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.

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.

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

I would think that when there's a robot, there's a human to service it, set it up, and the like.

If the company was manually making the product it would possibly only sell x units.

Some of the same other overheads of ordering, testing, and distribution are still there, but divided by x units.

Robot assembly is likely to reduce the human assembly cost, and therefore the product cost, meaning more can be sold.

This in turn means more support staff, which may be greater than those doing the assembly.

The capital cost of the assembly machinery is probably the sticking point, requiring a high investment.

It's a viscious circle no matter what.

We had a company here in NZ making garage doors.

Since no-one can be bothered getting out of their car to open them, they needed to add electronic openers.

They were being manufactured at some low cost overseas place, where volume, not quality was the bottom line.

The company nearly went bust over the warranty replacements, repairs, checking etc.

In desperation they went to in-house manufacture to improve the quality.

The payoff was the reputation went from zero to hero because they were no longer a product to avoid (never mind if the actual door was okay).

mark

coder27 wrote:

 

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

figures or not, it's exactly the sort of strange thinking our governments in the UK enjoy and as such I'd be more inclined to believe that one than not

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

I think the problem is that politicians don't make things,

I think the problem is politicans

Mark Beckett wrote:

 

I would think that when there's a robot, there's a human to service it, set it up, and the like.

most likely a reasonably large team of them, and even once it's up and running you need to keep feeding it whatever raw materials to keep it running

but the economics of it aren't simple, these smt assembly lines aren't cheap and the cost of the machines is likely to work out similar no matter where in the world you put them, to pay off that investment you need to run them continually for some number of years

So other things like land, facilities, local legislation, transport of materials in and goods out all start to become interesting. If you're a few miles away from sources for all your components that's obviously going to be better than shipping stuff around the world three times.

The other side to the problem is that more and more the design of electronic stuff is making it difficult, impossible, or at least completely impractical to assemble by hand, so more robots required!   Don't know about you, but I really don't like the idea of needing to hand solder thousands of densely packed 0201 R's and C's onto a board, it'll be slow, error prone, and the end quality will likely be very poor.  Even in the places with the cheapest labour costs I expect it's simply not viable for all sorts of things.

Of course, cheap labour costs lets you throw bodies at some problems in the way you couldn't easily do here.

Mark Beckett wrote:

 

I would think that when there's a robot, there's a human to service it, set it up, and the like.

most likely a reasonably large team of them, and even once it's up and running you need to keep feeding it whatever raw materials to keep it running

but the economics of it aren't simple, these smt assembly lines aren't cheap and the cost of the machines is likely to work out similar no matter where in the world you put them, to pay off that investment you need to run them continually for some number of years

So other things like land, facilities, local legislation, transport of materials in and goods out all start to become interesting. If you're a few miles away from sources for all your components that's obviously going to be better than shipping stuff around the world three times.

The other side to the problem is that more and more the design of electronic stuff is making it difficult, impossible, or at least completely impractical to assemble by hand, so more robots required!   Don't know about you, but I really don't like the idea of needing to hand solder thousands of densely packed 0201 R's and C's onto a board, it'll be slow, error prone, and the end quality will likely be very poor.  Even in the places with the cheapest labour costs I expect it's simply not viable for all sorts of things.

Of course, cheap labour costs lets you throw bodies at some problems in the way you couldn't easily do here.