Google Refutes Glass Teardown Analysis, Calls $80 Build Price "Absolutely Wrong"

31

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

anc51699

Looks like they're following the Apple model for pricing their stuff. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly it costs more than $80 to build one of these. If you don't like the price tag, just don't buy a pair.

avatar

Xenite

Same reason why a prescription that costs pennies a pill to make cost $400 to the consumer. They want to recoup the millions spent on R&D... plus they are greedy fucks.

I doubt these glasses cost over $150 a pair to manufacturer, but a lot of people want them and are willing to pay, Google knows that.

Eventually they will be in the sub $400 range when demand drops.... guaranteed.

avatar

PCWolf

WRONG. Most of the R&D money for prescription drug research comes from the Government & Donations. Help find a cure for this & that! Donate Now! Help find a cure for breast cancer! & every other disease known to man, Then when they find a treatment, you have to pay up the wazoo for the R&D that was already paid for. It's all about GREED. Thats why those same pills from the same makers cost way less in other countries.

avatar

The Mac

Actually, you are wrong.

All those grants and donations DO NOT go to drug companies, they go to non-profits.

Once something is discovered by a non-ptofit research company, the drug companies must spend millions of dollars running clinical trials (rats, monkeys, then humans), double blind studies, counter indication examinations, manufacturing processes analysis, shelf life studies, and the list goes on and on. add to that, once a drug comes to market, they have a limited time frame to recoup those costs before generics are allowed, which all the other companies scramble to reverse engineer. If its a drug for a small market, its more expensive. If its a massive market, they are cheaper.

There are no non-profit drug manufacturing companies, its way too expensive.

It costs way less in other counties because the central government pays all those expenses for the drug companies, that doesn't happen in the US because we like our taxes low.

Also, those patents arent always protected in other countries, allowing them to manufacture the same product derived from the original companies expenditures. Or that central government subsidizes the price.

You want that stuff here? get ready for European level taxes.

avatar

John Pombrio

yeah, yeah. R&D, software engineers, marketing, setting up production, etc. All products have these costs, cars, video cards, Oculus Rift, everything manufactured. Now a really high price is justified if you are making a limited number, like a module for the space station. It is also important if you are creating a unique and cutting edge product, which, frankly, Google Glass is not considering the cheap knockoffs already available.

If you are doing mass production of a product with common components, these costs become only a small part of the total cost. Under full production, the true cost is the BoM (Bill of Materials). Sell over 200,000 and the BoM is the defining and fixed cost of the product.
BoM is really the only important part of the equation of a mass marketed product. The retail cost should be somewhere in the same ballpark as the BoM.

avatar

jgrimoldy

Perhaps part of the high price is the inflated perceived value and elite-ness of owning a pair of these (right now, anyway). It's nowhere near as "cool" if it's cheap and any garden-variety douchebag can buy a pair.

It'll take a lot to change my opinion of these being a ridiculous, limited, under-powered, overpriced fad.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Google has been able to make massive supercomputer networks to power its search and other services that are given out free of cost. Gmail, Search...we never had to pay a cent for these things, the data we gave to Google paid the bill.

Just as it does with Glass. Glass stands to be even more lucrative as Google not only gets to mine the data of the Glasshole but of everyone that the Glasshole looks at. Thanks Glassholes for giving Google money due to us but not giving us anything directly in return.

avatar

ram1220

Channel 11 news had a story last night here in DFW about the glassholes that wear these things. 9 out of 10 times the wearer received a nasty look or comment from other people. Well deserved I say.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Hear Hear!

It is impossible to wear Google Glass without becoming a Glasshole. The only way to not act like a Glasshole is to not wear Glass.

avatar

Renegade Knight

Only if the sole ass in the picture is the one wearing glass. Most times it seems to be everyone else throwing a hissy fit.

avatar

vrmlbasic

So...aspiring glasshole or actual glasshole. Which are you?

avatar

Trooper_One

'Tear down' pricing really only look at each mass-produced components - which, individually, make the parts cheap.

It doesn't consider R&D costs, marketing, distribution, sales, labour, and any other overhead costs to it.

avatar

John Pombrio

It is just BoM. Yes, it costs a lot to develop and markets a product, but the major cost in the long run is what the materials cost when full production is running.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Google reaps all of that back from the data that it mines from the forehead of each and every Glasshole. They're still ripping off the Glassholes.

But if they're willing to pay 1,500 for an 80 dollar product then who am I to deny them their stupidity? It'd be like talking to a wall anyhow, seeing as how their stupidity is off the charts since they're buying Glass anyhow.

avatar

varunbhatia87

And what about the R&D cost. Salary of all the engineer who designed this thing, who made this concept a reality. They didn't just draw it on whiteboard and then manufactured the final product. There must have been lots of prototype before this. So you can't predict a device cost by BOM. If you do so then apple should be on the top of that list.

avatar

acidic

this would be perfectly accepted if it were crapple. being google makes it a very very bad thing in the eyes of the tame crapple press. they should just keep listening to cold play and not worry about google as crapple will "invent" the wearable glasses in 10-15 years.

avatar

PCWolf

Then Crapple will sue Google for stealing their idea for wearable glasses. The same way they sue everyone for stealing Technology used in their iPoop phones that they did not invent.

avatar

acidic

hopefully when crapple does finally make wearable glasses, they call them iglasses. then lense crafters, pearl vision, and all other glass makers sue the shit out of them.

avatar

bigkahuna

if apple was the one making these, people would be lining up by the 100s and willing to pay $3000+ Dlls. people like to spend on overpriced garbage to fill an empty hole in their life

avatar

acidic

lol. you beat me to it. always good to find a fellow tech lover that speaks the truth

avatar

TheMissingPiece

Much of the cost is due to R&D and small production run costs. I'm personally fine with the $1500 "Explorer" version, so long as the final consumer version is a lot cheaper.

avatar

Samjabr

Corporations are in the business of making money. Somehow I can't imagine that the $80 cost is accurate. Furthermore, the software is likely the biggest expenditure. Ultimately, even if, software included, the device only costs $80, so what?

Google Inc is a corporation, as in a legal entity created for profit-making. gg.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Whoa now, you might want to recant. Remember that Google's motto is "don't be evil" and nothing-NOTHING-is more evil than profit.

Google is the space-hippie, peacenik Federation and Apple & M$ are the money grubbing, avaricious Ferengi.

avatar

PCWolf

Google will soon join the Dark Side. They are already turning evil.

avatar

Andacious

It does cost money to make software...

Albeit $1500 per device still seems steep.

Source: I am a Software Engineer

avatar

Rage1340

A company will mark a product as high as it can as long as the cattle of this world keep forking over the money.

They have no morals. Google included. They only seek to make profits.

This is not new news. nor is it surprising.

Google would sell you a thirty cent piece of dogshit for ten thousand dollars if you would buy it.

Morals = Money for big corps.

avatar

The Mac

oh noes! those evil corporations!

avatar

Rage1340

Just like i am waiting on google to prove the teardown price wrong with actual facts.. im waiting for you to prove me wrong in anyway as well.

My guess is that you both with need a couple days to make some shit up.

avatar

Renegade Knight

It's already been done in this thread.

R&D costs to get them to work and building a factory to produce them costs mega money. Even if google has someone else make them the factory rental fee for a small production runs costs money.

Someone else pointed out the software (which I toss under R&D) doesn't come cheap.

Normal cost recouping methods have early adopters paying higher per unit prices and helping recover costs.

That doesn't mean that if someone invented Pet Poo and it became a hit they wouldn't do exactly what you are saying. Mark it up 1000% and sell as many as they can. Pet Rocks sold after all.

avatar

evga760

nonetheless, we all know its much less than 1500 to build. But hey, theyre in business to make money, not just please the masses

avatar

devin3627

google is nothing compared to patent trolls.