|
|
Total Posts: 1108
Joined 2005-03-16
|
Posted: 23 October 2005 04:49 PM
napierzaza - Oct 23, 2005 03:58pm Battery companies aren’t’ oil companies, if they can used a different metal/chemical and sell that to you because it’s better, which makes the competition lose market share, they would.
There’s simply no reason for them to change beyond small incremental improvements that keep them just barely ahead of the competition. It’s the same reason why the computer industry sits on technology advancements until they’re done selling you the old shit.
Okay, so if you have one (garage) get to work.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a garage.
|
|
|
Total Posts: 839
Joined 2005-09-28
|
Posted: 23 October 2005 05:00 PM
Well that’s a conspiracy theory that is partly true and can’t be fully substantiated. If you want to think that way go ahead.
|
|
|
Total Posts: 1108
Joined 2005-03-16
|
Posted: 23 October 2005 05:10 PM
napierzaza - Oct 23, 2005 05:00pm Well that’s a conspiracy theory that is partly true and can’t be fully substantiated.
That’s like saying that evolution “can’t be fully substantiated” in order to critique a known fact that you simply don’t want to believe.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s the way corporations are. It’s the way they’ve alwasy been. In fact, it’s a VERY common criticism around sites like this one about companies like Microsoft and its lack of innovation. So don’t pretend like it’s suddenly nutty to accuse an industry of purposely not innovating in order to capitalize on the status quo.
|
|
|
Total Posts: 1574
Joined 2005-09-12
|
Posted: 23 October 2005 05:52 PM
Beeblebrox - Oct 23, 2005 05:10pm napierzaza - Oct 23, 2005 05:00pm Well that’s a conspiracy theory that is partly true and can’t be fully substantiated.
That’s like saying that evolution “can’t be fully substantiated” in order to critique a known fact that you simply don’t want to believe.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s the way corporations are. It’s the way they’ve alwasy been. In fact, it’s a VERY common criticism around sites like this one about companies like Microsoft and its lack of innovation. So don’t pretend like it’s suddenly nutty to accuse an industry of purposely not innovating in order to capitalize on the status quo.
Beeb, that has nothing to do with battery life. But I know something that does, do you think fuel cells will ever make their way into ipods?
|
|
|
Total Posts: 839
Joined 2005-09-28
|
Posted: 23 October 2005 06:31 PM
Beeblebrox - Oct 23, 2005 05:10pm napierzaza - Oct 23, 2005 05:00pm Well that’s a conspiracy theory that is partly true and can’t be fully substantiated.
That’s like saying that evolution “can’t be fully substantiated” in order to critique a known fact that you simply don’t want to believe.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s the way corporations are. It’s the way they’ve alwasy been. In fact, it’s a VERY common criticism around sites like this one about companies like Microsoft and its lack of innovation. So don’t pretend like it’s suddenly nutty to accuse an industry of purposely not innovating in order to capitalize on the status quo.
No that’s not a proven reality. The idea that the reason there aren’t better batteries is because companies make more money that way are two ideas that are badly linked. A general corporations are evil statement is, as I said very possible, but you’re still connecting a lot of dots. Now really, if better batteries were made lots of technology would be open up to BE SOLD and those batteries would BE SOLD and the companies would make money.
Your worldview is going in the direction that we have hover packs and perpetual motion, it’s just that it’s been covered up blah blah blah
|
|
|
Total Posts: 1108
Joined 2005-03-16
|
Posted: 24 October 2005 01:19 AM
napierzaza - Oct 23, 2005 06:31pm A general corporations are evil statement is, as I said very possible, but you’re still connecting a lot of dots.
The problem here is you’re misconstruing what I’m saying. I’m not saying that corporations are evil (they are amoral, which isn’t the same thing). I’m stating a simple fact, which is that corporations slowly implement new technologies in order to maxmine profits. That’s not a “theory.” That’s a fact. It’s not true of every single corporation, but it’s true by and large.
Now really, if better batteries were made lots of technology would be open up to BE SOLD and those batteries would BE SOLD and the companies would make money.
Those companies are already making money hand over fist. They have some incentive to keep ahead of the competition. They have no incentive to completely overthrow the current paradigm.
Your worldview is going in the direction that we have hover packs and perpetual motion, it’s just that it’s been covered up blah blah blah
Yeah, fuel cells, solar power, induction. Real science fiction stuff. Seriously, you’ve gotta start thinking outside the box.
|
|
|
Total Posts: 839
Joined 2005-09-28
|
Posted: 24 October 2005 07:58 AM
[quote author="Beeblebrox date="0000000"]Yeah, fuel cells, solar power, induction. Real science fiction stuff. Seriously, you’ve gotta start thinking outside the box.
Okay that makes me laugh.
IF a hydrogen fuel cell could be ready tomorrow it would still be a VERY long time before they were produced en mass and everyone was using them. One of the biggest reasons is that there is no way you can go from 0 into the millions of places that would be needed to distribute the actual fuel! You have millions of gas stations and supply chains and vehicles that are based on gasoline, and sure corporations make lots of money, but there just isn’t that much money to do a complete change over!
Usually it takes aproximately 10 years before any technology goes from creation to normal use and it’s not entirely the corporations. The coporations invested tons of money, slowely over years, into a particular infrastructure and there’s no way they can turn solid assets like trucks and tanks and meters into money so they can remake the wheel!
|
|
|
Total Posts: 330
Joined 2005-09-13
|
Posted: 24 October 2005 11:05 AM
it’s be cool if someone made a battery pack that the iPod could kind of nest into, instead of the dongle solutions i’ve seen.
ooooohhh, those griffin ppl r on the right track! they stole my idea for the iTrip! 
http://griffintechnology.com/products/itripnano/index.php
|
|
|
Total Posts: 1108
Joined 2005-03-16
|
Posted: 24 October 2005 12:37 PM
napierzaza - Oct 24, 2005 07:58am IF a hydrogen fuel cell could be ready tomorrow it would still be a VERY long time before they were produced en mass and everyone was using them. One of the biggest reasons is that there is no way you can go from 0 into the millions of places that would be needed to distribute the actual fuel! You have millions of gas stations and supply chains and vehicles that are based on gasoline, and sure corporations make lots of money, but there just isn’t that much money to do a complete change over!
Yes, yes, yes, we all know the reasons why things CAN’T be done. The oil industry and politicians have made that abudantly clear. I’m more interested in people who want to overcome the challenges.
Besides, you’re talking about cars here. I’m talking about iPods. And fuel cells for electronic devices is currently being researched and developed. There are obvious hurdles to overcome, but there are, luckily, at least a few people who aren’t full of excuses on why things can’t be done. They’re more interested in how to overcome the problems.
|
|
|
Total Posts: 45
Joined 2005-10-24
|
Posted: 24 October 2005 02:09 PM
Toshiba announced a fuel cell mp3-player (prototype) that runned on pure methanol. They claim they can run it two and a half days longer than current products. The products works now and which year is it? 2005. When have they scheduled a public release? 2007.
Image Attachments
Click thumbnail to see full-size image
|
|
|
Total Posts: 839
Joined 2005-09-28
|
Posted: 24 October 2005 02:11 PM
Beeblebrox - Oct 24, 2005 12:37pm napierzaza - Oct 24, 2005 07:58am IF a hydrogen fuel cell could be ready tomorrow it would still be a VERY long time before they were produced en mass and everyone was using them. One of the biggest reasons is that there is no way you can go from 0 into the millions of places that would be needed to distribute the actual fuel! You have millions of gas stations and supply chains and vehicles that are based on gasoline, and sure corporations make lots of money, but there just isn’t that much money to do a complete change over!
Yes, yes, yes, we all know the reasons why things CAN’T be done. The oil industry and politicians have made that abudantly clear. I’m more interested in people who want to overcome the challenges.
Besides, you’re talking about cars here. I’m talking about iPods. And fuel cells for electronic devices is currently being researched and developed. There are obvious hurdles to overcome, but there are, luckily, at least a few people who aren’t full of excuses on why things can’t be done. They’re more interested in how to overcome the problems.
So what exactly? Everyone should be researching this? You’ll notice most everything harware-wise in the iPod is from a third party. If a viable fuel cell came on the market it’d probably be used.
|
|
|
Total Posts: 839
Joined 2005-09-28
|
Posted: 24 October 2005 02:15 PM
Fredrik - Oct 24, 2005 02:09pm Toshiba announced a fuel cell mp3-player (prototype) that runned on pure methanol. They claim they can run it two and a half days longer than current products. The products works now and which year is it? 2005. When have they scheduled a public release? 2007.
So clearly sitting on the product will make them more money than releasing it!
Let’s not forget Mac has gotten into trouble releasing things too quick anyway (though we’re talking about Toshiba now). Besides, what do we know about the problems you could face with a fuel cell, and the kinds of questions/research you’d need to get it off the ground? Maybe the engine wears out really easily, or explodes sometimes, or emits poison gas. Lots of good ideas don’t make it to market
|
|
|
Total Posts: 45
Joined 2005-10-24
|
Posted: 24 October 2005 02:23 PM
That was my point exactly. Releasing products too soon is a worst case scenario. The customer gets pissed, and might reconsider if he/she should infact continue to buy the company’s products. Also, there might be lawsuits and other rather unwelcome actions towards the company. If they can stick on to the product just some months longer, and reduse the chance of flaws, I’m sure every company would do it, and are doing it.
|
|
|
Total Posts: 1108
Joined 2005-03-16
|
Posted: 24 October 2005 02:32 PM
Fredrik - Oct 24, 2005 02:09pm Toshiba announced a fuel cell mp3-player (prototype) that runned on pure methanol. They claim they can run it two and a half days longer than current products. The products works now and which year is it? 2005. When have they scheduled a public release? 2007.
And it begs the question why a company like Duracell, whose entire business is portable power, can’t come up with something that Toshiba has already announced. But they will only get into this market when forced to in order to survive.
|
|
|
Total Posts: 1108
Joined 2005-03-16
|
Posted: 24 October 2005 02:37 PM
napierzaza - Oct 24, 2005 02:15pm So clearly sitting on the product will make them more money than releasing it!
In Toshiba’s case, they already have products in the pipeline that were in development before the fuel cell mp3 player. You can’t just skip over those products to release something new. You lose too much R&D;.
So yes, they make more money sitting on the product than by releasing it. There is a release strategy involved to maximize profits from old or existing technology. I’m not sure why that’s such a hard concept for you to grasp.
|
