Tech Giants: Are There Reasons for Complaining about Tiny Component Vendors?
February 8, 2022
I read “Tiny chips, Big Headaches.” The write up is interesting and it comes at a time which follows [a] record earnings and [b] before the anti-trust cowboys begin their roundup. I found this paragraph notable:
But there is growing anxiety that as cloud-computing networks have become larger and more complex, they are still dependent, at the most basic level, on computer chips that are now less reliable and, in some cases, less predictable. In the past year, researchers at both Facebook and Google have published studies describing computer hardware failures whose causes have not been easy to identify. The problem, they argued, was not in the software — it was somewhere in the computer hardware made by various companies.
The write up concludes that fixes are “a little bit like changing an engine while an airplane is still flying.” This statement is attributed too Gary Smerdon, a wizard at TidalScale.
Let’s step back.
The alleged technology monopolies are eager to cement their market dominance. One way to do this is to become like AMD: Smart people paying other people to fabricate their silicon and assemble their gizmos. It stands to reason that really smart people like those at the tech giants want to gain control and be like Apple. Apple went its own direction and seems to have a lucrative allegedly monopoly and some fascinating deals with people like a certain online advertising outfit for search.
What’s the argument for becoming more like Henry Ford’s River Rouge operation. That’s the one that ingested iron ore at one end of the facility and output automobiles at the other end. Today the raw material is user clicks and the outputs are monetization of messages to the users or the crafting of subscription services that are tough to resist.
My take on the reasons for pointing the finger at third parties is more of the shifting blame. This method was evident when Mr. Zuckerberg said Apple’s “privacy” policy created some headwinds. Sure, the Zuckbook has other headwinds, but the point is that it is useful to focus blame elsewhere.
However, the write up advances a point which I found interesting. Here is the passage from the write up I noted:
In the past year, researchers at both Facebook and Google have published studies describing computer hardware failures whose causes have not been easy to identify. The problem, they argued, was not in the software — it was somewhere in the computer hardware made by various companies.
I want to direct your attention to this statement: “The problem… was not in the software.”
Now that is an interesting observation about software. The general rule is that software has flaws. Maybe Steve Gibson can generate “perfect” software for SpinRite, but how many at the alleged technology monopolies follow his practices? I would assert that many at the alleged technology monopolies know what his method is; therefore, if certain wizards don’t know something, it clearly is not worth knowing in the first place.
I interpreted the statement that “The problem … was not in the software.”
Hubris, thy manifestation is those who believe their software was not a problem.
Ho, ho, ho.
My concern is that presenting an argument that failures in uptime are someone else’s problem invites the conclusion, “Well, we will be more like Apple. Hasta la vista, Intel.”
Personally I don’t care what the alleged technology monopolies do. Trouble looms for these outfits regardless of the direction in which I look. What annoys me is that the Gray Lady is pretty happy telling the alleged technology monopolies’ story.
The problem is not the software. The problem is the human thing: Reformation, disinformation, and misinformation as stealth weapons in the battle for continued market dominance.
Stephen E Arnold, February 8, 2022
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
