Strange Prices

I expect BBB pricing to remain "strange" and disparate across the world, because Premier Farnell isn't a BBB manufacturer as it is for Raspberry Pi, and so different forces are in play.  There is also an inevitable conflict of interest to some degree, since every BBB sold probably means one less sale of Pi Model B.  We'll never know how that's being played, as it's an internal business matter.  They've already raised the price once, as BBB was initially listed at £27.<something> in the UK and now it's listed at £30.99.

As you point out though, their price leeway is limited.  If BBB is priced too high, people will just go elsewhere.

The same applies to stock issues as it does to price issues.  At least in the UK, Farnell is ordering relatively few BBBs each week and there are never any in stock, so customers may be going elsewhere.  Currently their stock info says:

Availability:  Awaiting Delivery

 

1000 will be available for delivery on 27 May, 2013

5000 will be available for delivery on 2 Jun, 2013

1500 will be available for delivery on 3 Jun, 2013

I suspect that CircuitCo doesn't allow them any greater numbers so it's not Farnell's fault, but that's no comfort to eager customers.  Those who have succumbed to the BBB feeding frenzy will go elsewhere.

> because Premier Farnell isn't a BBB manufacturer as it is for Raspberry Pi

Do we really know what this difference amounts to?

Premier Farnell doesn't actually manufacture either device.

Sony manufactures the RPi, and Circuitco manufactures the BBB.

I think RS Components is directly involved in testing returned RPis,

but I don't think Farnell even does that.

Farnell may be involved to some extent in supplying components.

We have heard for example that RS didn't order enough Broadcom cpu's

early on.  But we have also heard that the RPF got stuck owning

inventories of memory chips.  So it isn't exactly clear to what extent

Farnell is involved in component inventories for RPi compared to BBB.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

Premier Farnell owns Embest but they don't own the Sony factory in Wales, so if there is to be a direct correspondance between Premier Farnell's manufacturing of Pi and BBB, the assembly line for Chinese BBBs would have to be contracted out to local manufacturers in China.

Absolutely. I'm sure the use of the Sony factory is more a political decision driven by the RPF's stated goal of wanting to build them in the UK. From a puerly business perspective you'd build them wherever is cheapest in order to improve your profits. 

The obvious other example we have is Sabre-Lite, by embest, built in china. Likely lower volumes than BBB in much the same way as BBB is lower than RPi. I'm sure they could arrange to get either SL or BBB built by Sony in the UK, but where's the advantage in it ?

selsinork wrote:

 

From a puerly business perspective you'd build them wherever is cheapest in order to improve your profits. 

I've often wondered though whether a fully automated assembly line costs any more to operate in one place or another.  Above a certain volume of robotic production, the few humans that are still required no longer have a strong impact on costs.  Assembling in the place of your target market clearly reduces transport costs, might attract local inducement benefits, and may avoid some import duty as well.

Premier Farnell owns Embest but they don't own the Sony factory in Wales, so if there is to be a direct correspondance between Premier Farnell's manufacturing of Pi and BBB,

If this is in reference to my summary of the correspondence between RPi & BBB,

then yes you're right the correspondence maybe isn't quite that perfect. 

But you are assuming that PF contracts with the Sony factory for RPi, which may or

not be true.  Certainly Andy won't confirm that.  PF signed a new contract with

RPF in Jan 2013, and for all we know PF may no longer be a RPi "manufacturing" partner.

In fact, I suspect that's what happened. 

I agree  once it's all done by robots you would expect the costs to equalise. i suspect thatthings such as the fact that UK taxes chips much higher than finished boards and also the cost of land etc make it  still more expensive  in the UK

i really can't see how UK GOV got away with this taxation BS saying it protected UK Jobs ...err how does pricing manufacturing in the UK out of the market for over 20 years help jobs in the UK ..DOH!!

coder27 wrote:

 

PF signed a new contract with RPF in Jan 2013, and for all we know PF may no longer be a RPi "manufacturing" partner.  In fact, I suspect that's what happened. 

The whole "manufacturing partner" thing may well have been just smoke and mirrors anyway.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if Premier Farnell and RS never had any manufacturing input or control whatsoever, and that the "partnership" just consisted in advancing money to RPF in exchange for preferential retail rights.

That would certainly explain why your questions about issues like certification never get answered.  It's possible that they don't know because they have never been involved except at the cheque-book level, and to find out such information they have to ask RPF.  Since the likelihood of getting open and accurate information out of RPF verges on zero as we know from experience, it's easy to imagine that there could be a problem.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

I've often wondered though whether a fully automated assembly line costs any more to operate in one place or another. 

I'm sure there are many aspects to it. I've worked in some of these assembly plants and have seen the inside of many more, you'd be surprised at the number of people involved.

I was also intrigued at the bit mentioned by the RPF that importing the components to the UK means you pay more duty than importing the assembled item. With that sort of thing in play, the economics are likely to be a lot more complex than simply the cost of running the line.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

That would certainly explain why your questions about issues like certification never get answered.  It's possible that they don't know because they have never been involved except at the cheque-book level, and to find out such information they have to ask RPF. 

Not sure how it goes in different countries, or with regards to EMC, but at least in the EU the WEEE regulations appear to be complex and the requirements are on the importer or organisation selling to the end user, not the manufacturer.

As such, and with e14/RS potentially ending up being the responsible parties you'd expect them to have a handle on the various applicable legislation in all the countries they ship to. I'm sure EMC / RoHS / WEEE are only the tip of the iceberg here.

Just thinking about that, I wonder if there's a connection there to the fact that they're only setup for consumer sales in a few countries and others being done as export sales ?

I doubt that distributors check their suppliers' paperwork for compliance of products with all the standards and certifications being claimed --- that would be worthy of a film halfway between Blazing Saddles and Brazil.

But they definitely do have departments dedicated to engineering regulations, and they do provide relevant advice to designers as a service.  The products they sell are probably just assumed to comply with whatever standards they claim though, as anything stronger would be extremely hard and costly to accomplish.

That would certainly explain why your questions about issues like certification never get answered.

Answering certification questions shouldn't depend at all on the contractual manufacturing details.

The RPi "Safety Data Sheet" published by E14 and also by RS clearly shows "Class A" testing. 

What seems to be hard to explain is how you can sell a device with a Class A certificate to

Class B (residential) customers.

I doubt that distributors check their suppliers' paperwork for compliance of products with all the standards and certifications being claimed --- that would be worthy of a film halfway between Blazing Saddles and Brazil.

Yes, I think they do.  The distributors made a big stink at launch time about how picky they were

in not selling any products until the compliance paperwork was in order, much to the dismay of RPF

who intended to wait until the cased educational version was released before doing any EMC testing.

I was also intrigued at the bit mentioned by the RPF that importing the components to the UK means you pay more duty than importing the assembled item. With that sort of thing in play, the economics are likely to be a lot more complex than simply the cost of running the line.

I think that claim was pretty much debunked, and no figures were ever released to back it up.

I was also intrigued at the bit mentioned by the RPF that importing the components to the UK means you pay more duty than importing the assembled item. With that sort of thing in play, the economics are likely to be a lot more complex than simply the cost of running the line.

I think that claim was pretty much debunked, and no figures were ever released to back it up.

I do remember that particular duty legislation coming in and I do remember it been proported as a method of saving jobs ..(double speak if ever there was )

How ever I don't know if it was ever repealed  as far as I know it's still in place!

see for example this slashdot discussion, for whatever it's worth:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/04/14/1728249/raspberry-pi-production-heats-up-in-uk-surpassing-chinese-production-soon

Except that the Raspberry Pi foundation have never been able to point to any of these so-called duties. A question was asked in parliament and the minister replied that nobody in his department had any idea what they were talking about. Bear in mind that the Raspberry Pi foundation is run by engineers and programmers, not by people with a background in navigating import procedures.

A quick search of the UK trade tariff [www.gov.uk] shows that there is no tariff on these sorts of components from any country. VAT applies, but will be the same amount for non-EU imports, EU 'acquisitions' (the technical term for imports within the common market) or UK purchases and only the administration differs. If you set the date back a year or look at other types of ICs you get the same result - no tariff.

Certainly whatever import duties there may be have not been sufficient to deter the Sony UK production.

I'm glad but as you say this was a device which was specifically demonstrating UK credentials so really the RPI been made predominantly in the UK should really be a given.

Another 100+ other devices like this and we may have an electronics industry... Either way we should be thankful for what we get

John Alexander wrote:

 

Another 100+ other devices like this and we may have an electronics industry...

And if our government were, you know, insightful, they might even realize that the people who actually make things in the country (as opposed to those who just profit from them) would like nothing more than to do so.  Unfortunately this would require a commercial environment in which domestic manufacturing is encouraged, the exact opposite of where we are today.  I'd settle for the lesser goal of government simply being not clueless, but even that is probably too ambitious a target.

Just imagine if we had a strong domestic electronics industry, and USA in their headlong rush to outsource all manufacturing until there are only lawyers employed there came to us for it, an immediately attractive location for them because of commonality of language.  One can dream ...

It's a pity that having ambitious dreams for your country is a dismissable offense in post-2k western politics.

Yes,you are repeatedly punished in the UK for been innovative doing stuff here is too complicated and expensive unless you are one of the big boys to carry that over head by which time you are manufacturing in China  etc etc.

The horrible fact is that we need some kind of manufacturing industry because in reality 80+ % of people are just average not super duper brain surgeons/rocket scientists/engineers etc.

There's no realistric way a country can be self supporting with out involving that 80+% and at the moment that involves some form of manufacture.

I think the problem is that politicians don't make things, and therefore cannot distinguish the different effects of 1) making something and 2) having that something made for you.  After all, you obtain the same something in both cases, don't you?

Alas, as engineers know very well, when you make a thing yourself you gain vastly more than just the end product.  You acquire understanding and insight, and you learn enormous amounts from your failures, and you gain confidence and inspiration for the next generation.  As a result, those who make things are destined to advance rapidly in capability, and that's an exponentially cumulative effect.  Conversely, those who get things made for them are destined to lose the lead in technology and become dependents.

This reality must escape government entirely, otherwise they would act on it and strongly encourage domestic manufacturing and discourage contracting out work abroad.  Because of their miscomprehension they support and encourage domestic businesses that contract out their manufacturing abroad, because they think that profit is an equal indicator of success.  It's not, it's an indicator of impending doom.  The end result of this failure is predictable.

This reality must escape government entirely, otherwise they would act on it and strongly encourage domestic manufacturing and discourage contracting out work abroad.

I don't think there is a simple known solution.  If company A is located in a high-wage country, selling products

that compete on the market with those from company B located in a low-wage country, then company A will likely

have a hard time matching the price of company B's products unless it outsources (labor intensive) manufacturing,

and may risk going out of business entirely.  So in order to save the high-wage design jobs at company A,

the government wouldn't want to discourage oursourcing of low-wage manufacturing jobs. 

If you try to use import duties to discourage the import of products from company B, you find your manufacturing

companies complaining about duties on their imported components and subassemblies, and risk losing those

manufacturing jobs.  Or you risk trade wars due to tit-for-tat import duties on your country's exports.

coder27 wrote:

 

If company A is located in a high-wage country, selling products that compete on the market with those from company B located in a low-wage country,

An advanced technological nation shouldn't be trying to compete on the cost of human labor.  Robots earn the same wage in all countries.

And it's not only a matter of avoiding labor costs.  Robotic assembly also yields more consistent and higher quality assemblies when done effectively, since robots don't get tired towards the end of the day and they don't have liquid lunches nor marriage problems nor financial worries to distract them etc etc etc.

And in turn, a consequence of the improved quality is that your products compete at a higher level where competition is less and margins are higher, instead of competing at the base level alongside a million others.

Farming out assembly work to a low-wage country just means insufficient investment in automation was made at home.  It's a vicious circle which holds you back in numerous ways.  It's an illusion that as long as profit is made, everything else is equal even if you outsource.  Or perhaps the right word is delusion.

An advanced technological nation shouldn't be trying to compete on the cost of human labor.  Robots earn the same wage in all countries.

Yes, but using robots doesn't solve John's employment issue:

The horrible fact is that we need some kind of manufacturing industry because in reality 80+ % of people are just average not super duper brain surgeons/rocket scientists/engineers etc.

There's no realistric way a country can be self supporting with out involving that 80+% and at the moment that involves some form of manufacture.

And robots obviously can't do every job.  Software jobs are a good example where

there are only a few barriers to a global labor pool, such as security clearances required

for defense jobs.

coder27 wrote:

 

Yes, but using robots doesn't solve John's employment issue:

Not without socio-economic reform, I agree.  But socio-economic reform is very much on the cards.  A future in which people still need to work merely in order to survive is not much of a future to look forward to.  If in a few hundred years' time people still need to go to work (as opposed to want to be involved productively not for money) then as engineers we will have failed humanity.