- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Total cost of ownership: an expensive red herring
|
|
|
Comments (12)
Yeah I wonder of Michelin racing tires have a good TCO?
After your post I read up on the Gran Prix. Although the fans were angry, I have to side with the race administration. The rules are the rules and to change them would be unfair to the teams with the appropriate tires, which were all Bridgestone. As far as i'm concerned, Michelin is 100% responsible, if not liable, to the teams and the fans. Maybe the teams that dropped out will switch to Bridgestone for their next race.
Y'know -- That's an additional lesson to be gleaned for all of us.
Though technically correct, the result was a disaster. Under the same circumstances, NASCAR would have installed a chicane.
Sometimes, you've got to keep your eyes on the prize and not let the fine print leave you off in the weeds -- or, as in this case, parked in pit row.
Though technically correct, the result was a disaster. Under the same circumstances, NASCAR would have installed a chicane.
Sometimes, you've got to keep your eyes on the prize and not let the fine print leave you off in the weeds -- or, as in this case, parked in pit row.
This is a nice thread were I, as an European, hope to say some interesting things about.
It's about the difference in sports in USA and Europe.
First of all, Michelin was afraid of being sued if people would have lost their lives. That's uncommon in Europe, but, as we say in Europe, 'in America, they could sue you for everything'. So if this would have happened in Europe, maybe the teams would have raced.
I heard the NASCAR-fans love yellow flags, and the safety car, because it brings the cars back together, so there's more competition. In Europe however, people hate yellow flags and the security car, because, if M. Schumacher (the guy who won the F1 seven times, I believe) is 22 seconds ahead, he loses his fair 'gathered' lead on the other cars. To test it out, I watched the NASCAR once, and I didn't find it any funny to watch, because it's the same oval over and over (only 4 turns I believe), and they're more driving 'slowly' behind a safety car than racing.
However, it seems Americans don't like F1 that much. The FIA knew this. Now, as you might now, last year, it was possible to change tires two times during a race, but this year it's prohibited (I don't know why, always liked the changing of the tires). That's why tires had to change. You might know, M. Schumacher also had his tires blown this year, and he drives Bridgestone, so it's not only a problem of Michelin, as it seems.
So, in my opinion, it's not only Michelin who's to blame for this, but also the FIA which makes the rules, they're not adaptive enough, and especially not when they're in America. And that's (a bit) what's the problem with European sports in the eyes of Americans, I believe: it's to conservative.
Take soccer for example. It has a holy status in Europe. People are very mad now Manchester United (one of the best European soccer clubs) was bought by an American. They're afraid it will be all about the profit now. And take soccer as a whole, I heard Americans suggesting:
-The goal should be bigger, since most games don't end in higher final scores than 2-2, but 0-0 or 0-1 is rather common too,
-There should be four 'pauses' for advertising.
We Europeans laugh at them, because, 0-0 and 45 minutes with no advertising break in between, that's what soccer is, and we don't want to change it, especially not when some Americans suggested it.
Now, the same is true for Formula 1.
When they're in America, they should adopt in my opinion, because USA is their 'guest' nation, and they earn very much money over there (I believe M Schumacher earns 60milion Euro's a year, for example). For that money, they might as well show spectators what they want to see.
Now, as you might not know, those teams that didn't start, offered to drive with other tires, therefore being disqualified because it was against the rules, but just drive for the public (they were excluded from earning points). However, FIA decided to not bring a extra chicane, not let the teams use other tires, and not even disqualifying them, and let them use other tires, just to give the public a nice show anyway.
So, both FIA and Michelin screwed up in USA. You might think they care, but I guess they don't, because they're expanding rather fast in Middle East, Russia and Asia. But it might be only a matter of time before the people over there are also disappointed.
(BTW: FIA also decided many times F1 cars were to fast, so every year there are more regulations to prevent teams driving with speeds that could be fatal, while I believe American racing is only about driving as fast as possible, and of course competition.)
Concluding what I said, I think:
-Soccer hasn't to change that much, except for when it's played in the USA, then I can understand rules are changed a bit for the USA-spectators. But when playing in Europe, it's OK to be conservative, since nobody cares about the way it's now, but they would get very angry, and by that I mean hooligan-riots, if soccer rules in Europe changed.
-However, for an international event such as F1, it's wise to adopt more to the country's where you're racing, especially when you earn that much money like F1 does (a common team of two cars has a team budget of several 100million US dollars). I think Europeans will understand this, as well as people from other countries.
About TCO: I believe Formula one is the sport with the biggest TCO in the world. Maybe because they change the rules every year.
The good thing about this sad race was, our Dutch driver, which normally ends at the back most races of the year, now had a fifth place (uses Bridgestone), and even got some points!
The good thing about this sad race was, our Dutch driver, which normally ends at the back most races of the year, now had a fifth place (uses Bridgestone), and even got some points!
hkwink -
Glad to hear somebody got some good out of that mess!!!
I think you hit it on the head with the attention to the country you're running in.
If you want people to come, you need to give them what they're looking for. Six cars taking what amount to practice laps ain't it.
Frankly, Ecclestone amazes me. I guess you can be as arrogant and oblivious as you please when people are scrambling to pick up your product.
I suppose he's got a point though: You can't just crank out F1 races like they were widgets. There are only so many teams, so many drivers, and so many weeks in the years. F1 doesn't need us!!
Too bad for folks in the US who'd like to watch, but not tragic.
Glad to hear somebody got some good out of that mess!!!
I think you hit it on the head with the attention to the country you're running in.
If you want people to come, you need to give them what they're looking for. Six cars taking what amount to practice laps ain't it.
Frankly, Ecclestone amazes me. I guess you can be as arrogant and oblivious as you please when people are scrambling to pick up your product.
I suppose he's got a point though: You can't just crank out F1 races like they were widgets. There are only so many teams, so many drivers, and so many weeks in the years. F1 doesn't need us!!
Too bad for folks in the US who'd like to watch, but not tragic.
hkwink-
Thank you for your additional insight. I am not that familiar with F1 racing, and merely read some news about dinotrac's original post. I guess I never factored in the international scope and money that is involved in the sport. Without the fans and spectators, there would be no F1...at least not as it is today. The threat of lawsuits in the US is epidemic, and has really ruined a lot of good things for a lot of good people.
Regarding Manchester United: if it was sold to an American, it was SURELY sold for profit by the previous owner (presumably British). So, any fears that "it will only be for profit" are being felt a bit late in the process. Please don't misunderstand me, I mean no disrespect to the fans of European soccer by making this comment. The prime directive of capitalist economies IS profit, and everyone in such economies will seek it everywhere they possibly can, with few exceptions.
Peace.
Thank you for your additional insight. I am not that familiar with F1 racing, and merely read some news about dinotrac's original post. I guess I never factored in the international scope and money that is involved in the sport. Without the fans and spectators, there would be no F1...at least not as it is today. The threat of lawsuits in the US is epidemic, and has really ruined a lot of good things for a lot of good people.
Regarding Manchester United: if it was sold to an American, it was SURELY sold for profit by the previous owner (presumably British). So, any fears that "it will only be for profit" are being felt a bit late in the process. Please don't misunderstand me, I mean no disrespect to the fans of European soccer by making this comment. The prime directive of capitalist economies IS profit, and everyone in such economies will seek it everywhere they possibly can, with few exceptions.
Peace.
tuxtom: You're entirely right about you're point about Manchester United: They brought their soccer-club to the stock markets, so they could have expected something like this to happen (This person was Malcom Glazer, don't know if you heard of him). When this happened, they're all mad, which is a bit strange.
Almost the same also happened to Chelsea (another English soccer club) by the way; it was bought by a Russian oil-billionair. So, instead of two English teams against each other, now it's two billionairs, and the USA and Russia against each other. It truly is all about the money now.
It's a funny thing there seems to be a resemblance between Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and mr. Ecclestone (and their companies) and a bit also for Mr. Glazer: They have such amounts of money, they're all a bit arrogant, and don't think about their customers that much anymore, and they think they can do everything. If they don't sell their product in one country, they don't care, since there are many other countries left. However, that attitude might upset people sometime, and it already happened for the F1 in America. Let's see if this happens for MS one day.
It's a funny thing there seems to be a resemblance between Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and mr. Ecclestone (and their companies) and a bit also for Mr. Glazer: They have such amounts of money, they're all a bit arrogant, and don't think about their customers that much anymore, and they think they can do everything. If they don't sell their product in one country, they don't care, since there are many other countries left. However, that attitude might upset people sometime, and it already happened for the F1 in America. Let's see if this happens for MS one day.
Buying v. Leasing
Maybe Microsoft's estimates of GNU/Linux's TCO are accurate. Let's just say, for arguments sake, That they are accurate. Its the estimates of Windows TCO that are way off.
After all to calculate the "Total Cost of Ownership" of a Windows based setup implies some form of ownership.
With Free and Open Source products you actually get something that approximates ownership of the code. Sure the copyright holder really "owns" the source code, but you can manipulate it as if it were your own creation. There are very few restrictions on what you can do with the code. If its GPL, you've got to re-distribute your versions, if its BSD or Apache you have to retain copyrights and give acknowledgements. But from the point of view of building products and using the code, it is very close to ownership.
Microsoft offers some "shared source" initiatives, but these are extremely restrictive. You may not even own the code you create if you sign up for these programs. That would give you less ownership.
The only way to "own" Windows would be to buy out Microsoft. This means that the first approximation for the buyout would be to calculate the market value of Microsoft. Then add any physical assets like buildings and production facilities they own. Add in all their debt, because you would have to assume that too to "own" Windows. Add in all the costs of the negotiations and writing up the contracts. Paying off a lot of executive "Golden Parachutes".
Of course Microsoft has $40B-$50B US in cash reserves. If they don't want you to "own" Windows, that could make for a pretty big poison pill stock buy-back program, pumping up the market value pretty quickly (hence the value calculated above was only a first approximation).
Yes sir, calculating the TCO of GNU/Linux is probably pretty accurate. Sure, I know, the copyright holders retain "ownership" of Linux, but the actual difference between ownership and licensing is so small with F/OSS that TCO estimates apply pretty well to Free and Open Source software use.
With Windows however, your don't really "own" it, you are just leasing it. So calculating the Total Cost of Ownership is not an accurate measure of use, unless you are considering a buyout of Microsoft that is.
:)
After all to calculate the "Total Cost of Ownership" of a Windows based setup implies some form of ownership.
With Free and Open Source products you actually get something that approximates ownership of the code. Sure the copyright holder really "owns" the source code, but you can manipulate it as if it were your own creation. There are very few restrictions on what you can do with the code. If its GPL, you've got to re-distribute your versions, if its BSD or Apache you have to retain copyrights and give acknowledgements. But from the point of view of building products and using the code, it is very close to ownership.
Microsoft offers some "shared source" initiatives, but these are extremely restrictive. You may not even own the code you create if you sign up for these programs. That would give you less ownership.
The only way to "own" Windows would be to buy out Microsoft. This means that the first approximation for the buyout would be to calculate the market value of Microsoft. Then add any physical assets like buildings and production facilities they own. Add in all their debt, because you would have to assume that too to "own" Windows. Add in all the costs of the negotiations and writing up the contracts. Paying off a lot of executive "Golden Parachutes".
Of course Microsoft has $40B-$50B US in cash reserves. If they don't want you to "own" Windows, that could make for a pretty big poison pill stock buy-back program, pumping up the market value pretty quickly (hence the value calculated above was only a first approximation).
Yes sir, calculating the TCO of GNU/Linux is probably pretty accurate. Sure, I know, the copyright holders retain "ownership" of Linux, but the actual difference between ownership and licensing is so small with F/OSS that TCO estimates apply pretty well to Free and Open Source software use.
With Windows however, your don't really "own" it, you are just leasing it. So calculating the Total Cost of Ownership is not an accurate measure of use, unless you are considering a buyout of Microsoft that is.
:)
number6x -
You don't really "own" any code unless you own the copyright.
For businesses, the TCO (a mythical creation that nobody can ever properly calculate) is comprised of hardware, software licensing fees (to the extent they exist), and the cost of the people who make it all work and keep it going. At the place I've been working, we've got some fairly expensive FOSS software...expensive because it's API is a nightmare, because the developers don't adequately regression test releases and because the documentation is inadequate.
Fortunately, we've been able to put a reasonable shell around the API (that will also let us switch to another platform should the costs outweigh the benefits), and have the resources to do our own regression testing before applying new releases. Along the way we've filed a few bug reports and submitted a patch or two.
Not everybody has the resources to do that. For them, this tool might cost too much, even though the license is free.
You don't really "own" any code unless you own the copyright.
For businesses, the TCO (a mythical creation that nobody can ever properly calculate) is comprised of hardware, software licensing fees (to the extent they exist), and the cost of the people who make it all work and keep it going. At the place I've been working, we've got some fairly expensive FOSS software...expensive because it's API is a nightmare, because the developers don't adequately regression test releases and because the documentation is inadequate.
Fortunately, we've been able to put a reasonable shell around the API (that will also let us switch to another platform should the costs outweigh the benefits), and have the resources to do our own regression testing before applying new releases. Along the way we've filed a few bug reports and submitted a patch or two.
Not everybody has the resources to do that. For them, this tool might cost too much, even though the license is free.
dinotrac,
Please note the smiley. It was a feeble attempt at humor.
You are correct about some software. I think all developers should be forced to spend a year or two developing in COBOL on mainframes.
This way they would learn:
1) How much better modern languages are for developing systems.
2) What stability, regression testing, dependabilty, and uptime should be expected from applications.
(I'm partly serious here, so no smiley. You can't appreciate what we have now if you don't know what we had then!)
Please note the smiley. It was a feeble attempt at humor.
You are correct about some software. I think all developers should be forced to spend a year or two developing in COBOL on mainframes.
This way they would learn:
1) How much better modern languages are for developing systems.
2) What stability, regression testing, dependabilty, and uptime should be expected from applications.
(I'm partly serious here, so no smiley. You can't appreciate what we have now if you don't know what we had then!)
n6x -
Funny thing is, for however wonderful modern languages, tools, etc are -- and I'm with you, I'd hate to turn back the clock -- I'm reminded that much of the Y2K scare a few years back was the result of ancient code that just kept working and working and working and working...
Funny thing is, for however wonderful modern languages, tools, etc are -- and I'm with you, I'd hate to turn back the clock -- I'm reminded that much of the Y2K scare a few years back was the result of ancient code that just kept working and working and working and working...
number6x:
How right you are. My current job (first true IT job ;) ) is to maintain and develop an in-house mainframe database application which is the backbone of the company: a healthcare insurance. It's a Unisys mainframe and the application is written in LINC, a 4GL database language derived from COBOL (but with a worse syntax, if you can believe it! :) ). It actually compiles in COBOL (and parts in ALGOL too, for coroutines for instance). You just cannot imagine the amount of self-discipline necessary to write good (well, good enough really) code. And maintaining the code of people who weren't that disciplined is a nightmare. And I'm not even talking about all the wrestling with the stupid version control system and with the structure of the code itself (the source code itself is structured as a database. It makes searching for things especially painful)... And the Dutch government plan to reform healthcare has just been adopted, so we have to make extensive changes to more than 75% of the existing code, thoroughly test it, and all this within six months. I do like a challenge, but this is ridiculous :) .
You can imagine how relieved I feel when I arrive home and I can code in my beloved Ruby ;) .
dinotrac: Funny you mention the Y2K bug. As it happens, LINC was sensitive to this bug (its built-in date primitives worked with a year coded on two digits), but our application wasn't, since those date primitives have never been used in it: somebody had the intelligence, from the beginning of the program, to write special date logics which use a date coded on 4 digits. Of course, that makes the program sensitive to the Y10K bug, but my company is planning to replace the mainframe application with something new anyway, and at the speed they're building it right now it should be ready by the year 3521. So no worries here ;)) .
At least I get to work on a project that fits my (and RMS's) software ethics ;) . And as I said, I like a challenge, and I have great colleagues ;) .
How right you are. My current job (first true IT job ;) ) is to maintain and develop an in-house mainframe database application which is the backbone of the company: a healthcare insurance. It's a Unisys mainframe and the application is written in LINC, a 4GL database language derived from COBOL (but with a worse syntax, if you can believe it! :) ). It actually compiles in COBOL (and parts in ALGOL too, for coroutines for instance). You just cannot imagine the amount of self-discipline necessary to write good (well, good enough really) code. And maintaining the code of people who weren't that disciplined is a nightmare. And I'm not even talking about all the wrestling with the stupid version control system and with the structure of the code itself (the source code itself is structured as a database. It makes searching for things especially painful)... And the Dutch government plan to reform healthcare has just been adopted, so we have to make extensive changes to more than 75% of the existing code, thoroughly test it, and all this within six months. I do like a challenge, but this is ridiculous :) .
You can imagine how relieved I feel when I arrive home and I can code in my beloved Ruby ;) .
dinotrac: Funny you mention the Y2K bug. As it happens, LINC was sensitive to this bug (its built-in date primitives worked with a year coded on two digits), but our application wasn't, since those date primitives have never been used in it: somebody had the intelligence, from the beginning of the program, to write special date logics which use a date coded on 4 digits. Of course, that makes the program sensitive to the Y10K bug, but my company is planning to replace the mainframe application with something new anyway, and at the speed they're building it right now it should be ready by the year 3521. So no worries here ;)) .
At least I get to work on a project that fits my (and RMS's) software ethics ;) . And as I said, I like a challenge, and I have great colleagues ;) .
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Fourteen out of Twenty cars pulled out at the last minute because their Michelin tires couldn't handle one of the road courses high-speed banked turns.
I realize that F1 teams don't pinch pennies, but it does make the point that you're screwed if your tools won't do the job you need them to do the way you need them to do it. Sometimes 95% of the way there just isn't enough, no matter how much you save -- or spend.