 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/10/2015 09:04 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/13/2015 8:17 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> [Rant] I remember when Maplin used to sell electronics. Now they're just
>> a white-box shifting company. You used to be able to go in and just
>> *buy* a string of 30 resistors or something. Now they're all like "oh,
>> you want 10? Ooo, we'll have to order those in specially. We only have 4
>> in stock." WTF?
>
> Funnily enough, I went into Maplins yesterday and bought 10 of 20 mm
> 6.3ma slow blow fuses, off the shelf. (As an after thought)
A while ago, I wanted a set of 10 LEDs. They could only sell me 4 of the
same type, or a bag of 20 randomly assorted LEDs (all different sizes
shapes, colours, power ratings...)
I guess most people probably just buy that stuff online now, so there's
little incentive for Maplin to actually stock it. (I'm not sure who the
big names in online component shopping are, however...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/10/2015 11:26 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 13.10.2015 um 21:17 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>
>> OK. So what's the difference between the silver ones and the purple ones?
>
> The colour ;)
Oh good. :-}
> The whole idea of trade secrets is that you keep them secret /because/
> you can't sue anyone if the information gets out into the wild.
>
> Also, there is no way you can prohibit anyone from reverse-engineering
> your inventions unless you make them sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Really? So the DMCA doesn't apply? Seriously, I thought that *all*
reverse engineering is 100% illegal. (Unless you can prove that you're
doing it for anticompetitive purposes, which is impossible.)
> What you often /can/ prohibit is the /use/ of the intellectual property
> someone has reverse-engineered from your product.
Well, I guess that makes sense.
>> 8. Qualcomm manufactured my lawn mower. They make silicon too? WTF?
>
> I didn't know they made lawn mowers.
I didn't know they made anything else. As in, I'd never heard of them
before I saw this lawnmower. And it was the cheapest, lowest quality one
in the shop.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/14/2015 6:04 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 13/10/2015 09:04 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Funnily enough, I went into Maplins yesterday and bought 10 of 20 mm
>> 6.3ma slow blow fuses, off the shelf. (As an after thought)
>
> A while ago, I wanted a set of 10 LEDs. They could only sell me 4 of the
> same type, or a bag of 20 randomly assorted LEDs (all different sizes
> shapes, colours, power ratings...)
>
Hmm! That sounds about right.
Not the best in customer service. There is one branch on the Queensway
that will sell individual components but they are quite a bige one with
its own counter for those things.
> I guess most people probably just buy that stuff online now, so there's
> little incentive for Maplin to actually stock it. (I'm not sure who the
> big names in online component shopping are, however...)
I've used cpc.co.uk who are a supplier for Farnell.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/10/2015 07:18 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/14/2015 6:04 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> A while ago, I wanted a set of 10 LEDs. They could only sell me 4 of the
>> same type, or a bag of 20 randomly assorted LEDs (all different sizes
>> shapes, colours, power ratings...)
>
> Hmm! That sounds about right.
> Not the best in customer service.
That's the thing, though. Years ago, I used to only shop at Maplin,
specifically because of their excellent customer service. Now it seems
to be staffed by a bunch of minimum wage twats who just want to sell
white boxes.
> I've used cpc.co.uk who are a supplier for Farnell.
OK...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/14/2015 9:26 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 14/10/2015 07:18 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 10/14/2015 6:04 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> A while ago, I wanted a set of 10 LEDs. They could only sell me 4 of the
>>> same type, or a bag of 20 randomly assorted LEDs (all different sizes
>>> shapes, colours, power ratings...)
>>
>> Hmm! That sounds about right.
>> Not the best in customer service.
>
> That's the thing, though. Years ago, I used to only shop at Maplin,
> specifically because of their excellent customer service. Now it seems
> to be staffed by a bunch of minimum wage twats who just want to sell
> white boxes.
>
When I worked for a living. I never used Maplin only Farnell or RS, Euch!
Now I use Maplin because it is local and I don't like waiting for the post.
>> I've used cpc.co.uk who are a supplier for Farnell.
>
> OK...
Be careful which boxes you tick. It seems like every week or two I get
spammed by snail mail catalogues. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> So essentially you're saying it has nothing to do with the manufacturing
> costs at all, and it's all about what it will cost to design the thing
> versus what they can sell it for. (?)
>
You've heard the expression "supply and demand" before, right?
If customers are only willing to pay X for your widget, you have to
manage to make it profitable at price point X, or invest in an expensive
marketing campaign to convince your customers that it really is worth
2X, and the really cool people don't mind paying 2X for it because look
at all the chicks they get!
This works a lot better in the cell phone business than the treadmill
business, where in fact, a 1080p touch screen might even be seen as a
flimsly doodad that will stop working the minute it's been splashed with
sweat (or that antibacterial spray you're supposed to use once you're
done) and actually be detrimental to your marketing campaign.
Unless, of couse, it's cloud-enabled. Then it's a sure win. Everything
has to be cloud-aware nowadays. The Internet-Of-Things is upon us!
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/15/2015 5:30 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>
>> So essentially you're saying it has nothing to do with the manufacturing
>> costs at all, and it's all about what it will cost to design the thing
>> versus what they can sell it for. (?)
>>
>
> You've heard the expression "supply and demand" before, right?
>
> If customers are only willing to pay X for your widget, you have to
> manage to make it profitable at price point X, or invest in an expensive
> marketing campaign to convince your customers that it really is worth
> 2X, and the really cool people don't mind paying 2X for it because look
> at all the chicks they get!
>
> This works a lot better in the cell phone business than the treadmill
> business, where in fact, a 1080p touch screen might even be seen as a
> flimsly doodad that will stop working the minute it's been splashed with
> sweat (or that antibacterial spray you're supposed to use once you're
> done) and actually be detrimental to your marketing campaign.
>
> Unless, of couse, it's cloud-enabled. Then it's a sure win. Everything
> has to be cloud-aware nowadays. The Internet-Of-Things is upon us!
Its, sadly, worse than that even. There are often multiple price points.
There is the, "everyone can buy one", point, the, "everyone will buy
one", point and the, "we make huge profits at this price point, even
though it places it out of the range of many people.", one. I would also
argue that we suffer a lot from the delusional, "I am making huge
profits at this price point, so I can't imagine why people complain its
too expensive!", one as well, in far too many companies - all of which
presume that, as long as they are making a profit, they *have* the right
price point.
Its a bloody mess, and only made worse by the other end of the coin - "I
pay enough so they can buy this right? They only had to save money for a
whole year for it after all!"
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (3) mobile phones have
> mind-bogglingly fast development cycles, and adapting an existing
> hardware design to use a different display is a routine process; also,
> serving a volume market, development teams can be large, possibly even
> with a dedicated expert for display technology;
In my old job we used to develop displays for Nokia (back when they were
#1) and they had several entire departments dedicated for display
technology. The staff were all display experts. The way it worked is
that you "sold" your capability to one of the platform display teams
within Nokia, they then marketed it on your behalf to the rest of the
business that was actually developing the handsets. You might start off
with 4 handsets planning to use your display, then it would go up or
down during development depending on the demand. Occasionally it would
go down to zero and the project would be stopped. Having to provide
several thousand prototype displays within 3-4 months of the project
starting was quite normal though, total project time from nothing to
full mass production was usually about 18 months.
There was also another whole department for future display technology,
they demanded to see every 6 months your prototypes for what was going
to be possible in the next 2-4 years. Things like touch screens and
ultra high ppi screens started off in these meetings, but they were
convinced there was no need for these and instead concentrated on trying
to push OLED displays. Then Apple brought out the iPhone...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "we make huge profits at this price point, even
> though it places it out of the range of many people.",
The genius is to make people pay for a $1000 handset over 24 months,
then they get it FREE!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/10/2015 03:25 PM, scott wrote:
> In my old job we used to develop displays for Nokia (back when they were
> #1)
o_O
They aren't still?!
Oh... Right... I keep forgetting the iPhone.
> The way it worked is
> that you "sold" your capability to one of the platform display teams
> within Nokia, they then marketed it on your behalf to the rest of the
> business that was actually developing the handsets.
Wow. That sounds crazy. They had an entire department who's only purpose
was to evangelise stuff to the departments who actually make stuff?
> Things like touch screens and
> ultra high ppi screens started off in these meetings, but they were
> convinced there was no need for these and instead concentrated on trying
> to push OLED displays. Then Apple brought out the iPhone...
Heh. When one company can actually change the direction of an entire
industry. Or create a whole new one. Like the Raspberry Pi seems to have
done...
Whatever happened to OLED anyway? And flexible displays? The world seems
to have stopped caring...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
