From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-x229.google.com (mail-vc0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60F6321F259; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:19:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id im6so2109505vcb.0; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:19:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NBuKFL493bA4d3SB2h5qvm3/ZYGnA27r+wVw5TZ18Dg=; b=ZBGNsaH0LsPlO2vCLY3vZol25jaOZTIAx2LR9fedAs+p0YwxJLhh9vcj2vxAH2COa9 1JTPgsO7bQogWCZxXiXINypQgvRuoSi/qxY9ZtluFi9VzED8OX2oJ46kS6GtMvcdjw8R j5HUA3Uy3q62Ibnd0wcGCnMQF/8A1/jdWrRD0PAOjh8AnhT1HKkID5QAmQo+ONwnOGih YD/4jNbopCumorHmIhHHz0dgtrXKkdjuWqabaGK4xT57Wcd8cyTTgVD8JtKHZvFRir1w /XvtcUOmxx3LZcNXWzDjb1qZBPB4mAr6YDtD97Qnr77leL4XwK/TjQIvTLEPVFJGpvJ7 IY2Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.81.1 with SMTP id v1mr11541821vdx.96.1425259181692; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:19:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.24.79 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:19:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.24.79 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:19:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 03:19:41 +0200 Message-ID: From: Jonathan Morton To: Aaron Wood Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113674443cdb8505104403ec Cc: "aqm@ietf.org" , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] Bufferbloat and the policy debate on packet loss in nanog X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 01:20:11 -0000 --001a113674443cdb8505104403ec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 And the reason for that, of course, is that "pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap" works pretty well in the consumer marketplace - something that Far Eastern companies have capitalised on a great deal. Amortising a not inconsiderable R&D cost over the largest possible number of units makes economic sense. I think we'd all just rather they sorted out a better design in that initial R&D phase. That's something that doesn't appeal to the mindsets of most of those Far Eastern countries very well. Japan is the most likely exception, but only because they tend to make stuff for themselves first and others second. Funny story from the early days of the Raspberry Pi: they were using a Chinese factory because they needed cheap, and didn't really know how many would sell - ten thousand was hoped for, as that would break even quite nicely. But they went to a lot of trouble to be sure of getting something that actually worked back from them. Engineering samples had come back to the UK and tested fine, at last, so they gave the green light. Then the first batch of 2000 Pis arrived, and the Ethernet port didn't work on a single one of them. The factory had swapped out the RJ45 socket for a cheaper one after completing the engineering samples, without noticing that it didn't have the integrated magnetics that the design relied on, and as a consequence also had a completely incompatible pinout. They quickly learned their lesson on that point when the batch was sent back for repair, which entailed hand desoldering and resoldering to swap the socket for the correct one. That alone probably tripled the factory's costs, even at Asian labour rates, but it was their own fault. Penny wise... Of course the Pi sold slightly better than predicted, so they were soon able to find a factory in Wales that fitted the budget. - Jonathan Morton --001a113674443cdb8505104403ec Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

And the reason for that, of course, is that "pile '= em high and sell 'em cheap" works pretty well in the consumer mark= etplace - something that Far Eastern companies have capitalised on a great = deal. Amortising a not inconsiderable R&D cost over the largest possibl= e number of units makes economic sense.

I think we'd all just rather they sorted out a better de= sign in that initial R&D phase. That's something that doesn't a= ppeal to the mindsets of most of those Far Eastern countries very well. Jap= an is the most likely exception, but only because they tend to make stuff f= or themselves first and others second.

Funny story from the early days of the Raspberry Pi: they we= re using a Chinese factory because they needed cheap, and didn't really= know how many would sell - ten thousand was hoped for, as that would break= even quite nicely. But they went to a lot of trouble to be sure of getting= something that actually worked back from them. Engineering samples had com= e back to the UK and tested fine, at last, so they gave the green light.

Then the first batch of 2000 Pis arrived, and the Ethernet p= ort didn't work on a single one of them. The factory had swapped out th= e RJ45 socket for a cheaper one after completing the engineering samples, w= ithout noticing that it didn't have the integrated magnetics that the d= esign relied on, and as a consequence also had a completely incompatible pi= nout. They quickly learned their lesson on that point when the batch was se= nt back for repair, which entailed hand desoldering and resoldering to swap= the socket for the correct one. That alone probably tripled the factory= 9;s costs, even at Asian labour rates, but it was their own fault. Penny wi= se...

Of course the Pi sold slightly better than predicted, so the= y were soon able to find a factory in Wales that fitted the budget.

- Jonathan Morton

--001a113674443cdb8505104403ec--