Am 08.03.2012 10:22, schrieb Invisible:
>>> When I joined the company, we had floor-standing servers with hot-swap
>>> drives, dual redundant power supplies, a floor-standing UPS, and all the
>>> rest. It still didn't cost anywhere near what a rack-mountable setup
>>> would cost.
>>
>> Of the same brand and model?
>
> No.
>
> Generally manufacturers will make one model that's floor-standing, and
> another, different model which is rack-mount. That makes it quite hard
> to compare the same model in both configurations.
>
>> Last time I looked at server costs (over 10
>> years ago), the price difference between a Compaq Proliant 2500 with
>> feet and a compaq Proliant with mounting brackets was the price of the
>> mounting brackets.
>
> And if that were the case, I'd have no complaints. My point is that this
> seems emphatically /not/ to be the case. It seems more like rack
> mounting is a "premium feature", and you have to pay a serious amount of
> money for it.

And guess what - there happens to be a reason for this ;-)

You know, people who rack-mount things usually demand some features 
(besides mounting brackets) the non-rack-mounting people just don't care 
about. So why spend even $0.01 per unit in design and manufactoring 
costs on optional rack-mounting capability for some piece of equipment 
with a margin of less than $10.00 if this increases your sales by less 
than 0.1%?

> I'm saying, not knowing how the batteries are different, I can't say
> whether or not that justifies the price difference. It might do, I don't
> know.

Obviously they're different in how fast you can charge them, no?

> Which would seem to suggest that the difference is that they don't
> bother offering rack-mount for cheap hardware.

Exactly that. The added design and manufacturing costs - however low 
they may be - simply don't pay off.

Post a reply to this message