I don't
>>>>> want to *have to* share it.
>>>>
>>>> No, you don't have to share anything.  There are any number of vendors
>>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they
>>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they
>>>> aren't obligated to share with me.
>>>
>>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers,
>>
>> No, you don't.  You can modify GPL code and not share it.
>
> So you are saying I could take a GPL product, for example Linux, modify 
> it, sell it to customers but still deny them access to the source code?

No.  I said you could modify and then not share it. By "share" I mean
give/sell/whatever.  When you sell a copy to a customer, you are
sharing it, and the GPL places requirements on how that sharing is
done.  You can't share just the binary and refuse access to the
source, share one, share both.  Or share none, if you prefer -- you
don't _have_ to share the modified program.  But if you do share the
object/binary you have to _also_ share source.

> That is an interpretation of GPL that I haven't heard before. If your 
> interpretation is correct I wonder what the big deal is with GPL and why 
> companies who sell products based on GPL'ed code even bother which 
> providing (usually not only) their customers access to the source code?

I didn't say you you were alloed to share binaries and not source.  I

>> Only if you decide to share the modified program.
>
> Which is exactly what you do when you sell it to your customers.

Yes.

>> If you just want to modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's
>> fine.
>
> That is only when you keep it to yourself,

Right.  I said you can modify GPL code and not share it.  That is
true.  What you can't do is share binaries and not share source.

> my understanding of GPL is that as soon as you sell it you are not
> allowed to deny your customers access to your (modified) sources.

That is correct.

What somebody said was that when you modify GPL code you are forced by
the GPL to share it.  That is not true.  You are allowed to keep it
completely to yourself if you want to.

-- 
Grant

On 2014-09-21, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
> On 9/21/2014 6:25 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote:
>>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef:
>>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code.  I don't
>>>>> want to *have to* share it.
>>>>
>>>> No, you don't have to share anything.  There are any number of vendors
>>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they
>>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they
>>>> aren't obligated to share with me.
>>>
>>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers,
>>
>> No, you don't.  You can modify GPL code and not share it.  What the
>> GPL does is place requirements on _how_ you share it should you decide
>> to do so.
>
> The problem in this statement is the implications of the word "share".
> In a colloquial sense, we think of sharing as something COOPERATIVE
> that you do.  In this context, "buying into the FOSS idea".
>
> Your statement is more technical:  read "share" as "distribute it to
> anyone for any purpose" (e.g., SELLING something is "sharing" in your
> statement)

Yes.  That seemed to be the meaning of "share" that I was replying to
(at least that's how I understood it).

>> Only if you decide to share the modified program.  If you just want to
>> modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine.
>
> Conversely, "Not sharing" is NOT selling, distributing, etc.  "Keeping
> it entirely to yourself".

Exactly.

-- 
Grant

On 9/21/2014 2:56 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 9/21/2014 4:33 AM, rickman wrote:
>>>> The question is why do you want someone to build 100,000 of them?
>>>
>>> Don't *you* want your designs used?
>>
>> Are these two things equivalent in your mind?  If I want my designs
>> used, I'm
>> not going to worry about whether a company can use them to make
>> profit.  I
>> would prefer to make that myself.
>>
>> This is *very* off the topic we have been discussing.
>
> You asked why I would want someone to build 100,000 (or *any*!) of them.
>
> What's the rule or discussions, here?  If you ask a question, I should
> NOT answer it for fear of being accused of dragging the discussion
> off-topic?
>
> While YOU folks seem to gripe about the length of my posts and how far
> afield
> they get, please recall that this happens as a CONSEQUENCE of questions
> that
> YOU FOLKS raise!
>
> *I* asked about Atoms.  I didn't bring Linux or manufacturing my own
> products
> into this discussion.  Please browse back upthread to see how these
> issues were
> raised.
>
> In the future, please don't be annoyed if I respond to questions for
> further clarification -- or suggestions -- with a terse:  "No", or
> "that's not important".  That way the discussion will remain on topic.
> I *always* try to provide adequate information to elicit thoughtful
> responses.  If you need more (e.g., "why do you want to do this?")
> then I'm sorry, I'll just have to reply with "treat it as a homework
> problem:  wombats crossing the road, etc."  Presumably, you are all
> capable of answering a question posed in the abstract?  Without
> being completely constrained/specified?
>
> That way, you won't have to wonder what hair-brained scheme I am working
> on; or "save" me from an approach you consider fool-hardy; or "educate"
> me on the marvels of Gismodics.  *SO* much easier for all of us, eh?
> I won't have to write long explanations -- or pose examples of why I
> am taking a particular approach or a particular situation that I have
> anticipated (if you invest a comparable amount of time, you can always
> anticipate that situation yourself!  And, if you're not really that
> interested in the issue, then you won't mind NOT knowing of those
> pitfalls).
>
> Because it really isn't worth the hassle trying to explain myself and
> then being berated for "not sticking to the subject", "too long-winded",
> etc.
>
>>>>> This is a sizable investment.  One would want to be sure to be able
>>>>> to make
>>>>> money on the manufacture (and any future product enhancements) before
>>>>> opening up their wallet!
>>>>
>>>> Do you have anyone interested?  If someone wanted to market such a
>>>> product, the
>>>> actual engineering of the board and software is not the biggest part
>>>> of their
>>>> expense.  As you realize the packaging is a huge investment and the
>>>> marketing
>>>> on top.  Why would they bother with your design rather than design it
>>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> Why would Google buy Nest?  For how many billions of dollars?  How many
>>> multiples of their total sales??  Heck, can't the folks at Google come
>>> up with a thermostat design on their own??  :>
>>
>> Do you think the only value of Nest is their electronic designs?
>> Remember all
>> those other things I mentioned that are required to launch a product?
>> Then
>> there is risk.  Why try to create something not knowing how well it
>> will turn
>> out vs. grabbing something that is already successful.
>
> The Market hadn't claimed Nest was a "success".  Note the bru-ha-ha over
> the
> price Google paid.
>
>>>> I think I have the answer to that... the answer to my previous
>>>> question... is anyone interested?
>>>
>>> I haven't offered it to anyone.  OTOH, you see lots of big companies
>>> (e.g.,
>>> Apple, MS, Google) trying to figure out how to develop this market.
>>> None of
>>> them seem to have taken "big enough" steps, yet (fearful that
>>> consumers may
>>> not be ready?)
>>
>> I think you will find nearly everyone in the large companies will
>> *not* be at
>> all interested in your design.
>
> Yes.  Just like nearly everyone in large companies is NOT interested
> in Linux, PostgreSQL, Apache, etc.  Silly me!  Obviously no one in business
> is interested in "free IP"!  Everyone adheres to NIH philosophy.
>
>> If nothing else they likely would not want the
>> world to potentially find out they are using your design that they can
>> get
>> themselves.  Companies want to be in control of their destiny and this
>> would be
>> out of their control from a marketing perspective.
>
> That's why you use an unencumbered license!  Here's a working design.
> Look at
> ALL of it's implementation details.  Read *why* each decision was made
> in the
> hardware, software, system choices.  *TAKE* from that WHATEVER YOU WANT and
> use it as the basis for a similar/better product.
>
> ["I don't care if you reproduce an identical copy of my code, my
> hardware or
> my system approach.  But, by adopting the design "conceptually", you will
> bring products LIKE THIS to the market.  That's more than I can get *now*.
> And, if I think you've done a poor job, I can't sue you -- yet, I can still
> reproduce *my* designs if I decide to make that investment"]
>
>>> Regardless, *I* am ready and see this as a vehicle to explore some of
>>> my design ideas...
>>
>> That doesn't require that someone be interested in making 100,000 of
>> them.
>
> Of course not!  *I* will have my golden master.  *My* needs will be
> satisfied.  I have many "gadgets" that exist only in this house.  When
> folks see them and express an interest in having one, I just smile and
> shake my head.
>
>     "Gee, that gizmo that screens your phone calls is really slick!  Can
>     you make one for me?"
>
>     "Wow, your heating/cooling bill is lower than ours and yet your home is
>     always just as comfortable.  Can I get one of those thermostats?"
>
>     "How do you keep all those plants thriving IN THE DESERT and not
> have an
>     outrageous water bill?  Can I have whatever it is you're using?"
>
>     "Hmmm... how did you know it was me at the front door?  I wish *I*
>     could know who it was so I could avoid those damn pollsters and
>     lawn service companies!  Really annoying to have to answer the bell
>     only to discover it's someone trying to sell me something!"
>
> Do you see?  "No, there are more interesting things that I want to
> do with my time than build one of those for you!"
>
>>>>> I don't want to build even HUNDREDS!  I spent a fair bit of time,
>>>>> recently,
>>>>> trying to avoid building the *prototypes*!  I am far more
>>>>> interested in
>>>>> getting the *design* right.  So everything "plays well" together,
>>>>> looks
>>>>> like it was designed with a consistent philosophy and methodology,
>>>>> user
>>>>> interface, etc.  Building (even prototype quantities) is largely a
>>>>> "chore"!
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure why you are designing hardware really.  Some things I do
> -----------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> for fun, but most I do for profit and there can be lots of profit in
>>>> designing the right hardware.
>>>
>>> This is mainly "fun" -- an unconstrained learning experience.  Of
>>> course, I
>>> will also benefit from the resulting products (even if I only build
>>> prototypes
>>> to satisfy my own personal requirements).
>>>
>>> I *have to* design and build hardware because I can't purchase anything
>>> off the shelf that has similar capabilities/characteristics -- even if I
>>> could "drop" my software into it!
>>>
>>> E.g., my "network speaker" design has to fit in a traditional "1
>>> gang" junction
>>> box.  (Well, it doesn't *have* to but it sure would be far more
>>> convenient
>>> to include in new home designs and existing home retrofits if it just
>>> looked like a "light switch/duplex receptacle" -- than if it was a 4"
>>> x 4" PCB!)
>>>
>>> Without resorting to full (or even semi-custom) implementations, it's
>>> just not
>>> practical to cram that much stuff on a tiny board.  So, I use both
>>> sides of
>>> a couple of boards, sandwiched to give me the appropriate form
>>> factor.  No one
>>> would build a generic system with the same hardware capabilities in that
>>> "odd" form factor/envelope.
>>
>> So how does this relate to Linux?
>
> You asked why I was making my own hardware.
>
> Don't ask a question and then complain when I answer it!
>
> How does Linux relate to "Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards?"
>
>>>>>> I think the problem is that from the beginning the discussion was
>>>>>> about *using*
>>>>>> a GPL'd OS.  But in your mind that means modifying it and including
>>>>>> it a
>>>>>> product which you have only skirted around until now. The rest of us
>>>>>> have not
>>>>>> been talking about building products that include the GPL'd code.
>>>>>
>>>>> You initially asked why Linux "couldn't do that" (probe the Atom's
>>>>> hardware).
>>>>> I mentioned that I don't *use* Linux.  From there, explained why I
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> (because I can't leverage anything that I learn/copy from its sources
>>>>> without
>>>>> being encumbered with it's GPL).
>>>>
>>>> So you don't use any appliance that is not open source?
> -------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> I use lots of close source devices!  But, any devices that I want to
>>> have
>>> control over (their implementation) by necessity are open source.
>>>
>>> The router/firewall that services this computer is a Linksys device.
>>> The
>>> sources are *probably* available.  But, I have no interest in
>>> modifying it
>>> as it does what I want well enough.
>>>
>>> OTOH, I am annoyed with a couple of the "closed source" NAS boxes that I
>>> own.  So, one target of the Atom SBC's is to let me discard those
>>> "closed"
>>> boxes and move the files onto the Atom SBC's (even if that means
>>> "external
>>> drives" as the Atom can't support ANY 3.5" drives internally)
>>
>> Again we go around in circles.  GPL doesn't prevent you from doing any of
>> this.  You are fixated on the idea that if you modify your toaster you
>> want
>> someone to be able to make 100,000 toasters with your idea and not
>> have to pay
>> you a dime.  Wonderful.
>
> Again, you asked if I use non-open source appliances.  I indicated that I
> did.  I also indicated criteria for cases where I "roll my own" solution
> (thereby relying on FOSS).
>
> If we've gone 'around in circles', then it's because you led us here.

The problem is that your replies don't directly address the questions 
asked frequently.  You bring all sorts of things into the discussion 
that are either not directly relevant or the relevancy is not explained 
and more questions have to be asked to figure it out.


>>>>> (sigh)  Done for tonight.  Another cheesecake to put in the oven.
>>>>> Then,
>>>>> one *final* one next week.  Thank God!  :-/
>>>>
>>>> I've spent enough time with you I feel I should get a slice..... :p
>>>
>>> <grin>  SWMBO would be annoyed -- for her "artist's reception" next
>>> week.
>>> And, it doesn't travel well (though the one I made two days ago
>>> leaves for
>>> Denver on Monday -- LONG drive!).  Next week's just has to go across the
>>> street, here... (neighbor's daughter's wedding)
>>
>> I'm not picky.  I once made an applesauce cake and took it to work on
>> the back
>> of my motorcycle... lol, it ended up a pile of mush.  No one else
>> would touch
>> it, but I enjoyed the heck out of it.  :)
>
> Dairy (cheese) "spoils" if not kept refrigerated.  E.g., the Denver
> cheesecake
> is traveling under dry ice.

Yes, cheese will spoil if not kept cool, but it's not that delicate.  A 
day or so in the post shouldn't cause any harm.  My experience is that 
Priority mail gets anywhere in two days for a pretty low price.

-- 

Rick

On 22/09/14 10:32, rickman wrote:
> On 9/21/2014 2:56 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> If we've gone 'around in circles', then it's because you led us here.
> The problem is that your replies don't directly address the questions
> asked frequently.  You bring all sorts of things into the discussion
> that are either not directly relevant or the relevancy is not explained
> and more questions have to be asked to figure it out.

Bingo. That's why I rarely join in Don's threads, even though they often 
have interesting topics. Interesting minds wander far, so need extra 
discipline to keep focus. Focus more on reading carefully rather than 
writing, and it will be better for all of us.

Clifford Heath.

On 9/21/2014 6:03 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 22/09/14 10:32, rickman wrote:
>> On 9/21/2014 2:56 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> If we've gone 'around in circles', then it's because you led us here.
>> The problem is that your replies don't directly address the questions
>> asked frequently.  You bring all sorts of things into the discussion
>> that are either not directly relevant or the relevancy is not explained
>> and more questions have to be asked to figure it out.
>
> Bingo. That's why I rarely join in Don's threads, even though they often have
> interesting topics. Interesting minds wander far, so need extra discipline to
> keep focus. Focus more on reading carefully rather than writing, and it will be
> better for all of us.

Specific example, please?

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:50:42 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 01:47:00 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Why would Google buy Nest?  For how many billions of dollars?  How many
>>multiples of their total sales??  Heck, can't the folks at Google come
>>up with a thermostat design on their own??  :>

>For access to their customer base.  I wouldn't have bought Nests if it
>were a Google design.

Hardly.  Nest has only a US only customer base.  As of 2012, Nest does
not allow operation outside of the USA. 
<http://motote.blogspot.com.es/2012/09/nest-thermostat-in-europe-hacks-ii.html>
I don't know if this is still the current situation or why the
restriction.

In 2014, Google bought 28 companies:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Google>
At $3.2 billion, Nest was one of the biggest buys, behind Motorola
Mobility for $12.5 billion in 2011.  When a company gets as big as
Google, and makes as much money as Google, it eventually runs out of
places to spend it's money to balance its profits for tax purposes.
So, it buys overpriced companies.

"5 Reasons Nest Sold To Google"
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/01/14/5-reasons-nest-sold-to-google/>

"What Google Really Gets Out of Buying Nest for $3.2 Billion"
<http://www.wired.com/2014/01/googles-3-billion-nest-buy-finally-make-internet-things-real-us/>

According to the usual unreliable sources, at the time of purchase,
Nest was moving about 50,000 thermostats per month at $250/ea for a
bad guess total of $150 million per year, making the purchase about 20
times annual revenue.  Currently, they're at maybe $300 million per
year or 10 times annual sales.  Hardware companies usually sell for
maybe 4 times annual sales at most:
<http://www.businessinsider.com/nest-revenue-2014-1>

Of course, litigation is the surest sign of success these days as
Honeywell, First Alert, and Allure are suing Nest for patent
infringements.  Nest's success might be decided in the courtroom, not
the marketplace.

Meanwhile, the Nest hacking continues:
<http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2359748/hackers-root-googles-nest-thermostat-in-15-seconds>
<http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/10/hello-dave-i-control-your-thermostat-googles-nest-gets-hacked/>

iFixit teardown of 2nd generation Nest thermostat:
<https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nest+Learning+Thermostat+2nd+Generation+Teardown/13818>

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On 22/09/14 11:18, Don Y wrote:
> On 9/21/2014 6:03 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>> On 22/09/14 10:32, rickman wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2014 2:56 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> If we've gone 'around in circles', then it's because you led us here.
>>> The problem is that your replies don't directly address the questions
>>> asked frequently.  You bring all sorts of things into the discussion
>>> that are either not directly relevant or the relevancy is not explained
>>> and more questions have to be asked to figure it out.
>>
>> Bingo. That's why I rarely join in Don's threads, even though they
>> often have
>> interesting topics. Interesting minds wander far, so need extra
>> discipline to
>> keep focus. Focus more on reading carefully rather than writing, and
>> it will be
>> better for all of us.
> Specific example, please?

No disrespect Don, but if you can't read back and figure it out, there's 
nothing I can do to explain it.

On 9/21/2014 6:53 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 22/09/14 11:18, Don Y wrote:
>> On 9/21/2014 6:03 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>> On 22/09/14 10:32, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 9/21/2014 2:56 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>>> If we've gone 'around in circles', then it's because you led us here.
>>>> The problem is that your replies don't directly address the questions
>>>> asked frequently.  You bring all sorts of things into the discussion
>>>> that are either not directly relevant or the relevancy is not explained
>>>> and more questions have to be asked to figure it out.
>>>
>>> Bingo. That's why I rarely join in Don's threads, even though they
>>> often have
>>> interesting topics. Interesting minds wander far, so need extra
>>> discipline to
>>> keep focus. Focus more on reading carefully rather than writing, and
>>> it will be
>>> better for all of us.
>> Specific example, please?
>
> No disrespect Don, but if you can't read back and figure it out, there's
> nothing I can do to explain it.

HONESTLY, I see every reply I make as directly pertinent to the question/point
being discussed.  ANTiCIPATING the next round of questions.  So, I really
*can't* figure it out!

So, I'll fall back on presenting questions as if homework problems and
rely on people to offer suggestions WITHOUT FURTHER CLARIFICATION on
my part.  That should keep things short and to the point.  Albeit
leaving most folks in the dark as to my intentions and just evaluate
suggestions "cold".

On 9/21/2014 5:32 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 9/21/2014 2:56 PM, Don Y wrote:

>>>>>> You initially asked why Linux "couldn't do that" (probe the Atom's
>>>>>> hardware).  I mentioned that I don't *use* Linux.  From there, explained why I
>>>>>> didn't (because I can't leverage anything that I learn/copy from its sources
>>>>>> without being encumbered with it's GPL).
>>>>>
>>>>> So you don't use any appliance that is not open source?
>> -------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> I use lots of close source devices!  But, any devices that I want to
>>>> have control over (their implementation) by necessity are open source.
>>>>
>>>> The router/firewall that services this computer is a Linksys device.
>>>> The sources are *probably* available.  But, I have no interest in
>>>> modifying it as it does what I want well enough.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, I am annoyed with a couple of the "closed source" NAS boxes that I
>>>> own.  So, one target of the Atom SBC's is to let me discard those "closed"
>>>> boxes and move the files onto the Atom SBC's (even if that means "external
>>>> drives" as the Atom can't support ANY 3.5" drives internally)
>>>
>>> Again we go around in circles.  GPL doesn't prevent you from doing any of
>>> this.  You are fixated on the idea that if you modify your toaster you
>>> want someone to be able to make 100,000 toasters with your idea and not
>>> have to pay you a dime.  Wonderful.
>>
>> Again, you asked if I use non-open source appliances.  I indicated that I
>> did.  I also indicated criteria for cases where I "roll my own" solution
>> (thereby relying on FOSS).
>>
>> If we've gone 'around in circles', then it's because you led us here.
>
> The problem is that your replies don't directly address the questions asked
> frequently.  You bring all sorts of things into the discussion that are either
> not directly relevant or the relevancy is not explained and more questions have
> to be asked to figure it out.

I assume people will CAREFULLY read my replies, ASSUME I KNOW WHAT I AM
TALKING ABOUT and understand how my comments are intended to further
qualify my statements.

It's really annoying to get met with "Why do you want to do that?"
questions all the time.  THEN, explain why and get dragged into a
long discussion where I have to justify everything from the instant
of my birth -- to bring the other party "up to speed" with my
reasoning -- only to be met with inevitable silence:  no answer to
MY query.

Why am I investing time explaining myself?  How about:  "my boss told
me to do it.  He's bigger than me and I don't want to piss him off!"
Would that suffice as suitable reason?

Why do I have to explain entire applications -- and why I am NOT doing
it the way <whomever> would have -- just to get an answer to a question?
It's essentially, "let me see what you are doing because I am curious.
And, in return I will give you... aggravation".

(There are two sides to these exchanges.  You might want to reread some of
them from MY point of view!)

>>>>>> (sigh)  Done for tonight.  Another cheesecake to put in the oven.
>>>>>> Then, one *final* one next week.  Thank God!  :-/
>>>>>
>>>>> I've spent enough time with you I feel I should get a slice..... :p
>>>>
>>>> <grin>  SWMBO would be annoyed -- for her "artist's reception" next week.
>>>> And, it doesn't travel well (though the one I made two days ago leaves for
>>>> Denver on Monday -- LONG drive!).  Next week's just has to go across the
>>>> street, here... (neighbor's daughter's wedding)
>>>
>>> I'm not picky.  I once made an applesauce cake and took it to work on the back
>>> of my motorcycle... lol, it ended up a pile of mush.  No one else would touch
>>> it, but I enjoyed the heck out of it.  :)
>>
>> Dairy (cheese) "spoils" if not kept refrigerated.  E.g., the Denver cheesecake
>> is traveling under dry ice.
>
> Yes, cheese will spoil if not kept cool, but it's not that delicate.  A day or
> so in the post shouldn't cause any harm.  My experience is that Priority mail
> gets anywhere in two days for a pretty low price.

Ain't gonna happen!  :>  The next will be the sixth in just about as many
weeks.  That's 30 hours in front of the stove!  OTOH, I won't have to bake
ANY of them over the holidays.  I can bake a few HUNDRED dozen cookies
in comparable time (satisfying a LOT of friends/colleagues/etc.)

On 9/21/2014 6:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:50:42 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 01:47:00 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Why would Google buy Nest?  For how many billions of dollars?  How many
>>> multiples of their total sales??  Heck, can't the folks at Google come
>>> up with a thermostat design on their own??  :>
>
>> For access to their customer base.  I wouldn't have bought Nests if it
>> were a Google design.
>
> Hardly.  Nest has only a US only customer base.  As of 2012, Nest does
> not allow operation outside of the USA.
> <http://motote.blogspot.com.es/2012/09/nest-thermostat-in-europe-hacks-ii.html>
> I don't know if this is still the current situation or why the
> restriction.
>
> In 2014, Google bought 28 companies:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Google>
> At $3.2 billion, Nest was one of the biggest buys, behind Motorola
> Mobility for $12.5 billion in 2011.  When a company gets as big as
> Google, and makes as much money as Google, it eventually runs out of
> places to spend it's money to balance its profits for tax purposes.
> So, it buys overpriced companies.
>
> "5 Reasons Nest Sold To Google"
> <http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/01/14/5-reasons-nest-sold-to-google/>
>
> "What Google Really Gets Out of Buying Nest for $3.2 Billion"
> <http://www.wired.com/2014/01/googles-3-billion-nest-buy-finally-make-internet-things-real-us/>
>
> According to the usual unreliable sources, at the time of purchase,
> Nest was moving about 50,000 thermostats per month at $250/ea for a
> bad guess total of $150 million per year, making the purchase about 20
> times annual revenue.  Currently, they're at maybe $300 million per
> year or 10 times annual sales.  Hardware companies usually sell for
> maybe 4 times annual sales at most:
> <http://www.businessinsider.com/nest-revenue-2014-1>

Google wants a beachhead IN your house.  Monitoring *your* searches (if
you think they don't know who YOU are, you're misguided!), reading your email
(in addition to GMail, google also silently provides mail services for
many "traditional" ISPs), isn't enough.  They need to *watch* you to see
what ELSE they can SELL YOU (ahem... of course I mean "do to improve your
quality of life").

TV's now "watch" (optically) their user's ("Dear Gillette, 27% of the folks
who were seated in front of the TV at the time your commercial aired got
up and left the room within the first 7 seconds of airing.  Here are the
names of the folks who sat through the entire commercial:").

Refrigerators will (soon) track (and, of course, report) your eating habits.
(I actually wonder if a timewill come when things like appliances will be
given away -- like toilet paper dispensers -- solely to allow "them" to
get a closer look at your behavior "behind closed doors")

Do you not think google's "payment" system (name escapes me) and Apple's
new "Wallet" won't be diverting copies/summaries of your transactions
to marketing folks for other companies?  Political parties?  etc.

"43% of the rhubarb sold in this country is eaten by Republicans; the
rest is thrown out"  (sorry, it's an old joke that "fit" here)

I wonder if there will soon be a time when dealing in CASH will put you
on a "watch list"?  :(

Remember:
"Any time you are getting something for free, YOU are the product being sold!"