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.

selsinork wrote:

 

http://www.element14.com/community/docs/DOC-48555/l/premier-farnell-acquires-shenzhen-embest-technology-co-ltd-enhancing-its-offering-for-electronic-designers

Branding and company structure don't always track each other, which can make things a bit confusing.

According to their official line, the group's name is Premier Farnell, which is consistent with the above press release saying that Embest was acquired by Premier Farnell, not by E14.  Premier Farnell's Wikipedia page (which was updated just a couple of days ago, apparently by Farnell staff) says:

The Premier Farnell group trades globally under the following company names:

• Farnell in the UK and Europe
• element14 in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, China and Singapore
• Newark Electronics in the US, Canada and Mexico
• MCM Electronics in the US
• Farnell-Newark in Brazil
• Combined Precision Components (CPC) in the UK
• Akron Brass, North America
• TPC Wire and Cable, North America

so although Embest is still missing from that list, the acquisition is nevertheless consistent with Premier Farnell being the actual global corporation behind all of this, they make the acquisitions.  It's consistent with PF's claims on their corporate Our Businesses page and Our Brands page as well.  Likewise, in their banner line, Embest describe themselves as "a Premier Farnell Company".

It all seems fairly straightforward in terms of corporate relationships between the parts.

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, not built by Embest themselves.  Since PF trades in China as Element 14 (and probably as Embest as well now), Chinese-manufactured BBBs are likely to appear in that market under the Element 14 (or Embest?) brand, but not in US nor Europe because the group trades under different company names over here.

If Premier Farnell were to  import Chinese-manufactured BBBs over here, then branding would get complicated, but that may be disallowed by CircuitCo.

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.

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.