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.
Maybe Lamborghini can help the PC makers design the cooling system?
that's @ 63 months; Your posts divided by 63 and then divided by 30 days = 12.568 a day. An average of @ 12 A DAY.
I assume you read all of the other threads and posts before you post.
I am in awe of your dedication to AI. I joined a month before you, and I have posted a mere 1,503. I feel humble in your presence. This is NOT a criticism or sarcasm. I am truly in awe of your abilities.
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.
I was glad you did, as I didn't know the difference, nor really care, but once you pointed it out, I looked it up. And now I know a tiny bit more than I did when I woke up, which is a good thing to me. So, thanks.
"A segment of fiberglass is said to be between $5 and $10 cheaper than a magnesium-aluminum one, and an entire notebook could see $20 in savings on the production end with the use of fiberglass. That could equate to savings of $50 to $100 at retail, according to Taiwan fiberglass maker Mitak Precision."
I'm most definitely not a business man. So how does this work? How does $5 to $10 turn into $50 to $100?
I looked around the thread and I didn't see anyone directly address your primary question: How can a $10 part equate to a $100 increase in cost. I'm not going to discuss the end price, but I can assure you that a part that arrives at your incoming dock that you pay $10 for will end up costing you more than $10.
First, someone has to pick it up, log it in as received (this also incurs IT costs...). Then it's moved to some storage location (after some kind of inspection to make sure it's what you ordered and not some shipping clerk's left over pizza and that it is painted the right color, has the right lettering, and, actually works). Even if automated conveyers, that location is most likely inside a building. The part is taking up real estate in that building and it's taking up environmental conditioning of the storage area. As long as that part sits on that real estate, it's adding cost.
As an aside, Apple is the, or one of the, grand masters in "Just in Time" manufacturing. This means that incoming raw materials spend as little time as possible taking up real estate.
When the assembly line is ready (again, that determination incurs costs some human, some IT) for the part then it's moved again. These are direct costs and controllable by smart management and design.
Now, what no one has talked about is the activity leading up to ordering that part. If it's a transformer for the power supply, it almost certainly isn't an off the shelf part. It most likely was designed by an Apple engineer. The design was shopped around. Bids were received and evaluated. Sample parts were made. And again, these parts were received and again evaluated before being released to procurement and production. I knew an engineer in Apple's QA department some years ago and he told me that Apple was the biggest stickler for quality he'd ever worked for. These are indirect costs. And, again are controllable by clever management and processes.
Lastly, every part in the finished product is subject to failure. Some value has to be added to the part to cover costs related to diagnosis and replacement. This is a big one. Every time an Apple person has to look at your computer and diagnose it, the costs start piling up. So, the goal is to build in quality so you never have to bring it back and have a physical part replaced.
So, does this make a $10 part add $100 to the price. I can't say for each part there is a 10:1 mark up, but I can assure you, a $10 part adds far more than $10 to the cost of using it.
Long known as a master of the supply chain for overseas components, Apple...
I'm sorry, but until iPods and iPhones propelled Apple into a dominant market position for said devices, Apple was NOT AT ALL known for being a master of the supply chain!! I don't know who counts ~5-7 years as "long"
If you buy in bulk and have a lot of cash that's pretty much all it takes to become a "master of the supply chain for overseas components"
When PCs can slap together components for cheap, they are cheaper. Any old desktop with a plastic tower can go $300...
But when things like new technology, new designs, new manufacturing methods, design overhead come into play, Apple is very competitive. See iPad prices or "ultrabook" prices... Apple spent 5 years working on iPad and probably at least a few years working on MacBook Air (it debuted in 2008).
So now everyone else is trying to play catch up, but they haven't made the designs, secured the suppliers, secured the machinery, etc.
I guess another take on this is that if Apple wanted to sell a cheap plastic tower, they could probably do so competitively now (and probably with higher margins than other OEMs because they don't have to pay for Windows). I'm not sure they could have done that 5 years ago -- certainly not 10 years ago. That's a very interesting change. I guess it still might not make sense to do it, just because it would cannibalize some portion of their more expensive Macs and ultimately it would diminish the brand. But it's just another measure of how far they've come.
I'm sorry, but until iPods and iPhones propelled Apple into a dominant market position for said devices, Apple was NOT AT ALL known for being a master of the supply chain!! I don't know who counts ~5-7 years as "long"
If you buy in bulk and have a lot of cash that's pretty much all it takes to become a "master of the supply chain for overseas components"
Actually I think it started with the very first iPods, I seem to recall reading somewhere of Apple tying up the supply of 1.8inch hard drives from early on.
I'm sorry, but until iPods and iPhones propelled Apple into a dominant market position for said devices, Apple was NOT AT ALL known for being a master of the supply chain!! I don't know who counts ~5-7 years as "long"
If you buy in bulk and have a lot of cash that's pretty much all it takes to become a "master of the supply chain for overseas components"
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Actually I think it started with the very first iPods, I seem to recall reading somewhere of Apple tying up the supply of 1.8inch hard drives from early on.
Good points.
Ergo, Apple was merely a supply chain grasshopper and only graduated to master status when the white ear buds started pervading our society.
Actually I think it started with the very first iPods, I seem to recall reading somewhere of Apple tying up the supply of 1.8inch hard drives from early on.
Even then, it wasn't due to being "a master of the supply chain". The 1.8's were very new when they decided to go with it and they were really the only ones using them in large quantities initially. Today, Apple is able to control supply chain dynamics for pretty much almost any component, regardless of how established the supply chain is. Once Apple comes in and says "mine" it is pretty much a kick in the nuts for competitors to try to get supply.
Having said that, Cook has been an absolute genius in getting operations like supply management running like silk.
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.
Thats very true. The downside is that the parts look like sh%t! The look is like carbon fibre gone bad.
It's called forged composite. Here is a golf club made by the process. This process is cheaper then regular carbon fibre but is not cheap.
If any one is interested here is a short article explaining how it works.
Yes, even if there's an established supply chain for a particular component, Apple is calling the shots. They don't need to corner the market, however they can buy up enough where their competitors are squabbling over crumbs, usually at a much higher price than Apple's negotiated volume discounted pricing.
Also, Apple is leveraging its cash hoard by making some substantial down payments. No one else is getting NAND flash memory at Apple's prices.
One of the most amazing things about the Macbook Air is the metal chassis. Replacing this with fiberglass, which will have nowhere near the solidity or the rigidity will take a *lot* of the ultra out of the Ultrabooks.
Actually, it's 'CNC mill', not lathe, but carry on...
True, but I find it odd that with such demand for these systems the manufacturer of these custom CNC milling machines isn't ramping up production for more units.
You cannot tell me that PC manufacturers won't invest in them.
that's @ 63 months; Your posts divided by 63 and then divided by 30 days = 12.568 a day. An average of @ 12 A DAY.
I assume you read all of the other threads and posts before you post.
I am in awe of your dedication to AI. I joined a month before you, and I have posted a mere 1,503. I feel humble in your presence. This is NOT a criticism or sarcasm. I am truly in awe of your abilities.
Do you ever sleep?
But it is only his conscious mind that exists here
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 .
Year or two....funny.
In "tech years", a year or two equates to something like a decade.
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?
Now you're using a calm voice and logic. That's sure to set him off again.
I guess whoever wrote this used 'lathes' as a synonym for shape-cutting machining (as opposed to casting combined with screwing and glueing things together).
I suppose he could just as easily have used the word drill or a crowbar as a synonym. It would have been equally correct.
I looked around the thread and I didn't see anyone directly address your primary question: How can a $10 part equate to a $100 increase in cost. I'm not going to discuss the end price, but I can assure you that a part that arrives at your incoming dock that you pay $10 for will end up costing you more than $10.
First, someone has to pick it up, log it in as received (this also incurs IT costs...). Then it's moved to some storage location (after some kind of inspection to make sure it's what you ordered and not some shipping clerk's left over pizza and that it is painted the right color, has the right lettering, and, actually works). Even if automated conveyers, that location is most likely inside a building. The part is taking up real estate in that building and it's taking up environmental conditioning of the storage area. As long as that part sits on that real estate, it's adding cost.
As an aside, Apple is the, or one of the, grand masters in "Just in Time" manufacturing. This means that incoming raw materials spend as little time as possible taking up real estate.
When the assembly line is ready (again, that determination incurs costs some human, some IT) for the part then it's moved again. These are direct costs and controllable by smart management and design.
Now, what no one has talked about is the activity leading up to ordering that part. If it's a transformer for the power supply, it almost certainly isn't an off the shelf part. It most likely was designed by an Apple engineer. The design was shopped around. Bids were received and evaluated. Sample parts were made. And again, these parts were received and again evaluated before being released to procurement and production. I knew an engineer in Apple's QA department some years ago and he told me that Apple was the biggest stickler for quality he'd ever worked for. These are indirect costs. And, again are controllable by clever management and processes.
Lastly, every part in the finished product is subject to failure. Some value has to be added to the part to cover costs related to diagnosis and replacement. This is a big one. Every time an Apple person has to look at your computer and diagnose it, the costs start piling up. So, the goal is to build in quality so you never have to bring it back and have a physical part replaced.
So, does this make a $10 part add $100 to the price. I can't say for each part there is a 10:1 mark up, but I can assure you, a $10 part adds far more than $10 to the cost of using it.
I hope this helps.
Quote:
A segment of fiberglass is said to be between $5 and $10 cheaper than a magnesium-aluminum one, and an entire notebook could see $20 in savings on the production end with the use of fiberglass. That could equate to savings of $50 to $100 at retail, according to Taiwan fiberglass maker Mitak Precision.
Sorry, but it doesn't help. I think you're reading me or the article backwards. We're not talking about how $10 can add $100 to the price. Instead, we're talking about a savings of $10. A negative number. If something costs $10 less to make at wholesale, how does it end up being $100 less at retail? This is multiples of subtraction. Under normal markup, the part that costs $10 less would simply make the retail cost $10 less. How does it make it $100 less? The fiberglass case being thrown in for free? Is there is some inherent manufacturing technique with fiberglass that saves money over manufacturing with aluminum.
In "tech years", a year or two equates to something like a decade.
Correct. However, they have had an 18 month ramp up window to acquire more resources, instead of hoping to stifle supply from Apple who already had the contracts.
Comments
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.
Maybe Lamborghini can help the PC makers design the cooling system?
This thread has gone down hill in record time. .
Your ID:
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 23,754;
that's @ 63 months; Your posts divided by 63 and then divided by 30 days = 12.568 a day. An average of @ 12 A DAY.
I assume you read all of the other threads and posts before you post.
I am in awe of your dedication to AI. I joined a month before you, and I have posted a mere 1,503. I feel humble in your presence. This is NOT a criticism or sarcasm. I am truly in awe of your abilities.
Do you ever sleep?
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.
I was glad you did, as I didn't know the difference, nor really care, but once you pointed it out, I looked it up. And now I know a tiny bit more than I did when I woke up, which is a good thing to me. So, thanks.
"A segment of fiberglass is said to be between $5 and $10 cheaper than a magnesium-aluminum one, and an entire notebook could see $20 in savings on the production end with the use of fiberglass. That could equate to savings of $50 to $100 at retail, according to Taiwan fiberglass maker Mitak Precision."
I'm most definitely not a business man. So how does this work? How does $5 to $10 turn into $50 to $100?
I looked around the thread and I didn't see anyone directly address your primary question: How can a $10 part equate to a $100 increase in cost. I'm not going to discuss the end price, but I can assure you that a part that arrives at your incoming dock that you pay $10 for will end up costing you more than $10.
First, someone has to pick it up, log it in as received (this also incurs IT costs...). Then it's moved to some storage location (after some kind of inspection to make sure it's what you ordered and not some shipping clerk's left over pizza and that it is painted the right color, has the right lettering, and, actually works). Even if automated conveyers, that location is most likely inside a building. The part is taking up real estate in that building and it's taking up environmental conditioning of the storage area. As long as that part sits on that real estate, it's adding cost.
As an aside, Apple is the, or one of the, grand masters in "Just in Time" manufacturing. This means that incoming raw materials spend as little time as possible taking up real estate.
When the assembly line is ready (again, that determination incurs costs some human, some IT) for the part then it's moved again. These are direct costs and controllable by smart management and design.
Now, what no one has talked about is the activity leading up to ordering that part. If it's a transformer for the power supply, it almost certainly isn't an off the shelf part. It most likely was designed by an Apple engineer. The design was shopped around. Bids were received and evaluated. Sample parts were made. And again, these parts were received and again evaluated before being released to procurement and production. I knew an engineer in Apple's QA department some years ago and he told me that Apple was the biggest stickler for quality he'd ever worked for. These are indirect costs. And, again are controllable by clever management and processes.
Lastly, every part in the finished product is subject to failure. Some value has to be added to the part to cover costs related to diagnosis and replacement. This is a big one. Every time an Apple person has to look at your computer and diagnose it, the costs start piling up. So, the goal is to build in quality so you never have to bring it back and have a physical part replaced.
So, does this make a $10 part add $100 to the price. I can't say for each part there is a 10:1 mark up, but I can assure you, a $10 part adds far more than $10 to the cost of using it.
I hope this helps.
Long known as a master of the supply chain for overseas components, Apple...
I'm sorry, but until iPods and iPhones propelled Apple into a dominant market position for said devices, Apple was NOT AT ALL known for being a master of the supply chain!! I don't know who counts ~5-7 years as "long"
If you buy in bulk and have a lot of cash that's pretty much all it takes to become a "master of the supply chain for overseas components"
When PCs can slap together components for cheap, they are cheaper. Any old desktop with a plastic tower can go $300...
But when things like new technology, new designs, new manufacturing methods, design overhead come into play, Apple is very competitive. See iPad prices or "ultrabook" prices... Apple spent 5 years working on iPad and probably at least a few years working on MacBook Air (it debuted in 2008).
So now everyone else is trying to play catch up, but they haven't made the designs, secured the suppliers, secured the machinery, etc.
I guess another take on this is that if Apple wanted to sell a cheap plastic tower, they could probably do so competitively now (and probably with higher margins than other OEMs because they don't have to pay for Windows). I'm not sure they could have done that 5 years ago -- certainly not 10 years ago. That's a very interesting change. I guess it still might not make sense to do it, just because it would cannibalize some portion of their more expensive Macs and ultimately it would diminish the brand. But it's just another measure of how far they've come.
I'm sorry, but until iPods and iPhones propelled Apple into a dominant market position for said devices, Apple was NOT AT ALL known for being a master of the supply chain!! I don't know who counts ~5-7 years as "long"
If you buy in bulk and have a lot of cash that's pretty much all it takes to become a "master of the supply chain for overseas components"
Actually I think it started with the very first iPods, I seem to recall reading somewhere of Apple tying up the supply of 1.8inch hard drives from early on.
I'm sorry, but until iPods and iPhones propelled Apple into a dominant market position for said devices, Apple was NOT AT ALL known for being a master of the supply chain!! I don't know who counts ~5-7 years as "long"
If you buy in bulk and have a lot of cash that's pretty much all it takes to become a "master of the supply chain for overseas components"
Actually I think it started with the very first iPods, I seem to recall reading somewhere of Apple tying up the supply of 1.8inch hard drives from early on.
Good points.
Ergo, Apple was merely a supply chain grasshopper and only graduated to master status when the white ear buds started pervading our society.
Actually I think it started with the very first iPods, I seem to recall reading somewhere of Apple tying up the supply of 1.8inch hard drives from early on.
Even then, it wasn't due to being "a master of the supply chain". The 1.8's were very new when they decided to go with it and they were really the only ones using them in large quantities initially. Today, Apple is able to control supply chain dynamics for pretty much almost any component, regardless of how established the supply chain is. Once Apple comes in and says "mine" it is pretty much a kick in the nuts for competitors to try to get supply.
Having said that, Cook has been an absolute genius in getting operations like supply management running like silk.
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.
Thats very true. The downside is that the parts look like sh%t! The look is like carbon fibre gone bad.
It's called forged composite. Here is a golf club made by the process. This process is cheaper then regular carbon fibre but is not cheap.
If any one is interested here is a short article explaining how it works.
http://www.carbonfibergear.com/what-...-carbon-fiber/
Also, Apple is leveraging its cash hoard by making some substantial down payments. No one else is getting NAND flash memory at Apple's prices.
Tim Cook is indeed a supply chain genius.
Fail.
Actually, I suspect that a laptop case shaped like this would be great!
... and be very easy to produce.
And available in banana-walnut, cinnamon, and mango-pineapple
Actually, it's 'CNC mill', not lathe, but carry on...
True, but I find it odd that with such demand for these systems the manufacturer of these custom CNC milling machines isn't ramping up production for more units.
You cannot tell me that PC manufacturers won't invest in them.
Your ID:
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 23,754;
that's @ 63 months; Your posts divided by 63 and then divided by 30 days = 12.568 a day. An average of @ 12 A DAY.
I assume you read all of the other threads and posts before you post.
I am in awe of your dedication to AI. I joined a month before you, and I have posted a mere 1,503. I feel humble in your presence. This is NOT a criticism or sarcasm. I am truly in awe of your abilities.
Do you ever sleep?
But it is only his conscious mind that exists here
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 .
Year or two....funny.
In "tech years", a year or two equates to something like a decade.
I originally wrote:
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?
Now you're using a calm voice and logic. That's sure to set him off again.
I guess whoever wrote this used 'lathes' as a synonym for shape-cutting machining (as opposed to casting combined with screwing and glueing things together).
I suppose he could just as easily have used the word drill or a crowbar as a synonym. It would have been equally correct.
I looked around the thread and I didn't see anyone directly address your primary question: How can a $10 part equate to a $100 increase in cost. I'm not going to discuss the end price, but I can assure you that a part that arrives at your incoming dock that you pay $10 for will end up costing you more than $10.
First, someone has to pick it up, log it in as received (this also incurs IT costs...). Then it's moved to some storage location (after some kind of inspection to make sure it's what you ordered and not some shipping clerk's left over pizza and that it is painted the right color, has the right lettering, and, actually works). Even if automated conveyers, that location is most likely inside a building. The part is taking up real estate in that building and it's taking up environmental conditioning of the storage area. As long as that part sits on that real estate, it's adding cost.
As an aside, Apple is the, or one of the, grand masters in "Just in Time" manufacturing. This means that incoming raw materials spend as little time as possible taking up real estate.
When the assembly line is ready (again, that determination incurs costs some human, some IT) for the part then it's moved again. These are direct costs and controllable by smart management and design.
Now, what no one has talked about is the activity leading up to ordering that part. If it's a transformer for the power supply, it almost certainly isn't an off the shelf part. It most likely was designed by an Apple engineer. The design was shopped around. Bids were received and evaluated. Sample parts were made. And again, these parts were received and again evaluated before being released to procurement and production. I knew an engineer in Apple's QA department some years ago and he told me that Apple was the biggest stickler for quality he'd ever worked for. These are indirect costs. And, again are controllable by clever management and processes.
Lastly, every part in the finished product is subject to failure. Some value has to be added to the part to cover costs related to diagnosis and replacement. This is a big one. Every time an Apple person has to look at your computer and diagnose it, the costs start piling up. So, the goal is to build in quality so you never have to bring it back and have a physical part replaced.
So, does this make a $10 part add $100 to the price. I can't say for each part there is a 10:1 mark up, but I can assure you, a $10 part adds far more than $10 to the cost of using it.
I hope this helps.
A segment of fiberglass is said to be between $5 and $10 cheaper than a magnesium-aluminum one, and an entire notebook could see $20 in savings on the production end with the use of fiberglass. That could equate to savings of $50 to $100 at retail, according to Taiwan fiberglass maker Mitak Precision.
Sorry, but it doesn't help. I think you're reading me or the article backwards. We're not talking about how $10 can add $100 to the price. Instead, we're talking about a savings of $10. A negative number. If something costs $10 less to make at wholesale, how does it end up being $100 less at retail? This is multiples of subtraction. Under normal markup, the part that costs $10 less would simply make the retail cost $10 less. How does it make it $100 less? The fiberglass case being thrown in for free? Is there is some inherent manufacturing technique with fiberglass that saves money over manufacturing with aluminum.
Year or two....funny.
In "tech years", a year or two equates to something like a decade.
Correct. However, they have had an 18 month ramp up window to acquire more resources, instead of hoping to stifle supply from Apple who already had the contracts.