Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I am curious as to how much higher the BOM cost would have been for valves had they decided on a better screen .Surely it can be that high


sort by: page size:

Electronics in these systems are a low % of the BoM cost though, so wouldn’t expect it to make such a big difference.

Interesting Question. I will have to look up on the BOM cost difference.

The precisely curved mirrors are expensive, and likely dominate the BOM.

And tanks to economy of scales, electronic systems are now often cheaper than mechanical ones.


Comparable products are typically 3x or more the price. A lot of costs are not BOM related, e.g. costs for tooling (e.g. plastic mold), certifications, testing & calibration etc.

Original Echo was insanely overpriced relative to BOM costs. Plus now that they have a big volume they've probably negotiated better deals for their cost-down design components.

They're also using a screen that's much cheaper, I think that explains a large part of the price difference.

Would also assume (even if not from a BoM perspective) that the standard Dash buttons are cheaper as they're subsidised by the sale of the products?

It wasn't my intention to imply that it was expensive - within an order of magnitude of current prices shows how relatively cheap it was, given that electronics and sheer scale will have driven down the cost of parts (if not necessarily the end user cost).

I expect the difference is in the vendors' margins (i.e. nowadays the option price is almost pure profit/salesperson's commission).


The story mentions that the new designs would be cheaper. They don't go into detail as to why.

I suspect that a lot of the cost is process and regulatory overhead.

If that can be made more efficient, things are likely to get cheaper.

However, the story only mentions running efficiency, which may not have as much impact.


Still a good comparison to see the relative costs of the components involved.

I mentioned 3 things that might explain the price difference in my comment, not just economies of scale. I should have been clearer

1. Economies of scale

2. Difference in quality of the display

3. Booking factory capacity in advance (there's likely a huge opportunity cost to the manufacturer)


It would also cost a lot more.

As with paint vs. printer ink, I'd expect it to cost many times more per unit, though.

There were technical components mentioned in the article. Yes, cost comparison was the main thrust.

I wonder what the difference between the cost of Amazon's technology is vs Monoprix's service?

Monoprix may have found that they can make more money / save on initial outlay of shop fitting by offering a similar service, but without the technology.


With a higher operating cost as well.

But it's still an order or magnitude higher material cost

Hopefully you'd think they compared those costs and still found the in-house option would be cheaper in the long run. Who knows, though, or who knows how accurate their estimates were.

You can have nicer things, you just have to pay for it.

But because of economies of scale, you don’t just pay the difference in BOM cost, you pay that difference plus the difference in fixed costs divided by a much smaller unit run.

USB UPSes exist, and they’re really not that niche. Amazon has one for $50. That’s mass-market pricing as far as electronics are concerned.

next

Legal | privacy