19-Apr-2024 19:44 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 68 items in your selection (but only 18 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 68]
[Rant] Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunkedANN.lu
Posted on 24-Jul-2004 12:37 GMT by Johan Rönnblom68 comments
View flat
View list
For some time now, rumours that the Pegasos is sold at a cheaper price than production cost have been frequent in some circles. Recently, these claims were brought out into the open and could quickly be shown to be based upon incorrect assumptions about the Pegasos hardware. For some time now, rumours that the Pegasos is sold at a cheaper price than production cost have been frequent in some circles. In this thread well known AmigaOS4 contributor Stefan Burström brought the rumour out into the open claiming: "The USERS of a cheap, subsidised mainboard are happy because they have cheap hardware. However, they did not pay the actual cost of the hardware. [...] The Pegasos users may be happy for a short while the Pegasos is cheap, but the truth is that it doesn't finance itself."

He later clarified himself to speak only about the Pegasos 1: "Well, I was refering to Pegasos 1 since that is the only board I have made any homework on, so don't put any words in my mouth I didn't speak.", "I brought it up simply because this 'subsidised' discussion has been here before so I decided to do some homework. On _that_ board. I have no information on the Pegasos II so I decided not to discus it. Simple eh?" and "I insist on it because I am not claiming that the Pegasos 2 is subsidised. Simple eh? This whole subsidised story started with the Pegasos 1 and back then I supported it and did some homework."

Stefan supported his claims by stating that he had experience in the field: "Oh, btw, a part of my professional job is to design cost effective consumer electronics, so I think I have a fair amont of knowledge of the actual costs associated with PCB manufacturing."

He then claimed that based upon his calculations of the Pegasos mainboard PCB cost, the machine must be too expensive to make: "I started out with the PCB to get a starting point of the discussion. [...] I find it hard to believe that a board like this would have a PCB with a cost of 1/3th of the total BOM [Bill Of Materials]."

He explained that his guess was based mainly of his estimate of the PCB cost: "I started building a BOM way back yes. I guess I still have the draft somewhere on my old A4K. I never got that far as checking prices for the more advanced chips though." and "But fwiw, I calculated the PCB cost now just because it was the easiest one to do with most chance of getting accurate prices even 2 years back. For the NB, SB, Ethernet Phy, AC97 etc. it would have been much harder to find the accurate numbers which I started to look up way back."

Stefan's estimate of the mainboard PCB cost: "Right but it is still a ~100 sq inch PCB. 6 or 8 layers I'd guess. Microvias between layer 1-2 and 7-8 to be able to route the BGA's. A small scale production run of such a PCB easily reaches 100 USD per board. And that is before the startup costs for the PCB fab is distributed on the boards." and later clarified that "The expensive part is the micro via layer, not the actual # of the layer it goes through."

The inclusion of a the cost for a micro via layer did not come from knowledge about the Pegasos 1 board, however: "I havn't seen anything but pictures of a Pegasos so I havn't been able to inspect the boards."

Instead, he motivated it by referring to his stated knowledge about PCB design: "Nope, since I know that the Artica is a 492 pin BGA with a ballpitch of around 1.27 mm. Further more, the southbridge is is most likely as similar package as the VT82C686 (I have the datasheet here) which also has ballpitch of 1.27mm. Given a track width of 5 mils and clearance of 5 mils that would make it impossible to route using only through hole vias. Convinced yet?"



However, the fact is that the Pegasos (1 and 2) boards have six layers, that the area is 63 square inches rather than 100, and that they do not have any expensive micro vias.

Thus, it seems that the rumours that the Pegasos 1 (and Pegasos 2, even if Stefan is not among those making that claim) is based on incorrect assumptions about the Pegasos hardware.

Finally, I'd like to give Stefan some credit for having the guts to bring this up in public, rather than keeping it "behind the scenes" where these claims are seldom questioned and are quickly accepted as facts by many people.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 51 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 25-Jul-2004 15:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (AdmV0rl0n):
Admvorlon: I know that you hate everyone and everything, don't worry. :-)

I'm just showing that I don't have any double standards here. So when
you're saying that I'm trying to defend Genesi because I'm somehow partial
in their favour, you're quite wrong. I'd "defend" even AInc against similar
accusations. F ex, although they *did* use William Hawes work (ARexx) which
wasn't fully paid by Commodore before the CBM bankrupcy, that still doesn't
mean he subsidised OS3.5 and OS3.9. They committed copyright infringement,
that's a different story. You seem to suggest similar possibilities for
Genesi, but unlike with the AInc case above you merely seem to be pointing
towards "possible" infringement in general, rather than having a
concrete accusation.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 52 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Amiga Chief on 25-Jul-2004 19:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (AdmV0rl0n):
Now if you think I'm wrong, try posting some FACTS, not guesses based on numbers you've pulled out of your backside.


It's a waste of time. Most of these people seem to have about as much knowledge of accounting as genesi.

In order to manufacture and sell them for $600, the cost would have to be in the range of $200-$250. The dealers are certainly not selling them at cost and eating the freight too.

Maybe someone could enlighten us with the average cost of a PCB, and that of a PPC processor, when bought in quantity.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 53 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by minator on 25-Jul-2004 20:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (AdmV0rl0n):
>Well, The PRE-Production versions HAD to be subsidised, there was clearly no money
>going to be made on those.

Pre-poduction and prototypes yes, they would have needed some prior investment.

>Seeing as you and he are in some agreement,
>May I presume that this 'pre-production' occurred under 'Thendic-France'.

Development and production are done by bPlan, Thendic sold them. I don't know how the Pegasos development was funded, however I think you'll find the original investment came from BBRV (via series of companies but thats a guess).

>Are you including all the production variants that had problems, customers whom needed
>help, and additional costs. Thendic/Genesi/Whatever name you are arguing as a basis
>clearly had to take these on the chin, therefore, one could say these were also
>subsidised, no? Would that be unfair?

Although there were 3 versions with the Articia and they were made in small batches I believe the componets for all those batches were bought at the same time so that saved a lot of money per unit.

For the boards which needed to be swapped out (primarily non-April) yes, I expect they may have made a loss. Not sure of the April 1 as I don't there were that many of them and even when offered a free exchange some users didn't bother as they were happy enough with them already.

>I can't comment. I would say there are people on both sides who have ideas about what it costs,
>and either could be right/wrong.

I think the people who actually design and build the boards would be best placed to know, I spoke to them...

>>Nobody is taking account of deals bPlan may have done with suppliers or the numbers produced,
>>the numbers produced is the single most important factor as it pretty much determines
>>the manufacturing price.

>Nor does it seem YOU are taking into account the fact that these are low in number,
>and buying hardware/cpu/memory/chipset from vendors in low numbers does'nt
>equate well with you statement.

Depends how low, I expect the pegasos has always been produced in bigger numbers than people suspect. We're not talking 1,000's but were also not talking 10's. If it was produced in 10's the price would rise quite considerably.

>Now I COULD be wrong, and vendors may have stumped up special pricing,
>if so, the onus lies on those who claim its cheap to stump up the evidence.

My point is that any 3rd party estimate made is not going to be totally accurate because there are factors which cannot be known including if there any special deals. I have no idea if there are any deals myself.

--

>>>Everyone knows that smaller designs are more expensive than bigger ones, hence the price
>>>difference between a mobile computer and a desktop.
>>
>>No, thats because they use more expensive components, the cost of a smaller board is lower.

---

>I'm sorry, I have to argue here, many laptops use specifically lower cost components, bar
>the TFT, Battery, normal mobile extra's, and I really do question your statement on these
>grounds. I don't think the board is the cause of the cost difference to the degree
>you just claimed.

Check the prices of mobile CPUs and mobile hard discs, they are more expensive than standard desktop parts.

However this poster was climing that as a board gets smaller it gets more expensive, that may well be true if you need to make a *very* small board and you need extra layers but until then the cost will drop.

--

>OK, does that include all components, design time, wages. I'd also like to point out to you that your
>statement smells iffy. For the design changes, devlopment, testing, we KNOW it was'nt hours, it was
>months, therefore, unless BBRV pays his staff with fresh air, I question this statement as well. If you
>want to talk about 5 X April 2 boards, I want you to include the devlopment, design and testing in the
>damn costs. Once you do that, we'll come back to subsidised..

I have never argued that the price of the Pegasos covered development expenses or indeed other expenses, I stated that to my knowledge it is not sold below (production) cost.

Once the company makes enough to pay back debts and the investment capital then the boards have also covered those costs.

--

These are completely different questions:

>But I'de still say that Thendic-France staff or EX staff have amazing
>balls to come here claiming that they were part of the development, then on the other hand
>claim there is no possible links between Thendic-France and Genesi. Sheer ****** bull.

Like most internationl companies they are separate companies, most companies look like a single entity but in reality are made up of legally independant companies each with different responsibilities, they may act in unison but that does not mean they are one company. bPlan and Thendic-France were meant to join but that never happened, If Johan only had a contract with Thendic-France then he is *not* legally connected to Genesi (I believe this is what he's referring to).

> If Thendic
>are bust now, and they and not Genesi paid for and did the sales and marketing, then Genesi
>are today building every single board under a subsidy, legal or not, sematics or not, fact, or fiction.

Since Thendic went down the vast majority of sales have been to Freescale and as far as I'm aware Thendic had nothing to do with the marketing there.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 54 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 25-Jul-2004 20:21 GMT
I don't think even the exchanged boards must have caused a loss, as
these boards were sold at a higher price to begin with (I seem to
recall a cost of 1000 EUR for a complete system). Anyway, to replace
faulty hardware is normal even if it would cause a loss, and thus it
doesn't really matter.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 55 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 25-Jul-2004 21:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (AdmV0rl0n):
Admvorlon, and who are you? Why should we listen to you? I never saw you here or anywhere. Stefan Burström made good points and well thought arguments, you seem to be a lonely guy from Alabama. Do you have reputation at all?
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 56 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by hammer on 26-Jul-2004 01:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Sammy Nordström):
> Everyone knows that smaller designs are more expensive than bigger ones, hence
> the price difference between a mobile computer and a desktop.

Note that the comparable form factor Micro-ATX motherboard such as Asrock K7S41G only retails around $75 AUD i.e. they are not that expensive compared typical ATX motherboards such GA-7N400-L i.e. retails around $115 AUD.

Reference for cost reference;
http://www.diycomputers.com.au/index/product_info.php?cPath=57&products_id=2642&osCsid=7d59d03f222165a9fb161160902b1ef9

Specs for the Asrock K7S41G;
http://www.asrockamerica.com/Products/K7S41GX.htm
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 57 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 26-Jul-2004 06:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 56 (hammer):
Amazing. Someone finds an exception to the rule and actually thinks that the tables has been turned now...

For christ sake, it was just an example for a basic rule of thumb rather than some form of absolute truth. Now, is there anyone around with an intelligent explanation for why a smaller board and PCB design would be cheaper to make than a normal sized board and PCB design?
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 58 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by hammer on 26-Jul-2004 07:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 57 (Sammy Nordström):
>Amazing. Someone finds an exception to the rule and actually thinks that the >tables has been turned now...

Should I find more "cheap and cheerful" K7 motherboards in K7 mobos in Micro-ATX factor? Note that that particular Micro-ATX uses SIS chipset, while the other uses NVIDIA's nForce2 400 Ultra with Dual Channel MCs.

Refer to
http://www.programmersparadise.com.au/add_cart.asp?PC=136894
http://www.ithardware.com.au/products2004/136894.jpg
for yet another Micro-ATX form factor motherboard.

This one cost $94 AUD retail, ASUS A7V8X-MX (similar motherboard to AMD’s Geode NX benchmark demo) and it's based on VIA KM400 chipset.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 59 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by hammer on 26-Jul-2004 07:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 58 (hammer):
[Edit]
Should I find more "cheap and cheerful" K7 motherboards in Micro-ATX factor? Note that that particular Micro-ATX uses SIS chipset, while the other uses NVIDIA's nForce2 400 Ultra with Dual Channel MCs.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 60 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV on 26-Jul-2004 08:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 55 (Anonymous):
Ask yourself this, how could a company that is bankrupt persue Amiga Inc in American courts if they and Genesi are not linked.

You explain how Thendic are still persuing Genesi legal action in the US. All this bull from Johan is laughable.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 61 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 26-Jul-2004 09:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 60 (AdmV):
Just read the court documents. It's not Thendic France that is
involved in the law suit. It's Thendic Electronics Gmbh or something
similar. Ben Hermans claimed that they would have been bankrupt (or
nonexistant, or not related to Genesi, don't remember) and that AInc
would tell the judge this and he would then naturally overturn the
decision against AInc. However, that doesn't seem to have happened.

Bottom line is, I have no idea how that holds together. But although I
did find both KMOS and AIncs legal representation remarkably bad
(worse than their case) I find it hard to believe that they would not
utilise such a simple way to dismiss the case - if it was possible.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 62 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 26-Jul-2004 09:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 59 (hammer):
After doing some 5 min research on the subject, it seems that the only advantages of small PCB designs is that you can fit more boards on one panel of the manufacturer's production line and because it's cheaper to transport small and light-weight products. This has a dramatic affect on the price when ordering large production runs, but close to non-existant for small production runs.

The disadvantage is the increased costs of producing boards with thin lines and spacing, especially if it goes below 10 mil. Furthermore, if two traces are closer together than the minimum spacing there is some chance they will short when manufactured. For these reasons, small designs often means more testing costs and waste products, which could of course be compensated with large production runs... but we all know that this surely is not the case with bPlan.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 63 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 26-Jul-2004 09:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 61 (Johan Rönnblom):
Well, thanks to the new clarification of the specific performance granted to the plaintiff, they're basicly back to square one and the ball is in Genesi's hands. Will they finally provide Amiga Inc. with the technical documentation Amiga Inc. wants or are they going to waste more time and resources in court for the sake of trying to get their hands on the AmigaDE sources? I doubt Genesi has the means for it, much less the guts to further push their luck...
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 64 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by minator on 26-Jul-2004 10:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 62 (Sammy Nordström):
Are you ignoring lower raw materials costs on purpose?
A half size board is using half the material - it's hardly going to put the price up.

>The disadvantage is the increased costs of producing boards with thin lines and spacing,
>especially if it goes below 10 mil.

It may be the case on more tightly packed boards such as some of the ITX boards which include graphics etc. or high end graphics cards (some of which go up to 13 layers).

But this is almost certainly not the case with the Pegasos.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 65 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström on 26-Jul-2004 10:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 64 (minator):
>Are you ignoring lower raw materials costs on purpose?

The raw material costs of MicroATX vs ATX boards are insignificant for the cost per board, especially when we are talking about such small quantities.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 66 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 26-Jul-2004 12:05 GMT
Yeah Pegasos can't be too cheap, because it's much too expensive.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 67 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Evans on 26-Jul-2004 13:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 62 (Sammy Nordström):
>>>>
After doing some 5 min research on the subject, it seems that the only advantages of small PCB designs is that you can fit more boards on one panel of the manufacturer's production line and because it's cheaper to transport small and light-weight products. This has a dramatic affect on the price when ordering large production runs, but close to non-existant for small production runs.
>>>>

Small PCB designs means more PCBs per sheet, means cheaper price per raw board. Put twice as many on a board, the price drops in half, and frankly you comment about small production only deals with buying one sheet, in the quantity that either AmigaOne or Pegasos is made, size of the board is definitely a factor. Once again as I did last time this topic came up, I will point out that as someone whose company makes well over 100,000 computers a day, and who makes 10s of 1000s of other computer products a day (satellite recievers, Tivos, medical equipment, etc) and used to make the 600, 1200 and 4000 amiga models, not only is pegasus not sold at a loss, we could make it cheaper then the current manufacturer. Unless you actually have ran a BOM on the board on something like our copics system, you cant actually know what it costs, and this armchair manufacturer attempts by those who know nothing about modern methods are all pretty silly.
-Tig
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 68 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by minator on 26-Jul-2004 13:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 65 (Sammy Nordström):
>The raw material costs of MicroATX vs ATX boards are insignificant for the cost per board,
>especially when we are talking about such small quantities

I think not, here's a price list to prove it:

http://www.eeinternational.net/pc2-price1.htm

The prices are per square inch.
Anonymous, there are 68 items in your selection (but only 18 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 68]
Back to Top