Okay, that's fair. So "nearly equivalent maintenance costs but a whole lot cheaper on fuel" would seem to be a less click baity headline. (I know, I'm asking for a lot)
Equipment, cables and materials still cost the same, so the comparison is relevant. Even adjusting for PPP, the difference is striking. And to explain the differences, you have to look at external factors, such as competition and regulation.
That's exactly my point. The comparison is not mine, but from the article.
> but my work at Sendwave led to saving well over 10x more money, because the scale of the product was bigger and the improvements I was making were more important.
Cheaper is better, all other things equal. If the other systems were ten times more expensive, were they also ten times better in some other metrics to compensate?
Most of these points make sense. But the article was bragging about them raising costs. Which made it sound like they were at parity, not that they undercut. Do they get extra subsidies from the government? Or are they cheaper to make?
The comparison doesn't work on manufactured products. You can really only compare commodities.
Anything that is manufactured has a multitude of factors that will reduce cost of a product significantly over time. If the circuitry in an Xbox were constructed in 1960 no government on the planet would have been able to afford it. It would also be difficult to find enough power to run it or a place big enough to build it with the technology of the time.
reply