Could you elaborate on how that $10 "becomes" even $45 in savings? Would glue be cheaper to affix internal parts than screws, for instance?
OK, do you not understand that things are marked up in percentages?
Let's say Apple goes to Foxconn and says "How much to make a thing of wood vs plastic?"
Foxconn figures "we can buy wood for $20, but plastic only costs us $10. It costs us $10 in labour to make it either way, making it $30 for our cost to make it out of wood, or $20 to make it out of plastic. We'll add in our standard profit margin and quote Apple $45 for the wood, and $30 for plastic."
Apple says "great, so when we apply our profit margin, we'll sell a wood one for $60 or a plastic one for $40."
So I made up the profit margins and I turned $10 into $20. We didn't even talk about markup for retail and distributors. Add those in, and it could easily be $45.
It's not like they start with a base price and carry the save savings throughout - the market up is applied at each step. So if Foxconn found they could build it out of paper for $5, then don't just take $5 off their price to Apple, and Apple doesn't just take $5 off their price. They still apply their standard percentage markup to the $15 price (parts + labour), and so does Apple, and then they do it for distribution, and retail.
"Two years after Apple introduced its first unibody computer in the MacBook Air, the company has officially been granted ownership of its unique design and manufacturing process."
Sounds like more than aesthetics to me and instead includes the actual design and process. I guess the machinery involved might be used for designs and processes that don't violate Apple's patents.
Nope, but the bad Appleinsider reporting could easily lead you into believing it. The key passage in that article is this
' Two entitled "Portable computer" show the design of the MacBook Air, while one, called "Electronic device," apply to Apple's larger, more powerful aluminum MacBook Pro.'
The clue is in the name. Patent titles are required to be descriptive, if the patents were for manufacturing techniques then they wouldn't be titled 'portable computer', however - that's EXACTLY what the design patents would be titled.
This search shows all of Apple's patents with that title, note that all the ones titled just 'Portable Computer' all begin with a D. Any patent starting thus is a design patent and is thus limited to aesthetics.
So wait, this is Apple's fault that chassis vendors are operating at capacity and are unable to retool and increase production for other PC makes/models? Or maybe it's the consumer's fault for buying so many Apple products, forcing chassis manufacturers to meet consumer demand?
Personally, it seems that based on the OS most PC ultrabooks would be using, there's already a surplus of suitable alternatives: commode shaped white porcelain.
+1
and what input method would they use to put out the fires from excessive heat?
Yet another example of sheep having to copy Apple! Jeez will it ever end? Good luck with heat dissipation with fiberglass not to mention durability and the look and feel. BTW this reminds me, I wonder what happened to Apple's Liquid Glass venture?
Fiberglass is used in many applications in the boating industry. Durability has already been proven. Heat dissipation is a none issue as notebooks these days dont produce as much heat as they used to.
That was my comment in the first post of this thread but I'm still waiting for the physicists to weigh in
If they do fiberglass then they'll also need to do some sort of interior metal chassis to hold the various parts, and to act as a heat sink, then attach the case to the chassis.
This, in turn, means that it could be tough to do a really thin and light case that's strong enough.
It also means, parts and price-wise, that you have to manufacture not only the case, but the chassis as well, then assemble them both. Each part runs up the price and the cost of assembly. Though a stamped metal chassis isn't nearly as expensive as a CNC milled part.
Another point to consider is whether or not people will pay "Air" prices for a fiberglass notebook. It will probably be lighter, true, but I doubt it will have the fine fit and finish of the existing Air.
The teardowns of the actual machines don't show evidence of a thermal coupling. I think it would be clever to do so, but maybe there's a drawback that's not obvious.
More humorous news... For you anti-Apple folks, because it's selling sooo well </sarcasm>, this weekend only you can get the HP Touchpad tablet for $100 off.
It is disingenuous to isolate the cost of a part then try to extrapolate the contribution to the retail price of the finished product. The COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) includes much more than parts: cost of money; manufacturing; distribution; warehousing; returns... to mention a few of the major ones.
I don't think it's disingenuous, It's like a rule of thumb, don't hold onto it like it's a law of physics or rule of law.
There are probably 10,000 shops in NY that could mill such a case. Now high volume production might be a different issue but I find it absurd that these people can't find a machine shop to at least get started. A build out of a high volume line is a different story, but you wouldn't do that until you have a successful product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elastic Reason
Actually the guy is right it is a mill. That said, we're not talking about great tolerances here. A Hurco or HAAS CNC machine could do the job and only about cost 50k to 70k -- and the market is flooded with them. Really, how hard could it be to find vendors?
This is why I think the story is bogus. Milling machines are dime a dozen and can be had quickly on the used market and even from "inventory". These would not be lines suitable for high speed production but they could certainly handle light production with enough hands.
Quote:
Domestic Manufacturing had picked up recently with a lot the demand being just in time. Meaning that parts suppliers didn't have time to want for a container to ship from China. Add to that the recent issues with supplies from Japan and the market had picked up a bit. There are plenty vendors that could mill laptop case parts.
Yep! With a little effort they could have a high volume line up in a year or two .
If they do fiberglass then they'll also need to do some sort of interior metal chassis to hold the various parts, and to act as a heat sink, then attach the case to the chassis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM
and what input method would they use to put out the fires from excessive heat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Fiberglass is used in many applications in the boating industry. Durability has already been proven. Heat dissipation is a none issue as notebooks these days dont produce as much heat as they used to.
Computers have had plastic shells and metal chassis for a long time. More expensive computers had metal shells for a long time (IBM/Lenovo Thinkpads, more expensive Compaqs, Macs from TiBook on, etc.), but I've not seen one that use the metal shell as a heat sink. There is some heat dissipation through the shell but I really doubt it's a significant percentage.
Anybody has an idea what environmental impact fiberglass or carbon fiber would have if widely used for computer case making.
I see a danger that (toxic) electronic components are embedded into the fiber shells during production when the resin is still not hardened, making it thinner, but making separating of the components nearly impossible.
There are probably 10,000 shops in NY that could mill such a case. Now high volume production might be a different issue but I find it absurd that these people can't find a machine shop to at least get started. A build out of a high volume line is a different story, but you wouldn't do that until you have a successful product.
I think the bigger issue isn't that they can't find a shop to mill precision chassises in bulk, but that they can't afford the cost of milling precision chassises.
I've been wondering this too. One of the claimed benefits of the Liquid Metal technology was the ability to injection mold it to final tolerance, complete with an attractive surface finish. Apple has an exclusive license on this technology in the CE space. If it works and works well, it would be yet another distinguishing characteristic of Apple products that's hard to copy.
Per their agreement, liquidmetal has until 08/2012 to meet specific benchmarks. By the time other companies can get ahold of aluminum lathes, Apple may start moving on to superior differentiating technology. ie: Liquidmetal blowmolding.
Nope, but the bad Appleinsider reporting could easily lead you into believing it. The key passage in that article is this
' Two entitled "Portable computer" show the design of the MacBook Air, while one, called "Electronic device," apply to Apple's larger, more powerful aluminum MacBook Pro.'
The clue is in the name. Patent titles are required to be descriptive, if the patents were for manufacturing techniques then they wouldn't be titled 'portable computer', however - that's EXACTLY what the design patents would be titled.
This search shows all of Apple's patents with that title, note that all the ones titled just 'Portable Computer' all begin with a D. Any patent starting thus is a design patent and is thus limited to aesthetics.
Computers have had plastic shells and metal chassis for a long time. More expensive computers had metal shells for a long time (IBM/Lenovo Thinkpads, more expensive Compaqs, Macs from TiBook on, etc.), but I've not seen one that use the metal shell as a heat sink. There is some heat dissipation through the shell but I really doubt it's a significant percentage.
For the TiBook, your lap was the heat sink -- and it raised your voice 1/2 an octave
If they do fiberglass then they'll also need to do some sort of interior metal chassis to hold the various parts, and to act as a heat sink, then attach the case to the chassis.
This, in turn, means that it could be tough to do a really thin and light case that's strong enough.
It also means, parts and price-wise, that you have to manufacture not only the case, but the chassis as well, then assemble them both. Each part runs up the price and the cost of assembly. Though a stamped metal chassis isn't nearly as expensive as a CNC milled part.
Another point to consider is whether or not people will pay "Air" prices for a fiberglass notebook. It will probably be lighter, true, but I doubt it will have the fine fit and finish of the existing Air.
It does sound like a bad idea start to finish doesn't it? I have this mental image of what many a low cost fiberglass boat looks like after a few years in the sun and a few dings ...
There are probably 10,000 shops in NY that could mill such a case. Now high volume production might be a different issue but I find it absurd that these people can't find a machine shop to at least get started. A build out of a high volume line is a different story, but you wouldn't do that until you have a successful product.
This is why I think the story is bogus. Milling machines are dime a dozen and can be had quickly on the used market and even from "inventory". These would not be lines suitable for high speed production but they could certainly handle light production with enough hands.
Yep! With a little effort they could have a high volume line up in a year or two .
Your first paragraph probably well describes their problem. It takes balls the size Apple has to set up a massive and cost effective high volume production this way. The sales of PCs in general are not indicating this is a good risk for the PC makers I suspect. Perhaps they'd all have to get together to compete with Apple. Then again for the likely sales volume a few shops in NY would probably surface! haha
Do you feel better now? Flexed your knowledge now you can continue your smarter than you complex. People like you humor me, comment has no real opinion on the article, just a need to be extra particular. Reminds me of Mike Tirico (not that you know who he is as I'm sure sports are beneath your IQ), if someone says the ball went 301yards he'll correct them and say actually it went 302 - who the hell cares it's in the general area. Lastly, speaking of tools, you are one.
/ghost
I originally wrote:
Quote:
Actually, it's 'CNC mill', not lathe, but carry on...
Somehow those nine words have triggered quite a response from you, including a psychological assessment and an ad hominem attack. My intent was to clarify a term that, while not vital to the article, nonetheless was repeated three times to describe one facet of Apple's manufacturing process. It's not that big of a deal, on par with mistaking 'food processor' with 'blender'. But for anyone who wishes to learn more about case manufacturing the distinction is important.
So how should I have worded my correction so as to not provoke your ire?
A new Italian sports car made by Lamborghini will have part of the chassis and body made from a new process to create carbon fiber parts. The parts will be injection molded instead of laying up layers of weave on top of one another and adding resin to bond them.
This process could be utilized by laptop makers to quickly create very strong shells for their computers and not need milling machines. It would be much faster to make parts using injection molding technology than milling huge chunks of aluminum. The parts would be just as light or even lighter than aluminum.
Comments
Could you elaborate on how that $10 "becomes" even $45 in savings? Would glue be cheaper to affix internal parts than screws, for instance?
OK, do you not understand that things are marked up in percentages?
Let's say Apple goes to Foxconn and says "How much to make a thing of wood vs plastic?"
Foxconn figures "we can buy wood for $20, but plastic only costs us $10. It costs us $10 in labour to make it either way, making it $30 for our cost to make it out of wood, or $20 to make it out of plastic. We'll add in our standard profit margin and quote Apple $45 for the wood, and $30 for plastic."
Apple says "great, so when we apply our profit margin, we'll sell a wood one for $60 or a plastic one for $40."
So I made up the profit margins and I turned $10 into $20. We didn't even talk about markup for retail and distributors. Add those in, and it could easily be $45.
It's not like they start with a base price and carry the save savings throughout - the market up is applied at each step. So if Foxconn found they could build it out of paper for $5, then don't just take $5 off their price to Apple, and Apple doesn't just take $5 off their price. They still apply their standard percentage markup to the $15 price (parts + labour), and so does Apple, and then they do it for distribution, and retail.
You pique my interest enough to do a quick search.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ok_design.html
"Two years after Apple introduced its first unibody computer in the MacBook Air, the company has officially been granted ownership of its unique design and manufacturing process."
Sounds like more than aesthetics to me and instead includes the actual design and process. I guess the machinery involved might be used for designs and processes that don't violate Apple's patents.
Nope, but the bad Appleinsider reporting could easily lead you into believing it. The key passage in that article is this
' Two entitled "Portable computer" show the design of the MacBook Air, while one, called "Electronic device," apply to Apple's larger, more powerful aluminum MacBook Pro.'
The clue is in the name. Patent titles are required to be descriptive, if the patents were for manufacturing techniques then they wouldn't be titled 'portable computer', however - that's EXACTLY what the design patents would be titled.
This search shows all of Apple's patents with that title, note that all the ones titled just 'Portable Computer' all begin with a D. Any patent starting thus is a design patent and is thus limited to aesthetics.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...ELD2=TI&d=PTXT
There are some utility patents with similar names in the list, but none of them relate to unibody construction.
So wait, this is Apple's fault that chassis vendors are operating at capacity and are unable to retool and increase production for other PC makes/models? Or maybe it's the consumer's fault for buying so many Apple products, forcing chassis manufacturers to meet consumer demand?
Personally, it seems that based on the OS most PC ultrabooks would be using, there's already a surplus of suitable alternatives: commode shaped white porcelain.
+1
and what input method would they use to put out the fires from excessive heat?
Yet another example of sheep having to copy Apple! Jeez will it ever end? Good luck with heat dissipation with fiberglass not to mention durability and the look and feel. BTW this reminds me, I wonder what happened to Apple's Liquid Glass venture?
Fiberglass is used in many applications in the boating industry. Durability has already been proven. Heat dissipation is a none issue as notebooks these days dont produce as much heat as they used to.
That was my comment in the first post of this thread but I'm still waiting for the physicists to weigh in
If they do fiberglass then they'll also need to do some sort of interior metal chassis to hold the various parts, and to act as a heat sink, then attach the case to the chassis.
This, in turn, means that it could be tough to do a really thin and light case that's strong enough.
It also means, parts and price-wise, that you have to manufacture not only the case, but the chassis as well, then assemble them both. Each part runs up the price and the cost of assembly. Though a stamped metal chassis isn't nearly as expensive as a CNC milled part.
Another point to consider is whether or not people will pay "Air" prices for a fiberglass notebook. It will probably be lighter, true, but I doubt it will have the fine fit and finish of the existing Air.
Are you sure that they're not coupled in the MBP and MBA? That's actually one area where they do have a patent.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...+AND+ABST/case
The teardowns of the actual machines don't show evidence of a thermal coupling. I think it would be clever to do so, but maybe there's a drawback that's not obvious.
This thread has gone down hill in record time. I blame the Nazis.
I blame the hills.
http://www.hp.com/offer
It is disingenuous to isolate the cost of a part then try to extrapolate the contribution to the retail price of the finished product. The COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) includes much more than parts: cost of money; manufacturing; distribution; warehousing; returns... to mention a few of the major ones.
I don't think it's disingenuous, It's like a rule of thumb, don't hold onto it like it's a law of physics or rule of law.
Actually the guy is right it is a mill. That said, we're not talking about great tolerances here. A Hurco or HAAS CNC machine could do the job and only about cost 50k to 70k -- and the market is flooded with them. Really, how hard could it be to find vendors?
This is why I think the story is bogus. Milling machines are dime a dozen and can be had quickly on the used market and even from "inventory". These would not be lines suitable for high speed production but they could certainly handle light production with enough hands.
Domestic Manufacturing had picked up recently with a lot the demand being just in time. Meaning that parts suppliers didn't have time to want for a container to ship from China. Add to that the recent issues with supplies from Japan and the market had picked up a bit. There are plenty vendors that could mill laptop case parts.
Yep! With a little effort they could have a high volume line up in a year or two .
If they do fiberglass then they'll also need to do some sort of interior metal chassis to hold the various parts, and to act as a heat sink, then attach the case to the chassis.
and what input method would they use to put out the fires from excessive heat?
Fiberglass is used in many applications in the boating industry. Durability has already been proven. Heat dissipation is a none issue as notebooks these days dont produce as much heat as they used to.
Computers have had plastic shells and metal chassis for a long time. More expensive computers had metal shells for a long time (IBM/Lenovo Thinkpads, more expensive Compaqs, Macs from TiBook on, etc.), but I've not seen one that use the metal shell as a heat sink. There is some heat dissipation through the shell but I really doubt it's a significant percentage.
I see a danger that (toxic) electronic components are embedded into the fiber shells during production when the resin is still not hardened, making it thinner, but making separating of the components nearly impossible.
There are probably 10,000 shops in NY that could mill such a case. Now high volume production might be a different issue but I find it absurd that these people can't find a machine shop to at least get started. A build out of a high volume line is a different story, but you wouldn't do that until you have a successful product.
I think the bigger issue isn't that they can't find a shop to mill precision chassises in bulk, but that they can't afford the cost of milling precision chassises.
I've been wondering this too. One of the claimed benefits of the Liquid Metal technology was the ability to injection mold it to final tolerance, complete with an attractive surface finish. Apple has an exclusive license on this technology in the CE space. If it works and works well, it would be yet another distinguishing characteristic of Apple products that's hard to copy.
Per their agreement, liquidmetal has until 08/2012 to meet specific benchmarks. By the time other companies can get ahold of aluminum lathes, Apple may start moving on to superior differentiating technology. ie: Liquidmetal blowmolding.
Nope, but the bad Appleinsider reporting could easily lead you into believing it. The key passage in that article is this
' Two entitled "Portable computer" show the design of the MacBook Air, while one, called "Electronic device," apply to Apple's larger, more powerful aluminum MacBook Pro.'
The clue is in the name. Patent titles are required to be descriptive, if the patents were for manufacturing techniques then they wouldn't be titled 'portable computer', however - that's EXACTLY what the design patents would be titled.
This search shows all of Apple's patents with that title, note that all the ones titled just 'Portable Computer' all begin with a D. Any patent starting thus is a design patent and is thus limited to aesthetics.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...ELD2=TI&d=PTXT
There are some utility patents with similar names in the list, but none of them relate to unibody construction.
ok, gotcha.
Computers have had plastic shells and metal chassis for a long time. More expensive computers had metal shells for a long time (IBM/Lenovo Thinkpads, more expensive Compaqs, Macs from TiBook on, etc.), but I've not seen one that use the metal shell as a heat sink. There is some heat dissipation through the shell but I really doubt it's a significant percentage.
For the TiBook, your lap was the heat sink -- and it raised your voice 1/2 an octave
If they do fiberglass then they'll also need to do some sort of interior metal chassis to hold the various parts, and to act as a heat sink, then attach the case to the chassis.
This, in turn, means that it could be tough to do a really thin and light case that's strong enough.
It also means, parts and price-wise, that you have to manufacture not only the case, but the chassis as well, then assemble them both. Each part runs up the price and the cost of assembly. Though a stamped metal chassis isn't nearly as expensive as a CNC milled part.
Another point to consider is whether or not people will pay "Air" prices for a fiberglass notebook. It will probably be lighter, true, but I doubt it will have the fine fit and finish of the existing Air.
It does sound like a bad idea start to finish doesn't it? I have this mental image of what many a low cost fiberglass boat looks like after a few years in the sun and a few dings ...
There are probably 10,000 shops in NY that could mill such a case. Now high volume production might be a different issue but I find it absurd that these people can't find a machine shop to at least get started. A build out of a high volume line is a different story, but you wouldn't do that until you have a successful product.
This is why I think the story is bogus. Milling machines are dime a dozen and can be had quickly on the used market and even from "inventory". These would not be lines suitable for high speed production but they could certainly handle light production with enough hands.
Yep! With a little effort they could have a high volume line up in a year or two .
Your first paragraph probably well describes their problem. It takes balls the size Apple has to set up a massive and cost effective high volume production this way. The sales of PCs in general are not indicating this is a good risk for the PC makers I suspect. Perhaps they'd all have to get together to compete with Apple. Then again for the likely sales volume a few shops in NY would probably surface! haha
Do you feel better now? Flexed your knowledge now you can continue your smarter than you complex. People like you humor me, comment has no real opinion on the article, just a need to be extra particular. Reminds me of Mike Tirico (not that you know who he is as I'm sure sports are beneath your IQ), if someone says the ball went 301yards he'll correct them and say actually it went 302 - who the hell cares it's in the general area. Lastly, speaking of tools, you are one.
/ghost
I originally wrote:
Actually, it's 'CNC mill', not lathe, but carry on...
Somehow those nine words have triggered quite a response from you, including a psychological assessment and an ad hominem attack. My intent was to clarify a term that, while not vital to the article, nonetheless was repeated three times to describe one facet of Apple's manufacturing process. It's not that big of a deal, on par with mistaking 'food processor' with 'blender'. But for anyone who wishes to learn more about case manufacturing the distinction is important.
So how should I have worded my correction so as to not provoke your ire?
This process could be utilized by laptop makers to quickly create very strong shells for their computers and not need milling machines. It would be much faster to make parts using injection molding technology than milling huge chunks of aluminum. The parts would be just as light or even lighter than aluminum.