> My point exactly - it seems to have nothing to do with how reliable the 
> device is, only the subjective feeling it gives you in your head knowing 
> that "I paid lots of money for this, therefore it must be really 
> reliable". Which isn't terribly scientific...

Surely you check out the specification before buying something?  It will 
include details about *how* reliable it is, with real numbers, and under 
what conditions it has been tested in.  Something you buy from Maplins won't 
have this.



> somebody has to check it won't break or something when it gets that damn 
> cold.

Exactly - someone has to check - and that costs money.

> Why? Do they actually *do* something different with it?

Yes, it is designed to be more reliable, and they test it to prove this so 
they can write it in the specification of the device.

> Does the hardware itself have any actual physical differences to a cheap 
> model?

Probably, if you're lucky you could get a *really* reliable one from Maplin 
that lasted for 1000 years without any problems.  *Lucky* being the key word 
here, try explaining to someone's family that they died because some monitor 
failed, you can't say "we were unlucky".


> several thousand percent markup, and started marketting it at a different 
> market segment.

And put in place processes for guaranteeing the reliability of the product, 
at least testing each one and working with their suppliers to ensure that 
correct procedures are followed to avoid any unreliabilities.  You see those 
news stories about paint from China causing problems?  Without controlling 
your suppliers properly stuff like that happens - and if you are supplying 
something you claim to be suitable for critical processes, you are in deep 
trouble if you allow your suppliers or your own processes to screw up.

> The answer is a little number hidden at the bottom of the page somewhere: 
> "duty cycle". One printer said 1,000 pages/month, the other said 100,000 
> pages/month. And you know what? We ended up buying both printers, and one 
> is still working to this day, the other one we eventually threw away 
> because it just kept breaking so often.

Exactly.

> In this case, it seems paying 10x the price does, in fact, get you a 
> device which is *physically different*. I don't know if they use thicker 
> plastic for the drive gears or what, but the more expensive printer was 
> far more reliable. The cheap one is basically designed to sit in your 
> house. [Actually, I have one at home. It works just fine. But then, I 
> hardly ever print anything!] Put that printer in a busy office and it just 
> can't cope.

The same way that buying a 20 quid power drill from B&Q is fine if you only 
use it once a month to drill a few holes.  But if you are a builder and you 
use it 20 times a day, it's going to break after a week.  Which is why you 
invest in a way more expensive model.  OK so if you bought the cheap one it 
*might* last for several months, but it's not worth the risk if you really 
need your drill to work every day.

> Well, you're the engineer. But I wonder - if a mass spectrometer that you 

> one you *can* use for diagnostic procedures cost?! o_O

Medical equipment is extremely expensive, precisely because there is so much 
at risk when things go wrong.  The companies that make this stuff need to do 
a huge amount of testing and robust design, way above what most other 
industries require.  It all costs money.

Post a reply to this message