“Secrets” about the consumer audio business you may find interesting

Post by eyelidlessness » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 4:55 AM UTC

Razengan wrote: post #120

js2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s nothing wrong with this. These are standard ratios, not some dirty secret. Nowhere in the original post is the word “dirty” or any implication that there’s anything wrong with the ratios. The OP qualifies their post with: > None of this is actually secret (it would be common knowledge for anyone employed in the industry) but isn't well-known outside of it. This audience has a lot of professionals in it so a…

Nowwhere in the GP comment is the word “outraged”. That’s your word. So, what, you wanted to be aghast or something and misrepresented the tone of the original comment with a selective quote and addition of the word “outrage”? Shit HN says. Sheesh. (This comment was a copy of the one above before it was edited)

Post by wmf » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 4:55 AM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #115

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #65

> The cost of building a consumer audio product is generally no more than 30% of retail. 30% COGS (cost of goods sold) is virtually a maximum for items sold at mainstream retailers. There’s nothing wrong with this. These are standard ratios, not some dirty secret. The cost of goods sold is only a fraction of the costs that go into getting products all the way into the customers’ hands and supporting them (customer su…

There's nothing wrong with it, per se, but surely if you're at all a proponent of a market economy for the typical reasons, you would like to see prices as close as possible to marginal cost.

Post by adgjlsfhk1 » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 5:03 AM UTC

tuatoru wrote: post #110

jiggawatts wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s nothing wrong with this. These are standard ratios, not some dirty secret. There's a lot wrong with this, but not in a moral sense. For all his faults, Elon Musk made a good point about the space industry near the beginning of SpaceX. He asked a team of "rocket scientists" how much a rocket cost. They said something like $100M. Then he asked them to sum up the material costs. Sheetmetal, tubing, rivets, etc…

> ... how much a rocket cost.... The "rocket" example is as silly as the "Moore's Law applied to vehicles" arguments that used to crop up on Slashdot decades ago. "If cars improved according to Moore's law, they'd get XXXX miles per gallon and go YYYY miles per hour". Yes, and they'd also be smaller than matchboxes while seating thousands of people. Exceptional situations are exceptional. Good on Elon Musk for realis…

Post by Razengan » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 5:07 AM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #122

Razengan wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowwhere in the GP comment is the word “outraged”. That’s your word. So, what, you wanted to be aghast or something and misrepresented the tone of the original comment with a selective quote and addition of the word “outrage”? Shit HN says. Sheesh. (This comment was a copy of the one above before it was edited)

> Shit HN says. Sheesh Indeed. I read the article, then I read these three comments. The first one reiterates points that the article made but seemingly doesn’t recognize the article made them. The second does recognize that but with a combative tone. The third is just combative. Y’all can carry on as usual but none of that conflict was actually warranted.

Post by lambdasquirrel » Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 5:09 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #124

tshaddox wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with it, per se, but surely if you're at all a proponent of a market economy for the typical reasons, you would like to see prices as close as possible to marginal cost.

This is as close as possible because all the stuff that's not included in COGS also has marginal cost.