What does Mars Inc. make?

Well, obviously, they make Mars bars. Slightly less obviously, they also 
make Bounty, Twix, Snickers and a few other things.

They also own Wrigleys though. So they make all kinds of chewing gum, 
breath mints, and so forth.

But I bet you didn't know, they own Uncle Ben's. You know, they guys who 
sell packet rice. So yeah, next time you eat that stuff, it's made by Mars.

But that's not all. They also own... Whiskas. Yeah, that's right. They 
make cat food. Eww. :-S



PepsiCo is a similar story. They obviously make Pepsi, Pepsi Max and 
Diet Pepsi. They also make Mountain Dew, Gatorade, 7UP, etc. Apparently 
they make Tropicana - which is interesting, because that's supposedly a 
healthy fruity drink, not the flavoured sugar water listed so far. Also 
mildly surprising, they make Lipton Ice (in association with Unilever, 
better known for making floor cleaners and disinfectants).

But it gets weirder. They own Doritos. Next time you're munching through 
some of those, that's PepsiCo. Not /that/ surprising, since you can 
easily imagine somebody eating those out of the same vending machine 
that also dispenses Pepsi.

They also own Quaker Foods, makers of Quaker Oats, etc. They make 
Cheetos too. And, perhaps most surprising of all, they /own/ Walkers, 
the iconic crisp manufacturers. So next time you think to yourself 
"stick these Doritos, I'm going to buy Walkers instead" then, um, yeah - 
it's the same damned company.



All of this is /nothing/, though, compared to the Coca-Cola company. 
Their Wikipedia page doesn't even /say/ what they make; there's an 
entire other page for that. I counted 16 screenfuls of text. Suffice it 
to say, they own A LOT of stuff! o_O

Baffling, isn't it? So many brands, and yet they're all actually made by 
just three big companies. And many of them make seemingly unrelated 
products...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Slightly less obviously, they also make

  I always find it amusing when someone declares that he's boycotting
this or that megacorporation because they don't like their business
practices or whatever (the last example was someone saying they do not
buy Sony products) without realizing that it's almost *impossible* to
live in the modern world without buying something made by the corporation
or, at the very least, part of the money going to them (regardless of which
huge international megacorporation we are talking about).

  (For example, good luck trying to stop Sony from getting any of your
money.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> All of this is /nothing/, though, compared to the Coca-Cola company.
> Their Wikipedia page doesn't even /say/ what they make; there's an
> entire other page for that. I counted 16 screenfuls of text. Suffice it
> to say, they own A LOT of stuff! o_O

Procter & Gamble is another big one with their own wikipedia page of brands.

It gets more complicated when brands are sold between companies, or even 
worse when the same brand is owned by different companies in different 
countries!

> Baffling, isn't it? So many brands, and yet they're all actually made by
> just three big companies. And many of them make seemingly unrelated
> products...

Add in to that mix all the supermarket (un)branded stuff, which are 
probably just made by the same companies.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 01:57 PM, scott wrote:
>> All of this is /nothing/, though, compared to the Coca-Cola company.
>> They own A LOT of stuff! o_O
>
> Procter & Gamble is another big one with their own wikipedia page of
> brands.

Yeah, I'll bet. I would imagine Unilever is similar.

> It gets more complicated when brands are sold between companies, or even
> worse when the same brand is owned by different companies in different
> countries!

What I can't figure out is how premium brands end up getting owned by 
budget brands.

For example, Ferrari is famous for making luxury cars that only a few of 
the richest people in the world can afford to drive. Ferrari is 
currently owned by Fiat, famous for making shit cars that no sane person 
in their right mind would want to drive, never mind own. So... how the 
hell did Fiat manage to afford Ferrari?

Similarly, Cadbury, maker of fine chocolates, was recently bought by 
Kraft foods, makers of naff cheap crap. How the heck did /that/ happen??

> Add in to that mix all the supermarket (un)branded stuff, which are
> probably just made by the same companies.

Uh... I'm not sure that (say) Tesco's own cornflakes are made by the 
same people as Kellog's cornflakes. What I /would/ suspect, however, is 
that Tesco's own cornflakes are made by the same people as ADSA's own 
cornflakes, Sainsbury's own cornflakes, and so on. Because, really, how 
many factories making cornflakes can there possibly be?

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 01:39 PM, Warp wrote:
>    I always find it amusing when someone declares that he's boycotting
> this or that megacorporation because they don't like their business
> practices or whatever without realizing that it's almost *impossible*

Yeah, quite. There are a few corporations out there which make so much 
stuff, you can't possibly avoid giving them your money. (Well, unless 
you never buy /anything/, and that's not exactly feasible.)

Currently I'm seriously ****ed off with Amazon. When you buy something 
from them and the price on screen is X, you expect to pay X, plus some 
negligible amount for postage. You to /not/ expect to pay 1.5 X. If I 
had known that the /actual/ price was 1.5 X, I would not have purchased 
the item. The fact that Amazon hid this information seems tantamount to 
fraud, to me.

But hey, what can you do? It's not as if you can, I don't know, /file a 
complaint/ or anything. Nor that they would even /care/ if you did...

Post a reply to this message

> For example, Ferrari is famous for making luxury cars that only a few of
> the richest people in the world can afford to drive. Ferrari is
> currently owned by Fiat, famous for making shit cars that no sane person
> in their right mind would want to drive, never mind own. So... how the
> hell did Fiat manage to afford Ferrari?

Because there are 2 million Fiats sold each year, yet only 5000 
Ferraris.  Which brand would you rather own?  Hint: if you choose 
correctly you could buy the other one with about 2 weeks of profit :-)

> Similarly, Cadbury, maker of fine chocolates, was recently bought by
> Kraft foods, makers of naff cheap crap. How the heck did /that/ happen??

They offered a high enough price that was acceptable for the company, 
much like any other trade.

> Uh... I'm not sure that (say) Tesco's own cornflakes are made by the
> same people as Kellog's cornflakes.

Maybe not that exact example (I have no idea who makes Tesco's 
cornflakes), but plenty of companies make their own brands and also the 
stuff for supermarket brands.  They already have all the equipment and 
logistics in place, plus a reputation with the supermarket, it will 
benefit both companies in the end.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 02:43 PM, scott wrote:
>> For example, Ferrari is famous for making luxury cars that only a few of
>> the richest people in the world can afford to drive. Ferrari is
>> currently owned by Fiat, famous for making shit cars that no sane person
>> in their right mind would want to drive, never mind own. So... how the
>> hell did Fiat manage to afford Ferrari?
>
> Because there are 2 million Fiats sold each year, yet only 5000
> Ferraris. Which brand would you rather own?

On the other hand, the profit on selling one Fiat pales into 
insignificance compared to the profit on selling a single Ferrari. So 
you don't need to sell anywhere near as many to make the same yearly 
profit. It /should/ be a no-brainer; Ferrari /should/ be making vastly 
more money than Fiat will ever own. So...???

>> Similarly, Cadbury, maker of fine chocolates, was recently bought by
>> Kraft foods, makers of naff cheap crap. How the heck did /that/ happen??
>
> They offered a high enough price that was acceptable for the company,
> much like any other trade.

My question was more "how the hell can they afford that?"

>> Uh... I'm not sure that (say) Tesco's own cornflakes are made by the
>> same people as Kellog's cornflakes.
>
> Maybe not that exact example (I have no idea who makes Tesco's
> cornflakes), but plenty of companies make their own brands and also the
> stuff for supermarket brands. They already have all the equipment and
> logistics in place, plus a reputation with the supermarket, it will
> benefit both companies in the end.

I'm just trying to visualise the conversation though: "Yeah, we can sell 
you our brand for £8/box, and then we can sell you the same thing for 
£0.0017/box and let you print your own label on it." I'm not seeing how 
that wouldn't be laughable.

Post a reply to this message

>It /should/ be a no-brainer; Ferrari /should/ be making vastly
> more money than Fiat will ever own. So...???

The more people there are that think like that, the easier it is for me 
to make money!  Here, let me give you my precious expensive Ferrari 
company, and in return you give me all your cheapo Fiat factories and 
brands :-)  Sound like a good deal to you? OK let's go!

> My question was more "how the hell can they afford that?"

The real question is, will Kraft be able to get more value from Cadbury 
than everyone else thought?  If not, then it was a waste of money to buy 
them, but if Kraft can do something with the company to make it more 
valuable (restructuring, new products, whatever) then it was a good buy. 
  Only time will tell.

> I'm just trying to visualise the conversation though: "Yeah, we can sell
> you our brand for £8/box, and then we can sell you the same thing for
> £0.0017/box and let you print your own label on it." I'm not seeing how
> that wouldn't be laughable.

That's exactly how it works (maybe not as extreme difference in price, 
and the company will print the packaging/label too).  The supermarkets 
know that consumers want to buy expensive Kellogs cereal and cheap 
own-brand stuff, it will work out better (=more profit) for the 
supermarkets and the suppliers (Kellogs) if they supply both products, 
given how similar they are.

Post a reply to this message

Le 11/04/2012 15:59, Invisible nous fit lire :
> 
> I'm just trying to visualise the conversation though: "Yeah, we can sell
> you our brand for £8/box, and then we can sell you the same thing for
> £0.0017/box and let you print your own label on it." I'm not seeing how
> that wouldn't be laughable.

Well, the difference might be in the recipe too.
The brand box might use a recipe with 19 ingredients and butter. The
supermarket box might use palm oil and less expensive ingredients.

Of course, there is also the brand starting to cheat on reputation: "new
taste", "light" ... usually happen when the old makers get a check from
the money people (as buying the company at retirement time). Instead of
continuing the old expensive way, they now put pressure to get a better
return on investment (ROI). The head of the company switched from "a
company for a purpose" to "a company to make money".

Sciences without consciences...

Post a reply to this message

> I'm just trying to visualise the conversation though: "Yeah, we can sell
> you our brand for £8/box, and then we can sell you the same thing for
> £0.0017/box and let you print your own label on it." I'm not seeing how
> that wouldn't be laughable.

Actually a similar thing happens in my company.  We make TVs and phones 
etc that are generally quite expensive.  Yet we also make the internal 
components of TVs and phones that are sold to other companies that make 
much cheaper TVs and phones (of course the spec is not exactly the same, 
but it's the same factories and processes).  It makes us more profit 
than if we refused to do such business.

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm just trying to visualise the conversation though: "Yeah, we can sell
>> you our brand for £8/box, and then we can sell you the same thing for
>> £0.0017/box and let you print your own label on it." I'm not seeing how
>> that wouldn't be laughable.
>
> That's exactly how it works (maybe not as extreme difference in price,
> and the company will print the packaging/label too). The supermarkets
> know that consumers want to buy expensive Kellogs cereal and cheap
> own-brand stuff, it will work out better (=more profit) for the
> supermarkets and the suppliers (Kellogs) if they supply both products,
> given how similar they are.

So... if I have to pay £8 for this box, and only £0.0017 for this box 
that's identical in ever way except for the label... why am I paying £8 
for the first box again??

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 4:25 PM, Invisible wrote:
> So... if I have to pay £8 for this box, and only £0.0017 for this box
> that's identical in ever way except for the label... why am I paying £8
> for the first box again??

Because high cost equals quality in most peoples mind. Or, it is cheap 
therefore it must be inferior.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 2:59 PM, Invisible wrote:
>
>>> Similarly, Cadbury, maker of fine chocolates, was recently bought by
>>> Kraft foods, makers of naff cheap crap. How the heck did /that/ happen??
>>
>> They offered a high enough price that was acceptable for the company,
>> much like any other trade.
>
> My question was more "how the hell can they afford that?"

The get loans for the money used to buy the company and when the company 
is theirs they asset strip to pay back the loan. I believe that this is 
also done with football companies.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> So... if I have to pay £8 for this box, and only £0.0017 for this box
> that's identical in ever way except for the label... why am I paying £8
> for the first box again??

It's not necessarily the exact same content, just made by the same 
company in the same factory (as already pointed out, it might use 
cheaper ingredients, not be subject to the same level of quality 
control, etc.).

In some cases though it is exactly the same content.  Just look at Tesco 
20x 500mg paracetamol for 18p or whatever it is today, and some other 
branded version for at least 5x that price.  Yet it still sells.  Even 
right next to the Tesco one on the shelf.  People are happy to pay extra 
purely for the brand, this is nothing surprising or new.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 04:32 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 11/04/2012 4:25 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> So... if I have to pay £8 for this box, and only £0.0017 for this box
>> that's identical in ever way except for the label... why am I paying £8
>> for the first box again??
>
> Because high cost equals quality in most peoples mind. Or, it is cheap
> therefore it must be inferior.

I was thinking more why the /supermarket/ would pay more for the same 
product...

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 4:49 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 11/04/2012 04:32 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 11/04/2012 4:25 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> So... if I have to pay £8 for this box, and only £0.0017 for this box
>>> that's identical in ever way except for the label... why am I paying £8
>>> for the first box again??
>>
>> Because high cost equals quality in most peoples mind. Or, it is cheap
>> therefore it must be inferior.
>
> I was thinking more why the /supermarket/ would pay more for the same
> product...

Public demand and brand loyalty. People want the brand of cornflakes 
they have always eaten. So the supermarkets buy them in for them.
There are some supermarkets that only stock generic brands but do not 
let your neighbours see you going there.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 02:43 PM, scott wrote:
>> So... how the hell did Fiat manage to afford Ferrari?
>
> Because there are 2 million Fiats sold each year, yet only 5000
> Ferraris. Which brand would you rather own? Hint: if you choose
> correctly you could buy the other one with about 2 weeks of profit :-)

OK, let's do the math on this...

Fiat sells in the budget market. In that segment, if you have a 3% 
profit margin, somebody else will come along and start making the same 
thing, but selling it at only 2% profit, and everybody will buy that 
instead of yours, so you shut down. And then somebody else will start 
selling it at 1% profit, etc. In summary, we can take it as read that 
Fiat sells its cars at only fractionally more than the actual 
manufacture cost.

Suppose for argument's sake that the cheapest Fiat you can buy is 
£20,000. And suppose that it's possible to purchase a Ferrari for as 
little as £800,000.

We've already agreed that Fiat is selling nearly at-cost. In other 
words, £20,000 is only slightly more than the actual cost of 
manufacturing a car. Now, a Ferarri probably costs slightly more to 
manufacture. But it doesn't cost £780,000 more. I mean, a 5L engine 
might be /priced/ at twice as much as a 1L engine, but it doesn't 
actually /cost/ twice as much to machine it. No doubt the Ferarri has 
nicer fabric lining the seats and a few other bits and bobs. Let's 
over-estimate and pretend that the Ferarri costs 2x to manufacture.

By that estimate, for every car it sells, Fiat makes maybe £50 profit. 
And for every car it sells, Ferarri makes £760,000 profit.

If Fiat sells 2 million per year, that's £100M/year. And if Ferrari 
sells 5,000/year, that's £3.8B/year.

Now, explain to me again, *how* can Fiat afford to buy Ferrari??

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 9:34 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Now, explain to me again, *how* can Fiat afford to buy Ferrari??

You are wrong in your assumptions.
Remember what Father Ted said to Father Dougal.
Inside head - Fantasy
Outside head - Reality.

Have you ever thought "this does not add up to my conceptions so I must 
be wrong"?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:34:42 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Now, explain to me again, *how* can Fiat afford to buy Ferrari??

As Stephen said, your assumptions are bad.

You've forgotten, for example, to include labour costs in the 
manufacturing process.  Those who work on Ferraris tend to command higher 
salaries than those who work on Fiats because making cars for high 
performance driving requires more skill than making cars for uses that 
the masses produce.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
>   (For example, good luck trying to stop Sony from getting any of your
> money.)

hey, Microsoft makes money off of Linux and Android, so what would you 
know?... :p

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
> Currently I'm seriously ****ed off with Amazon. When you buy something 
> from them and the price on screen is X, you expect to pay X, plus some 
> negligible amount for postage. You to /not/ expect to pay 1.5 X. If I 
> had known that the /actual/ price was 1.5 X, I would not have purchased 
> the item. The fact that Amazon hid this information seems tantamount to 
> fraud, to me.

oh, you're crying for nothing.

trying to import a Kindle reader from Brazil means you're supposed to 
pay 109 for the product and more than that for the import fees, 
effectively more than doubling the final price.

Post a reply to this message

> oh, you're crying for nothing.
>
> trying to import a Kindle reader from Brazil means you're supposed to
> pay 109 for the product and more than that for the import fees,
> effectively more than doubling the final price.

But the question is, do they *tell* you that before you actually 
purchase the thing? Or do you just find out after the fact?

Post a reply to this message

Le 12/04/2012 10:15, Invisible nous fit lire :
>> oh, you're crying for nothing.
>>
>> trying to import a Kindle reader from Brazil means you're supposed to
>> pay 109 for the product and more than that for the import fees,
>> effectively more than doubling the final price.
> 
> But the question is, do they *tell* you that before you actually
> purchase the thing? Or do you just find out after the fact?

It's a protective law for Brazil: if not made in Brazil, it's taxed
(heavily).
Purpose is to help companies to be from Brazil if they want to avoid
that tax.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
> >   (For example, good luck trying to stop Sony from getting any of your
> > money.)

> hey, Microsoft makes money off of Linux and Android, so what would you 
> know?... :p

  I don't think its comparable. Maybe MS makes money *using* Linux and
Android, but that doesn't mean that *your* money goes to MS when you "buy"
Linux or Android (them costing nothing, after all).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 21:34, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 11/04/2012 02:43 PM, scott wrote:
>>> So... how the hell did Fiat manage to afford Ferrari?
>>
>> Because there are 2 million Fiats sold each year, yet only 5000
>> Ferraris. Which brand would you rather own? Hint: if you choose
>> correctly you could buy the other one with about 2 weeks of profit :-)
>
> OK, let's do the math on this...
>
> Fiat sells in the budget market. In that segment, if you have a 3%
> profit margin, somebody else will come along and start making the same
> thing, but selling it at only 2% profit, and everybody will buy that
> instead of yours, so you shut down. And then somebody else will start
> selling it at 1% profit, etc. In summary, we can take it as read that
> Fiat sells its cars at only fractionally more than the actual
> manufacture cost.
>
> Suppose for argument's sake that the cheapest Fiat you can buy is
> £20,000. And suppose that it's possible to purchase a Ferrari for as
> little as £800,000.
>
> We've already agreed that Fiat is selling nearly at-cost. In other
> words, £20,000 is only slightly more than the actual cost of
> manufacturing a car. Now, a Ferarri probably costs slightly more to
> manufacture. But it doesn't cost £780,000 more. I mean, a 5L engine
> might be /priced/ at twice as much as a 1L engine, but it doesn't
> actually /cost/ twice as much to machine it. No doubt the Ferarri has
> nicer fabric lining the seats and a few other bits and bobs. Let's
> over-estimate and pretend that the Ferarri costs 2x to manufacture.
>
> By that estimate, for every car it sells, Fiat makes maybe £50 profit.
> And for every car it sells, Ferarri makes £760,000 profit.
>
> If Fiat sells 2 million per year, that's £100M/year. And if Ferrari
> sells 5,000/year, that's £3.8B/year.
>
> Now, explain to me again, *how* can Fiat afford to buy Ferrari??

Errors in your above assumptions:

Volume car makers are generally on about 5% profit (Fiat had 3% in 2010)
More expensive brands can generate 10% profit (eg BMW/Daimler etc.)
Ferrari made 15% profit in 2010
Most Ferraris will sell for about £150k
The development cost for designing and testing a car is HUGE
Manufacturing costs are way cheaper per car if you are making 2 million 
rather than 5000 a year.

Post a reply to this message

>> Now, explain to me again, *how* can Fiat afford to buy Ferrari??
>
> Errors in your above assumptions:
>
> Volume car makers are generally on about 5% profit (Fiat had 3% in 2010)
> More expensive brands can generate 10% profit (eg BMW/Daimler etc.)
> Ferrari made 15% profit in 2010

Now, do you mean "the company made 15% profit", or do you mean "each 
time the company sells 1 car, 15% of the sale price is profit"?

> Most Ferraris will sell for about £150k

Really? You can buy an actual Ferrari for that amount of money??

> The development cost for designing and testing a car is HUGE

Well, yes, anything safety-critical usually has very large design and 
test costs. (If you think cars are expensive, try developing drugs for a 
living...)

Presumably the cost of testing a cheap car is exactly the same as the 
cost of testing an expensive car though.

> Manufacturing costs are way cheaper per car if you are making 2 million
> rather than 5000 a year.

As I understand it, set-up cost is usually very large. So if you 
manufacture more units, the set-up cost is divided between more units, 
so the /per unit/ price is lower. Presumably the actual set-up cost 
itself is identical in both cases.

There are things like CDs which cost virtually nothing to manufacture, 
but still cost a lot to set up. So the set-up cost is virtually the 
entire cost. I'm not sure that analysis applies to cars though; they're 
vastly more complicated to manufacture, and they also contain /metal/, 
the most expensive material known to man...

Post a reply to this message

> Now, do you mean "the company made 15% profit", or do you mean "each
> time the company sells 1 car, 15% of the sale price is profit"?

The company made 15% profit.  Given they only sell cars, on average each 
car will make 15% profit also?

>> Most Ferraris will sell for about £150k
>
> Really? You can buy an actual Ferrari for that amount of money??

http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/ferrari/

> Well, yes, anything safety-critical usually has very large design and
> test costs. (If you think cars are expensive, try developing drugs for a
> living...)
>
> Presumably the cost of testing a cheap car is exactly the same as the
> cost of testing an expensive car though.

Apart from the cost of the cars used in testing, yes the procedures and 
equipment will be the same.  The cost of destroying 10 Ferraris when you 
only plan to sell a few thousand of them is going to push up the per-car 
price noticeably though...

> As I understand it, set-up cost is usually very large. So if you
> manufacture more units, the set-up cost is divided between more units,
> so the /per unit/ price is lower. Presumably the actual set-up cost
> itself is identical in both cases.

Probably even more expensive for the cheap cars, because you will need 
all sorts of robots and assembly lines to keep the per-car cost down. 
For the Ferraris it is simply too expensive to get such sophisticated 
equipment, much cheaper per-car to just do the process by hand, but 
still many times more expensive per-car than one mass produced in a 
highly automated factory.

> There are things like CDs which cost virtually nothing to manufacture,
> but still cost a lot to set up. So the set-up cost is virtually the
> entire cost.

Sure, but if you were to make 5000 CDs a year in your basement, the 
per-piece price of making the CDs is going to be huge, even if your 
set-up costs would be tiny compared to the big factories.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2012 02:46 PM, scott wrote:
>> Now, do you mean "the company made 15% profit", or do you mean "each
>> time the company sells 1 car, 15% of the sale price is profit"?
>
> The company made 15% profit. Given they only sell cars, on average each
> car will make 15% profit also?

Well, I guess it depends on what you define as "profit". I was thinking 
in terms of the sale price minus the cost of making the thing. Ferrari 
no doubt also have other fixed overhead costs not related to any one 
specific car, which they still also need to pay for. I'm sure 
accountants have more precise terms for describing these things.

>>> Most Ferraris will sell for about £150k
>>
>> Really? You can buy an actual Ferrari for that amount of money??
>
> http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/ferrari/

Hmm. That still seems awfully low for the most expensive brand of car in 
the entire world...

> Apart from the cost of the cars used in testing, yes the procedures and
> equipment will be the same. The cost of destroying 10 Ferraris when you
> only plan to sell a few thousand of them is going to push up the per-car
> price noticeably though...

Seems reasonable.

>> As I understand it, set-up cost is usually very large. So if you
>> manufacture more units, the set-up cost is divided between more units,
>> so the /per unit/ price is lower. Presumably the actual set-up cost
>> itself is identical in both cases.
>
> Probably even more expensive for the cheap cars, because you will need
> all sorts of robots and assembly lines to keep the per-car cost down.
> For the Ferraris it is simply too expensive to get such sophisticated
> equipment, much cheaper per-car to just do the process by hand, but
> still many times more expensive per-car than one mass produced in a
> highly automated factory.

OK.

>> There are things like CDs which cost virtually nothing to manufacture,
>> but still cost a lot to set up. So the set-up cost is virtually the
>> entire cost.
>
> Sure, but if you were to make 5000 CDs a year in your basement, the
> per-piece price of making the CDs is going to be huge, even if your
> set-up costs would be tiny compared to the big factories.

I tell you what, if somebody even managed to pull that off in the first 
place, even if they only made one single usable CD, I'd still be pretty 
impressed. :-D Yeah, that ain't gonna be cheap though. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> Well, I guess it depends on what you define as "profit". I was thinking
> in terms of the sale price minus the cost of making the thing.

There is the marginal cost of making a car, which is the amount it costs 
to make "one more", assuming you already have all the design finished 
and assembly lines in place.

Also don't forget the selling price includes taxes (20% in UK), 
transportation costs, registration costs, dealer profit margin etc.

So to measure profit as the selling price minus the marginal cost 
doesn't seem too helpful.

> I tell you what, if somebody even managed to pull that off in the first
> place, even if they only made one single usable CD, I'd still be pretty
> impressed. :-D Yeah, that ain't gonna be cheap though. ;-)

It's actually quite an interesting problem.  What is the cheapest way to 
manufacture: a) 1 CD, b) 100 CDs, c) 10000 CDs, d) 1000000 CDs.  You can 
do the same for cars, circuit boards, bikes, organs, whatever.

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron escreveu:
> Le 12/04/2012 10:15, Invisible nous fit lire :
>>> oh, you're crying for nothing.
>>>
>>> trying to import a Kindle reader from Brazil means you're supposed to
>>> pay 109 for the product and more than that for the import fees,
>>> effectively more than doubling the final price.
>> But the question is, do they *tell* you that before you actually
>> purchase the thing? Or do you just find out after the fact?

they state it as such and is why I don't have a kindle. :(

> It's a protective law for Brazil: if not made in Brazil, it's taxed
> (heavily).
> Purpose is to help companies to be from Brazil if they want to avoid
> that tax.

yes, market reserve all over...

the real purpose is to spread piracy rampant...

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Warp escreveu:
>>>   (For example, good luck trying to stop Sony from getting any of your
>>> money.)
> 
>> hey, Microsoft makes money off of Linux and Android, so what would you 
>> know?... :p
> 
>   I don't think its comparable. Maybe MS makes money *using* Linux and
> Android, but that doesn't mean that *your* money goes to MS when you "buy"
> Linux or Android (them costing nothing, after all).

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-29/tech/30216822_1_htc-microsoft-android-device

patent deals after heavy FUD.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/11/2012 6:05, Invisible wrote:
> Currently I'm seriously ****ed off with Amazon. When you buy something from
> them and the price on screen is X, you expect to pay X, plus some negligible
> amount for postage. You to /not/ expect to pay 1.5 X.

What was the increase? Postage? Did you buy from amazon, or from someone 
selling their stuff through amazon?

> But hey, what can you do? It's not as if you can, I don't know, /file a
> complaint/ or anything. Nor that they would even /care/ if you did...

I think you underestimate amazon's customer service. They're one of the best 
in the business.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:12:07 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Hmm. That still seems awfully low for the most expensive brand of car in
> the entire world...

Faulty assumption there as well.

Off the top of my head: Lamborghini, Bugatti, and McLaren are all likely 
candidates to be more expensive than a Ferrari.

The Mercedes Benz CLR McLaren will set you back about $450K.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2012 06:56 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Le_Forgeron escreveu:
>> Le 12/04/2012 10:15, Invisible nous fit lire :
>>>> oh, you're crying for nothing.
>>>>
>>>> trying to import a Kindle reader from Brazil means you're supposed to
>>>> pay 109 for the product and more than that for the import fees,
>>>> effectively more than doubling the final price.
>>> But the question is, do they *tell* you that before you actually
>>> purchase the thing? Or do you just find out after the fact?
>
> they state it as such and is why I don't have a kindle. :(

Right. So they warn you it's going to cost a fortune before you buy it. 
It's kinda sad that it costs so much, but not really Amazon's fault.

My problem is that I wasn't told there would be a steep import duty to 
pay. If I had known that, I wouldn't have purchased the product. But 
they didn't warn me. (Hell, I didn't even know that it was coming from a 
different country. Or that it wasn't Amazon themselves selling it...)

Post a reply to this message

>> Hmm. That still seems awfully low for the most expensive brand of car in
>> the entire world...
>
> Faulty assumption there as well.
>
> Off the top of my head: Lamborghini, Bugatti, and McLaren are all likely
> candidates to be more expensive than a Ferrari.

Is Lamborghini still going? And for that matter, I didn't know that 
Bugatti or McLaren actually /make/ road cars.

> The Mercedes Benz CLR McLaren will set you back about $450K.

That's still quite a bit less than the £800,000 I was expecting to pay 
for the most basic entry-level Ferrari. I was expecting a top-end one to 
be several million, if not tens of millions.

Post a reply to this message

>> I tell you what, if somebody even managed to pull that off in the first
>> place, even if they only made one single usable CD, I'd still be pretty
>> impressed. :-D Yeah, that ain't gonna be cheap though. ;-)
>
> It's actually quite an interesting problem. What is the cheapest way to
> manufacture: a) 1 CD, b) 100 CDs, c) 10000 CDs, d) 1000000 CDs. You can
> do the same for cars, circuit boards, bikes, organs, whatever.

The cheapest was to manufacture 1 CD is obviously to pay somebody else 
to do it.

As far as I know, it's impossible to manufacture a CD in your basement. 
You need cleanroom conditions and equipment that can operate at 
literally microscopic tolerances. It's not like you can just buy that 
kind of thing off the shelf. Heck, just buying equipment for moulding 
plastic isn't exactly easy. And then you've got to buy the plastic. 
Sure, somebody somewhere must sell this stuff... good luck finding them!

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2012 05:28 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 6:05, Invisible wrote:
>> Currently I'm seriously ****ed off with Amazon. When you buy something
>> from
>> them and the price on screen is X, you expect to pay X, plus some
>> negligible
>> amount for postage. You to /not/ expect to pay 1.5 X.
>
> What was the increase? Postage?

Apparently the item was shipped from SOUTH KOREA. (!) Not saying that it 
was made in an underground sweatshop, but it *is* South Korea...

When I bought it, there was no indication that it was coming from 
another country, or that it wasn't actually being sold by Amazon.

> Did you buy from amazon, or from someone
> selling their stuff through amazon?

I really, *really* hate it that you can buy something on Amazon, and 
it's not actually being sold by Amazon. To me, this is fraud, and should 
not be allowed. It is /also/ fraud to sell second-hand items and claim 
that they are "new". Being in "nearly new condition" is not, and will 
never be, the same thing as being "new".

>> But hey, what can you do? It's not as if you can, I don't know, /file a
>> complaint/ or anything. Nor that they would even /care/ if you did...
>
> I think you underestimate amazon's customer service. They're one of the
> best in the business.

O RLY?

Then why is there no way of filing a complaint? Why do I have to dig 
through twenty five menu pages to get at an actual telephone number? Why 
is it so damned hard to contact them?

(I might also ask "why is the Internet so full of people being given the 
run-around by their customer service department", but I guess the answer 
is that /every/ large company has that...)

Post a reply to this message

>> It's actually quite an interesting problem. What is the cheapest way to
>> manufacture: a) 1 CD, b) 100 CDs, c) 10000 CDs, d) 1000000 CDs. You can
>> do the same for cars, circuit boards, bikes, organs, whatever.
>
> The cheapest was to manufacture 1 CD is obviously to pay somebody else
> to do it.

Sure, that's often the case for most things you only want 1 of.  But how 
would they actually make your 1 CD?  I guess they'd take a CDR and burn it.

> As far as I know, it's impossible to manufacture a CD in your basement.
> You need cleanroom conditions and equipment that can operate at
> literally microscopic tolerances.

Which if you're planning to make a million every day won't be a problem 
to arrange.

Post a reply to this message

>> The cheapest was to manufacture 1 CD is obviously to pay somebody else
>> to do it.
>
> Sure, that's often the case for most things you only want 1 of.

Definitely.

> But how
> would they actually make your 1 CD? I guess they'd take a CDR and burn it.

That's what I've read, yes. Most companies specialising in CD 
duplication use CD-R for low-volume stuff. You'd be mad not to.

>> As far as I know, it's impossible to manufacture a CD in your basement.
>> You need cleanroom conditions and equipment that can operate at
>> literally microscopic tolerances.
>
> Which if you're planning to make a million every day won't be a problem
> to arrange.

I'm sure you still can't fit it in your basement though. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2012 8:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
> That's still quite a bit less than the £800,000 I was expecting to pay
> for the most basic entry-level Ferrari.

Go on treat yourself

http://www.compucars.co.uk/used-cars/ferrari/?o=cheap

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2012 10:24 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/04/2012 8:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> That's still quite a bit less than the £800,000 I was expecting to pay
>> for the most basic entry-level Ferrari.
>
> Go on treat yourself
>
> http://www.compucars.co.uk/used-cars/ferrari/?o=cheap

That's still more money than I make in a year. Actually, more than I 
make in *two* years... Presumably the insurance is twice as much again.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2012 11:16 AM, Invisible wrote:
> That's still more money than I make in a year. Actually, more than I
> make in *two* years...

Here we go, just the thing for you, then.
http://www.toysrus.co.uk/Toys-R-Us/Bikes-and-Rideons/Battery-Powered/Famosa-6V-Ferrari-430-Car%280068745%29

> Presumably the insurance is twice as much again.

Is that another one of your guesses?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2012 11:37 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/04/2012 11:16 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> That's still more money than I make in a year. Actually, more than I
>> make in *two* years...
>
> Here we go, just the thing for you, then.
>
http://www.toysrus.co.uk/Toys-R-Us/Bikes-and-Rideons/Battery-Powered/Famosa-6V-Ferrari-430-Car%280068745%29

I love how that's a cheap lump of plastic, yet it's /still/ really 
expensive. ;-)

>> Presumably the insurance is twice as much again.
>
> Is that another one of your guesses?

Hell, it costs half a months' wages to insure my *current* car, and 
that's not even valuable...

Post a reply to this message

>> Is that another one of your guesses?
>
> Hell, it costs half a months' wages to insure my *current* car, and
> that's not even valuable...

I knew someone who had a new Ferrari, his insurance was £1200 a year. 
There again it probably depends on age and how many accidents you've had 
recently.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2012 01:04 PM, scott wrote:
>>> Is that another one of your guesses?
>>
>> Hell, it costs half a months' wages to insure my *current* car, and
>> that's not even valuable...
>
> I knew someone who had a new Ferrari, his insurance was £1200 a year.

That's more than I make in a month, yeah.

> There again it probably depends on age and how many accidents you've had
> recently.

I'm guessing it might depend on which Ferrari and how old that is too?

What I do know is this: Last year, a lorry driver wandered into the side 
of my car. This year my insurance premium doubled. Protected no claims 
bonus? Yeah, it's *clearly* worth it. :-P

Post a reply to this message

> That's more than I make in a month, yeah.

But under 1% of the value of the car - I wish my insurance was only 1% 
of the value of my car :-)

> I'm guessing it might depend on which Ferrari and how old that is too?

To a lesser extent, yes.

> What I do know is this: Last year, a lorry driver wandered into the side
> of my car. This year my insurance premium doubled. Protected no claims
> bonus? Yeah, it's *clearly* worth it. :-P

If it was his fault, surely you didn't need to claim on your policy (so 
protected no claims would make no difference).  Protected no claims 
doesn't mean your premium won't go up if they think you are higher risk.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2012 03:00 PM, scott wrote:
>> That's more than I make in a month, yeah.
>
> But under 1% of the value of the car

Well, true... ;-)

By the way, don't you love it when you buy something, and people want 
you to "insure" it for "only" £££ per week? Like, I bought this crystal 
sculpture for £100. They asked me about insurance. The price? A one-time 
payment of £90. You know what? I declined. :-P

>> What I do know is this: Last year, a lorry driver wandered into the side
>> of my car. This year my insurance premium doubled. Protected no claims
>> bonus? Yeah, it's *clearly* worth it. :-P
>
> If it was his fault, surely you didn't need to claim on your policy

I thought the idea what that you notify your insurer, and they talk to 
the other guy's insurer? At any rate, the guy didn't speak English, and 
last I heard they were unable to locate him from the extensive details I 
passed on.

> Protected no claims
> doesn't mean your premium won't go up if they think you are higher risk.

No, that's /exactly/ what it's supposed to mean. It means "if I make a 
claim, I won't lose my discount". Yet clearly, my premium has gone sky 
high...

Take heart though. Santander quoted me £1,700 for the same cover. (!!) I 
wasn't paying /that/ much before I passed my frigging driving test. :-P

Post a reply to this message

> By the way, don't you love it when you buy something, and people want
> you to "insure" it for "only" £££ per week? Like, I bought this crystal
> sculpture for £100. They asked me about insurance. The price? A one-time
> payment of £90. You know what? I declined. :-P

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that these companies must be 
making money from such schemes, ie they get a lot more money than they 
ever have to pay out.  Over your lifetime you'll be much better off 
financially if you always refuse such offers.

The only time you should take insurance is when you wouldn't be able to 
afford to pay if it got lost/broken.  ie you should insure your house 
because you likely couldn't afford to rebuild it if it burnt down, and 
you should insure yourself whilst driving because if you crash into 10 
other cars and/or seriously injure someone you probably couldn't afford 
to pay for the damage you caused.

> I thought the idea what that you notify your insurer, and they talk to
> the other guy's insurer?

Exactly, and then if everyone agrees it wasn't your fault, you claim for 
the costs to repair your car against the other party's insurance policy. 
  They lose their no-claim bonus, you don't.

 > At any rate, the guy didn't speak English, and
> last I heard they were unable to locate him from the extensive details I
> passed on.

Oh, so it's not resolved yet then?  How come your premium went up?

>> Protected no claims
>> doesn't mean your premium won't go up if they think you are higher risk.
>
> No, that's /exactly/ what it's supposed to mean. It means "if I make a
> claim, I won't lose my discount". Yet clearly, my premium has gone sky
> high...

LOL, as you found out protected no-claims means just that, it does not 
mean protected-against-any-premium-increases.  Refer back to the first 
paragraph in this post...

> Take heart though. Santander quoted me £1,700 for the same cover. (!!) I
> wasn't paying /that/ much before I passed my frigging driving test. :-P

You always get ridiculous quotes from companies that aren't interested. 
  Last time round I think I got quotes ranging from £600 up to £3000+ 
when I used confused.com.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> http://www.compucars.co.uk/used-cars/ferrari/?o=cheap

  I prefer this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LamborghiniAventadorJ.jpg

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:55:19 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Hmm. That still seems awfully low for the most expensive brand of car
>>> in the entire world...
>>
>> Faulty assumption there as well.
>>
>> Off the top of my head: Lamborghini, Bugatti, and McLaren are all
>> likely candidates to be more expensive than a Ferrari.
> 
> Is Lamborghini still going? 

Yes.  Top Gear reviewed their new Aventador this last series.

> And for that matter, I didn't know that
> Bugatti or McLaren actually /make/ road cars.

Bugatti is owned by Volkswagen, and the Veyron is a road car (one of the 
fastest in the world).

And again, Top Gear reviewed a road car from McLaren this last series.  I 
quite liked it, in fact. :)

>> The Mercedes Benz CLR McLaren will set you back about $450K.
> 
> That's still quite a bit less than the £800,000 I was expecting to pay
> for the most basic entry-level Ferrari. I was expecting a top-end one to
> be several million, if not tens of millions.

You *really* need to research more before making bold statements like 
this.  A "basic entry-level Ferrari" will set you back maybe $100K-$150K.

Jim

Post a reply to this message