Slashdot Mirror


DVD Player Maker's Margins just $1

callipygian-showsyst writes "This news.com story tells how Chinese DVD player manufacturers are only making $1 margins per player! The story says that 'Commoditization is hitting China's DVD player manufacturers hard, according to researcher iSuppli, Between January and May, the average selling price of a DVD player exported out of the Guangdong province came to $40.80, leaving just about $1 in profit margins for the manufacturers.' You wonder if other business, like low-end PCs hardware, are in similar trouble."

397 comments

  1. Wonderful by awaspaas · · Score: 5, Funny

    And all so that some trailer trash lady can get trampled for an Apex DVD player the day after Thanksgiving...

    1. Re:Wonderful by Tlosk · · Score: 1

      Actually it's been suggested that she faked it for money.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/05/nation al /main587049.shtml

    2. Re:Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the country is on the "right track" now, I think you're full of shit.

      Well, you are on slashdot, so the chances are good that you're full of shit no matter what you think, so I think you're full of shit anyhow.

      FULL OF SHIT!!!!1

    3. Re:Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the country is on the "right track" now, I think you're full of shit.

      The country is on the right track. Unfortunately, it's heading in the wrong direction, and there's another train headed straight for it.

    4. Re:Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you imply people would stop faking injuries if the US had mandatory* health insurance? Why?

      Rather, the way to stop these occurances (along with many, many other abuses of the justice system) is simple: Tort Reform. With Uber-Ambulance Chaser Edwards on the ticket, that's very unlikely to happen under a Kerry administration. (Hardly likely to happen under Bush II either for that matter...)

      * There is no such thing as "free health care". It costs lots and lots of money whether you pay via the tax bill or the insurance bill. (Position statement: I lean towards the tax option, or a mandatory health insurance, as with mandatory car insurance.)

    5. Re:Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean your mom?

    6. Re:Wonderful by j-pimp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      (Position statement: I lean towards the tax option, or a mandatory health insurance, as with mandatory car insurance.)
      Why would anyone demand mandatory health insurance in the same sense of mandatory car insurance. As an employer it might make sense to require my employees to be insured, but as a society I don't give a damn if my neighbor has health insurance. The only car insurance that is mandatory by state law (at least in NY, IANAL) is liability insurance. Now if you are suggesting I should be required to insure myself against people sending me their medical bills, your obvisiously in favor of ambulance chasing.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    7. Re:Wonderful by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      as a society I don't give a damn if my neighbor has health insurance.

      Until he catches the plague, that is.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    8. Re:Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, insurance is really going to help there lol.

    9. Re:Wonderful by Forbman · · Score: 1

      We were watching something on Vh-1 "remembering" the 80's. Sounds like the bit they ran on "Cabbage Patch Dolls".

    10. Re:Wonderful by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      your obvisiously in favor of ambulance chasing

      Yes - it is a free market approach to regulation that makes those who injure others pay. It isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing (i.e. tort reform)

      I find it interesting that those who are so against regulation and government interference with business want to interject regulation into another area (Actually, since regulation protects the regulated, I can understand why right wingers want to protect the Enrons of the world at all costs...)

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    11. Re:Wonderful by nysus · · Score: 1

      as a society I don't give a damn if my neighbor has health insurance.

      Finally, someone who is willing to say the truth about what the philosophy of the right is: "Fuck everyone else! I've got mine!" The whole world is nothing but a giant rat race to them.

      --

      ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    12. Re:Wonderful by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Yeah, insurance is really going to help there lol.

      A publicly funded innoculation program would. You know, as part of a 'Health program'?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    13. Re:Wonderful by hurricane_sh · · Score: 1

      Besides the hard competition, another important reason is they buy the decoder chips from foreign manufacturers.

    14. Re:Wonderful by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Yes - it is a free market approach to regulation that makes those who injure others pay. It isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing (i.e. tort reform)

      Well I want the enrons of the world to sink and the people behind them as well. A publically held company should be honest in the information it reposts publically. As far as I'm concerned those documents forged were legal documents and Enron and Auther Anderson committed perjury. I hate government, but it is an evil neccessisity in a few instances. Health Care is not one of them. Putting those that lie to the public in pound me in the ass prision, (I know thats not whats happening) is.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
  2. blast! by true_majik · · Score: 5, Funny

    i knew i should have waited 10 years instead of getting that $300 dvd player!

    1. Re:blast! by selderrr · · Score: 1

      300 ? cheapskate !

      I recall my previous employer buying one of the first, SINGLE SPEED CDI-writers (when CD-rom was nonexistant due to lack of players in PCs) 15 years ago or some...I Think the price was around 7500$ or somthing like that. Slow as hell, tons of failures and 20$ per blank disc. Fortunately, pr0n images were usualy black&white dithered RLE BMPs at 5K or so :-)

    2. Re:blast! by rodac · · Score: 1

      You think that is bad?

      I paid ~1000USD for my first Sony DVD player in ~1998 and that at a time when there were like 5 movies available in region 2.
      One of which was Jumanji but what the hell, the kids love jumanji. And I could get a region chip for only ~100USD.

      Now I can buy a new no-name region free DVD player in australia for about ~40USD. Times change.

    3. Re:blast! by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      At least they're building them at a profit now. When they sold at $300 it was a loss.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  3. Cell phone makers would be jealous... by datastalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...since they sell their hardware at a loss. (Granted, they get money from the service subscription.) Microsoft loses billions of dollars on the XBox, to sell games. This is common, and will be getting moreso. It won't be long before hardware is essentially free, and the software/services you buy are where the money is generated.

    1. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by trifakir · · Score: 5, Funny
      It won't be long before hardware is essentially free, and the software/services you buy are where the money is generated.

      Wrong, comrade. Not only hardware will be free, but software will be GNU. Toothbrushes and women will be public property and we will be living in the communism!

    2. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, I didn't pay Ericsson for my line rental.
      It's the network who sells the phones at loss, having paid the manufacturers full price for them.

    3. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by onion2k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cell phone manufacturers (Nokia, SonyEricsson, Sagem, etc) actually make a nice healthy profit on the phones. Its the telco companies that then pass the phones on to the customers at a loss.. which they make back easily on the users that send 1000 text messages a month..

    4. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by aelbric · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mao is that you?

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    5. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by tsunamifirestorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that those companies (cell phone, video games) can sell additional games, service plans etc. while the DVD player company has no control over where DVDs are bought from (if the company even makes DVDs)

    6. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Except that the cell phone *maker*, the one who manufactures the cell phone, doesn't lose money. It's the service provider who sells the phone to the public that loses money on the hardware, but gains it back (and hopefully more) from the service fees.

      This is where open standard hardware with open service comes in. If you aren't locked into a service, and can even transfer your phone between services (using a little chip or something), competition occurs on both fronts, hardware and service. This is good for the consumer.

      If you can get quality aftermarket ink for a printer, the printer manufacturer can't pull a bait & switch and charge crazy amounts for the ink, while taking an actual loss on the printer. This way you can get the printer at a little over cost, and the ink the same way, no 200+% profit margins.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Swamii · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft: hardware will be essentially free, software will pay the bills.

      OSS: software will be free, services will pay the bills.

      Apple: software will be essentially free, hardware will pay the bills.

      Sun: hardware will be essentially free, services and software will pay the bills.

      Me: businesses will make money any way they can.

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    8. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      well, they don't even make a loss at all. they give you the device for free but you have to sign a 24 month subscription to their service (in germany and i think elseware too). so they first make a loss but they get their money back no matter how many text messages you send. that is for their profit.

    9. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      As someone who pirates most of his software, I like microsofts ideas best!

    10. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Howbout I take the hardware from Sun, the software from Apple and the services from you, all for free, and make them work together? Sounds like a perfectly reasonable deal to me.

    11. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by mAineAc · · Score: 2, Funny
      and women will be public property

      If this is the case I for one can not wait for our Communist overlords :)

    12. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      Billions? With a b?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    13. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by selderrr · · Score: 4, Funny

      what are these "women" and "Toothbrushes" you speak of ?

    14. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sun: hardware will be essentially free, services and software will pay the bills.

      Umm, you mean:

      Sun: hardware will be essentially free, services and software will be essentially free, PROFIT will pay the bills.

    15. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me neither. STDs are nasty.

    16. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are these "women" and "Toothbrushes" you speak of ?

      ESR?

    17. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      Toothbrushes and women will be public property and we will be living in the communism!

      Oh I see. So my ex-girlfriend was a communist! That explains it.

    18. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Exitthree · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow, you should charge for that!

    19. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Taurim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As someone who does not pirates any software, I like OSS ideas best :-)

    20. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be $Your Least Favorite Group Here, otherwise you would have said TEETHbrush...

    21. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mwahahaha! I even got troll modded for that XD
      This is just beautiful.

    22. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by ljavelin · · Score: 1

      Trust me:

      1. the wireless companies are making globs of money. "Free" cell phones are their loss-leader, there just to attract dumb customers who care more about the phone than the plan.

      2. Microsoft is hoping to take over the console market so that they can make globs of money. The XBox might not be making a huge profit now - however, Microsoft has concluded that it can make a huge long-term profit.

    23. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by mgrassi99 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that hardware costs a lot of money to make, if you're talking about items such as CPU's (or other silicon-based components) and hard drives. Fabs cost in the billions of dollars, and depreciate over many many years. No one will want to (or be able to) stay on the cutting edge of those businesses if they're making next to nothing.

      On the other hand, software is cheap to produce. Small teams can write and validate software, and its trivial to distribute either on CD or via the internet. OSS has an even greater obvious advantage.

      This is capitalism at its best, the best business model will win out. What makes this interesting is the interdependance of one on the other...maybe this is Apple's chance to shine! ;)

      -M

    24. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Bah, actually charging for something is passe.

      He should get a patent on it an licence it to the people who actaually charge for stuff.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    25. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Kinda off-topic, but I bought a copy of this poster recently from a market in Shanghai. It's ueber-cool.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    26. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by asadsalm · · Score: 0

      You mean: As someone who STEALS most of his software, you like microsofts ideas best!

    27. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lance Armstrong will be stripped of his Tour de France title by French authorities. In a random check for banned substances, three were found in Lance Armstrong's hotel room that are banned by the French: toothpaste, deodorant, and soap.

    28. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You mean: As someone who STEALS most of his software

      Not stealing. pls learn language. k? tx.

    29. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      Back (way back), perhaps pre-"computer", IBM considered not charging for hardware. They would make all there money via the sale of punchcards. I shit you not.

    30. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who pirates most of his hardware, I like Apple's idea the best!

    31. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by buvic2 · · Score: 1

      Fabs actually depreciate quite rapidly. By the time you've got your fab running the next step down in component size, or the next step up in wafer size, will already be waiting and you get to do it all over again. And the big boys (Intel, AMD, IBM, Motorola, &c) have little choice but to stay on the cutting edge.

    32. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to recall someone else saying the exact same thing .... hmmm, oh yeah, Bill Gates.

      I don't think Microsoft has started to really recover though from the mega loss it took on the XBox, even from selling games. Really, they just wanted to get their product on the market, and could afford a huge loss, since they're Microsoft.

    33. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... by falzer · · Score: 1

      -1, Troll? More like (Score:-1, Truth)

  4. Its all about volume by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That is the 'new' economy.. Forget the days of high profit items for most industries that
    are technology related.

    This is a byproduct of more efficient manufacturing, and in many cases, *fair* competition..
    ( something that we don't currently have in this country , but that is a different subject )

    Don't expect this trend to change any anytime soon either...

    Too bad it also means fewer jobs to make the money to buy the cheap items... Since it takes fewer people to make the same # of items it did 10 years ago.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Its all about volume by pHatidic · · Score: 1
      This is a byproduct of more efficient manufacturing, and in many cases, *fair* competition..


      Actually fair is usually defined as "an agreement between two people who like eachother." Thus this competition really isn't fair, if anything price collusion to keep margins at a level where workers can make a decent wage would be "fair competion." This form of competition is simple free, so do not confuse freedom with fairness, for freedom is by definition ammoral.

    2. Re:Its all about volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is the 'new' economy.. Forget the days of high profit items for most industries that
      are technology related.


      This isn't "new" at all. $1 on a $40 COGS is 2.5% NET margin. Dell gets by on 4% NET margin. NET margin is what you get after you've paid all your bills. It's what goes in the bank at the end of the month. Most households get by on 0% NET margin. In other words, they spend everything they make each month.

      Your local HEB, QFC, Safeway, King Soopers, Piggly Wiggly or whatever your local supermarket is called is also living on 1% net margins.

      Nothing big, nothing new.

    3. Re:Its all about volume by andy1307 · · Score: 1
      Too bad it also means fewer jobs to make the money to buy the cheap items... Since it takes fewer people to make the same # of items it did 10 years ago.

      10 years ago, nobody had a DVD player. People will just invent something that will be the equivalent of the cheap 40$ DVD player 10 years from now. If things are cheaper, people can afford to buy more stuff. Instead of a 500$ DVD player, I can now afford to buy a DVD player, a portable mp3 player and a bunch of other things.

    4. Re:Its all about volume by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Since it takes fewer people to make the same # of items it did 10 years ago.

      That's not necessarily so. I read an interesting article a while back (I don't remember where, sorry), that covered Ohio Art's outsourcing of Etch-A-Sketches to China. It said that it now takes significantly *more* labor to put together each Etch-A-Sketch because the factory in China is less automated than the American one was. However, the labor is so much cheaper that the overall production cost is still lower.

      IMHO, the US is being lazy and shortsighted by trying to move so much manufacturing overseas instead of focusing on better automation. The manufacturing jobs will be lost either way, but at least with automation we wouldn't be allowing our national capabilies for making anything other than lawsuits or french fries atrophy. We wouldn't be building up such massive trade deficits either.

    5. Re:Its all about volume by 7-Vodka · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Quote: Too bad it also means fewer jobs to make the money to buy the cheap items... Since it takes fewer people to make the same # of items it did 10 years ago.

      Well that is good news, because all of those unemployed people can get jobs making even more things efficiently and we can have more choice and variety. There is no shortage of things to discover, invent or build.
      Efficiency isn't a bad thing in itself, it actually leans more to the good side of things. What is bad is when the upper strata of society dominates the gains from our newfound technological wonders and keeps the standard of living for everyone else in a different ballpark to theirs.

      When it only takes 10 workers to make something where it used to take 1000, those 10 workers should be well paid and have decent benefits.

      --

      Liberty.

    6. Re:Its all about volume by foidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is also bad for corporations in the long run, but by that time the "geniouses" who engineered this will be out with a golden parachute. Low labor costs really hide the true cost of your product, esp. if you price everything in dollars. It takes more resources to make thsoe etch-a-sketchs in China than it does in the US, but since there doesn't seem to be the need to make labor cheaper, the costs just get hidden(or more likely, passed along to everyone else in the US in the form of higher prices for commodoties like oil and steel). Eventually, those workers won't be so cheap anymore(would happen sooner if China didn't enforce such an deflated yuan), and then the company will be faced with high labor costs and virtually no advances in automation. If they try to fire people, the factory will probably just pump out a ton of rip-off etch a sketches and beat them with their own product.
      But once again, it won't matter to the executives with the golden parachute....

    7. Re:Its all about volume by AvitarX · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fair would be if the currancy had an accurate value.

      Fair would be if they had to play by some set of rules where entire ciries are not left without clean water do to by products. Competing with sweatshops and artificially devalued currency is not fair compatition. It's cheating.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    8. Re:Its all about volume by nyseal · · Score: 1

      I know....it's called "progress". I hate when that happens.....especially in Khazingtibnul or some other obscure state that demands world rights based on a history of oppression. UN......WAHOOOO!

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    9. Re:Its all about volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry; soon these companies that have all these executives with golden parachutes will realize that instead of letting the executive retire, the company has to pay less if the executive instead dies.

      I expect the companies will soon be needing executive execution services, and I plan to be ready for this niche market opportunity. Our motto: "the only good CEO is a dead CEO". Happy hunting.

    10. Re:Its all about volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you advocate then? Protectionism, trade-barriers, wage and price controls? These have all been tried before by many economies at many different times. In the short run a few jobs here and there are kept at home, but in the long run those types of measures create very lazy and non-competitive companies that produce shoddy goods and services at very high prices. The jobs will eventually return to the United States and in higher numbers when the labor cost advantages of foreign manufacturers are nullified by increasing labor costs and more efficient competition from the United States. The United States has always benefited from free markets, free trade, and competition, but like exercise, you must go through some pain in order to experience some gain.

    11. Re:Its all about volume by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      What do you advocate then? Protectionism, trade-barriers, wage and price controls? These have all been tried before by many economies at many different times. In the short run a few jobs here and there are kept at home, but in the long run those types of measures create very lazy and non-competitive companies that produce shoddy goods and services at very high prices.

      If you read what I said, I wasn't trying to protect jobs. I said that these jobs are disappearing either way. The goal is to prevent accumulations of massive foreign debt and to retain our ability to produce goods competitively.

      The way to do this would be to somehow convince PHBs and investors to focus on longer term goals, not just the next quarter's earnings report. I'm not sure how to do that, but it's obvious that trade barriers wouldn't do it. That would just encourage keeping too many high-priced US workers on the payrolls.

    12. Re:Its all about volume by DarkOx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The world is not the same as it was when these things were tried. When "Free Trade" was developed as a concept it was assumed that the factors of production were imobile. Most businesses were about manufactured goods. To build a car you had to have steel, to make the steel you had to have iron ore. Consequently the car got built where the iron ore was. Today we can ship thousands of tons of raw metal across the globe at a misicule cost. The expensive thing is laybor of construction. The other reality is that with an increasingly service economy things like call centers and people who read X-rays can be overseas as well. Surgery will soon be done by robots controlled by doctors on the other side of the globe. What the hell is left for people to do here in the US or Western Europe then? Simply continue to mortgague our collective futures by running up incredible foriegn owned deficits. Federal debt is no problem when its owed to the citizens of that nation but it will burry us eventally if it continues to flow abroad. Modern tech has made it possible to produce noplace near the resources of production, no you couple that with a degree of political stability the world has never before know and you have the makeings of economic ruin. We need to try some sort of modern forms of protectionism to keep up with new tech or in all seriousness start some more bigger wars, that pit world powers against each other rather then just us agains Afganistan. We need a new Sovient Union or WW3, or we need to put an end to deficit trading with tarifs. Take your pick. Either way in the short term I am sure our quality of life will go down a little bit. Its better then repeating the great depression in 30 years though.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    13. Re:Its all about volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad it also means fewer jobs to make the money to buy the cheap items... Since it takes fewer people to make the same # of items it did 10 years ago.

      This all reminds me of a story I heard somewhere. During the dawn of the industrial age many paradigm shifts occurred. Some of those most attacked were the ones tat automated formerly manual tasks. One of the most hated was a device that automatically knitted socks.

      Socks used to be knit by rows of women who did it all by hand. The inventor of the machine that replaced them was criticized by socialists as a destroyer of jobs. Look at the evidence they cried; he put 30 women out of work, they are starving now. And him, by producing socks cheaper he undercut other sock operations and became rich. As proof of his increased wealth they pointed at his factory; he gained so much work it was expanded to more than a thousand workers.

    14. Re:Its all about volume by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Please learn economics (and use a dictionary). When the US's debt is called in it will either be paid with inflated dollars (causing US labor to become cheaper, thus solving the problem) or it will be paid with goods and services made with US high-productivity effort (problem also solved). In fact, this is an on-going process, as shown by the daily fluctuation in currencies.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    15. Re:Its all about volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the US's debt is called in it will either be paid with inflated dollars (causing US labor to become cheaper, thus solving the problem)

      So, in your world, run away inflation is an acceptable solution?

      or it will be paid with goods and services made with US high-productivity effort (problem also solved).

      Examples, please.

    16. Re:Its all about volume by qwasty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well paid and with decent benefits? Not in my experience. $10 per hour, no benefits, and basically having to work as a throwaway "temp" of sorts. This is American manufacturing, as I have personally seen it from 2000 to the present day. The only bright side is it's easier to sue somebody for not keeping the temperature just right, or whatever other ridiculous things that people are doing to make a living...

    17. Re:Its all about volume by mooreBS · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up!

      Amen to this. One of the things that really bugs me about my employer is they invest large amounts of money to train employees on the shop floor then lay them off before they get a raise. Then they repeat the cycle.

      Wouldn't it make more sense to train people as temps, figure out which ones are good employees, and then spend the money to keep them happy and loyal? It seems like you'd get more in the long run. An idea I've been pushing at work, but the powers that be don't want to hear it.

      Just my two cents.

    18. Re:Its all about volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why does a pound of the same weinies cost $2.18 at Winco and $3.99 at Albertsons?

    19. Re:Its all about volume by isorox · · Score: 2

      Most households get by on 0% NET margin. In other words, they spend everything they make each month.

      A lot of households get by on a negative margin each month. With mounting credit card debts it can't last forever, and I'm not looking forward to when it ends.

    20. Re:Its all about volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most insightfull, or MI, but machines don't earn money to spend on a friday night or weekend, or will
      they make holidays ...
      as much as i think the fututre should be ruled by
      machines, err .. the future should be free, the
      machine doesn't ...

      get it already ... no human, no nothing.
      come-freaking-on, the extrem would be that you own
      ALL the money, but what could YOU buy with it?
      nothing ...

    21. Re:Its all about volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're an idiot ... sorry and chinese i hope

    22. Re:Its all about volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because Winco is willing to lose money selling hotdogs.

      Averaged across a whole store, a 1% margin on groceries in considered good. Anything more is gold. Some rare items indeed DO bring in significantly more than average profit, sometimes selling for twice actual cost.

      But it is also accepted that some items will have to sell for less than 1% profit or even at a loss in order to be competitive. That's where your Winco dogs come in. They want to compete with Albertsons so they undercut the price. Probably take a nasty hit doing so too.

      Sales of other items will serve to make up the losses. Life goes on.

    23. Re:Its all about volume by telemonster · · Score: 1

      Canon printers in Chesapeake, Virginia I believe used to use Remedy staffing as a means by which NOT to hire people. New employees were hired on a temporary basis, then after 6 months or so they would just eject the majority of them. No benefits requried.

      As I understand it, this may have changed. This is heresay from people that worked there that I knew. I was told when they would remove a hard working 6 monther, there were times when other friends would all get up and walk out at the same time.

      --
      Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
  5. And that, my friends... by Meat+Blaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Is why outsourcing is such a fantastic idea.

    You play to the strengths of the manufacturing of each country, take out the middleman, and we no longer have to pay inflated costs for everything.

    Kind of wierd to think that it's cheaper to get something made and shipped halfway around the world than it is next door, but if it makes a dollar go farther in this economy I'm all for it.

    1. Re:And that, my friends... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Other than DVD's and Electronics what has gotten cheaper due to outsourcing to China?

    2. Re:And that, my friends... by Travoltus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that the out of work middleman now has no money to buy these "cheaper" products.

      Everyone is obsessed with cheaper stuff, but no one pays attention to the fact that when you're out of work, "cheap" is still too expensive.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    3. Re:And that, my friends... by aelbric · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is interesting how this works. GM just announced the "World Engine". Essentially, they will be manufacturing the parts in outsourced countries all over the world, shipping them back to the US, and doing final assembly here. Scary to think that it is more cost effective to ship parts thousands of miles from dozens of suppliers than to make them at home. Even then, GM's margin on autos is razor thin.

      Perhaps we should start looking at why it is so expensive to manufacture here instead of gnashing our teeth about jobs going overseas.

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    4. Re:And that, my friends... by LordOfYourPants · · Score: 1

      That's because the cost of oil and highway/air infrastructure are subsidized by taxpayers already to make the cost of the item only appear cheaper.

      Factor in the costs of road/airport maintenance and building, land clearing, emergency funds for things such as oil spills and trucking accidents, political costs associated with maintaining a reasonable oil price, lowered tariffs, and later dollar-value loss from free trade and the prices at your local Best Buy might not feel so cheap.

    5. Re:And that, my friends... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 3, Informative

      Clothing, consumer appliances, power tools, any sort of plastic or metal manufacturing, furniture, etc.

      Heck, the hardwood futon I bought 4 years ago was made in china - the store said that local manufacturers just couldn't compete with the lower wages paid there. As a result, there was nearly a $200 difference in final price for a product that was approximately the same design and quality.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    6. Re:And that, my friends... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "(And that, my friends)... is why outsourcing is such a fantastic idea.

      You play to the strengths of the manufacturing of each country, take out the middleman, and we no longer have to pay inflated costs for everything."

      It's not that simple. Out sourcing may in the short run be good for some consumers but it is a two sided sword. For the people that lose their jobs because of out sourcing it is very bad.

      It is also very bad for the small "mom and pop" companies. Only large corporations can afford to do out sourcing so by supporting it you are playing into their hands. They want to squeeze out the smaller companies so that they can better control the market. Once they succeed the prices won't stay cheap anymore.

      Out sourcing is NOT good in the long run for most people.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    7. Re:And that, my friends... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Clothes, shoes, toys, tennis rackets, tractors... (yep - New Holland tractors direct from China at 1/4 the price).

      Funny, if they cost $40 bucks US to make, how come the WalMart, KMart, Future Shop, Zellers are selling them for $48 Canadian (about $35/US)? Am I to believe they're all doing it as a "loss leader"?

    8. Re:And that, my friends... by dourk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You, apparently, don't work in the manufacturing industry.

      I do. I produce my products in Southern California, even though I pay a huge penalty in wages and insurance and taxes to do so.

      One of my largest competitors is literally around the corner. His products are made in Taiwan/China.

      Even so, MY retail price is lower than his. And my '05 model products are already stocked on the shelf. If he's lucky, his are in a container on a ship waiting to get through customs.

      Your dollar isn't going any farther. It's just increasing somebody's profit rather than paying wages of my American neighbors.

      --
      Wake up.
    9. Re:And that, my friends... by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Am I to believe they're all doing it as a "loss leader"?

      Of course a $40 DVD Video player sold at $36 is a loss leader because Wal-Mart stocks the DVD Video player right next to several racks of $10 DVD Video titles by major studios.

    10. Re:And that, my friends... by Travoltus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's more expensive here because of nasty evil socialist edicts like
      *workplace safety regulations
      *environmental pollution controls
      *the 40 hour work week restriction
      - And that sort of stuff. That is far more expensive than just business taxes alone.

      Global outsourcing is absolutely nothing more than big business's way of saying "this country cares about its environment and its workers and as such we choose to do business where such concerns are nonexistent."

      Corporations do not care about you, or the air, water or soil that they might pollute. They care solely about profit, and when the good of humanity, or its very survival, is at odds with their profit margins, they decide profit margins must win. Thus they threaten us with foreign outsourcing - either we cave in and give them what they want (regulation and lower cost of doing business - which includes eliminating environmental laws and ALL workers' rights), or they leave for another country who will.

      To steal a Rush Limbaugh quote, America is being held hostage.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    11. Re:And that, my friends... by aelbric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to sound degradating, but do you really believe that the people who all run a corporation are trying to do nothing but poison the environment and put us all into economic slavery?

      What I was talking about was a rational approach to reducing the cost of doing business in this country. What do I mean by that? Perhaps we should examine:

      *The ridiculous salary and bonus options paid to company officers of major corporations.
      *Torte reform
      *Healthcare reform
      *Tax reform. Not just changing the rates, but changing how the whole system functions.
      *Sanity in labor contracts.
      *Sanity checks in unemployment benefits.
      *A wholistic view of subsidies, Tarrifs, and duties paid on goods.
      *Intelligent and strategic reviews of foreign aid and grants.

      A business is a living being run by people. It will do whatever is necessary to insure its survival.

      Yes they need to be regulated, but regulated in such a way they can can continue to grow without forcing them to do it at the expense of employees or shareholders. This is something that responsible government should be able to accomplish if we could just stop screaming at each other long enough to focus on it.

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    12. Re:And that, my friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offtopic, but you should never buy a futon that has not been made in Japan. Of course, they are the most expensive ones...

    13. Re:And that, my friends... by div_2n · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should ask Bush why he consistently favors not imposing trade policies to help the situation:

      hongkong.usconsulate.gov/uscn/trade/general/ustr /2 001/071001.htm
      japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-2003012 2b1.html
      japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040305-25.h tml
      www.manufacturingnews.com/news/03/0603/art1.h tml

    14. Re:And that, my friends... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      If they were the only ones, I'd agree. However, ALL the retailers up here are carrying it at the same price. Heck, even the supermarkets are carrying them.

      It would make more sense to use the old "different brand, different featurs, different price" argument, and sell different models for a higher price (create some extra value in the consumers' mind) but all the stores are doing it.

      It's not like you're going to buy your dvds at the same place that sold you the player, if you can get the dvds elsewhere, or rent them.

    15. Re:And that, my friends... by zobo · · Score: 1

      What I was talking about was a rational approach to reducing the cost of doing business in this country. What do I mean by that? Perhaps we should examine:

      [ ... ]

      *Torte reform


      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
      --
      83chrise.nuf
    16. Re:And that, my friends... by aelbric · · Score: 1

      LOL, I stand corrected. I thing our baked goods are quite competitive.

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    17. Re:And that, my friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the FUCK is a comment about outsourcing being good moderated Insightful on Slasdhot. Has this place been taken over by Indians?!

      You must not work in textiles, manufacturing, or IT. Either that, or you live in China, India, or some other shithole.

    18. Re:And that, my friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got a website for your products?

    19. Re:And that, my friends... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      It's fun while it lasts... make stuff where it's cheap, sell where things are expensive and people have money. But of course those are equalizing forces at work. China's economic growth has been putting ours to shame for some years now, which is to say... they're catching up. So maybe we will eventually be able to export to them, which is nice, but I predict natural resources will be getting mighty scarce.

    20. Re:And that, my friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      torte reform? I like my cakes they way they are thank you. You were going for tort weren't you?

      oh, and insure->ensure, tarrif->tariff and degrading is the other one you wanted. Otherwise interesting post. Happy to help :)

    21. Re:And that, my friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40 $ might be referring to a model that's slightly more high quality than the ultra-cheapo WalMart DVD players.

    22. Re:And that, my friends... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      40 $ might be referring to a model that's slightly more high quality than the ultra-cheapo WalMart DVD players.
      My experience has been that the el cheapo models play everything - DVD, VCD, SVCD, MPG, MP3, etc., while the more expensive ones hork up on some SVCDs (audio not syncing properly, etc.) and MPGs.

      And this is with brand new, name-brand machines like KOSS and Citizen, as opposed to the cheapie Apex and CyberHome players, which play pretty much everything.

    23. Re:And that, my friends... by poptones · · Score: 1
      Aha... but if my dollar is not going any farther, why is it so much cheaper to buy chinese knockoffs?

      No, this definitely doesn't apply everywhere - clothing prices are all over the place in spite of there being ever-fewer american garment workers and the same goes for shoes/boots/toys - whatever. Surely "designer" stuff (whether it's clothes or dvd players) could be made in the US and still provide hefty profits - but it would be very hard to compete on the low end with devices made in a part of the world where most of their basic lifestyle is supported by a socialist regime.

    24. Re:And that, my friends... by forgoil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why those "nasty evil socialist edicts" should also apply to anyone who manufactured goods _imported_ into a country. If you can't show proof that whomever made the stuff has the same rights and conditions, you have to ship it back. Would change a whole lot of stuff very very quickly.

      But I guess our goverments will be sufficiently bribed || gotten nutcase agendas before that will ever happen.

    25. Re:And that, my friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your dollar isn't going any farther.

      Taiwan is a lot farther than southern California...

    26. Re:And that, my friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main driving force is rather that they have a huge number of reasonably skilled workers. That's the big thing - leaving it out of the equation distorts the picture severely.

    27. Re:And that, my friends... by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      Actually, a somewhat different crisis will end this.

      A profit of $1 on a DVD player indicates serious trouble in China. That is not an adequate return on investment. This tells me China is heading toward a crisis that terminates all booms -- bad investment builds up, and eventually has to be liquidated in a contraction. Their system appears to have some features that encourage bad investments, just like the Japanese did (and their hangover lasted for a decade.)

    28. Re:And that, my friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?
      When you outsource jobs, you need something to replace the income. Products may be cheaper, but without jobs, what are you using to pay for them?

      In the past, countries depended on agriculture. However, people realized that you need to use machines to lighted up the workload and make more income. Also, industrialization made one country's economy more immune to natural dissaster. So, people outsourced the farming and concentrated more on industrialization. Now, manufacturing industries were being pressured to commoditize their products because people thought to make more income, they had to rely on cheap labor. So they outsourced manufacturing and relied on high-tech to replace lost income. The same thing happens again and now high-tech jobs are outsourced and what will you rely on after this? Design and services. Notice that the trend goes from heavy labor to intellectual pursuit.

      However, unlike the previous stages, design and services have less tangible products and thus, easier to steal (or infringe if you prefer). How do you protect them? At the end of the day, the world can live without Software A or Movie B, or Media Player C. They are replaceable with Software D and Movie E and Media Player F, such as the nature of design and services. But can you live without food? How about secondary neccesity such as cars/busses? You are giving up things that are hard to copy to things that are easy to copy, thus, making you less important in the grand scheme of business.

      Whatever you can do, they can copy, but whatever they do, you feel it's beneath you to do. You lose. Balance, that is what you need.

    29. Re:And that, my friends... by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      Of course a $40 DVD Video player sold at $36 is a loss leader because Wal-Mart stocks the DVD Video player right next to several racks of $10 DVD Video titles by major studios.

      You forgot the part about Walmart saving money by hiring minimum wage workers without benefits. Since they qualify as poverty class, the rest of us get to flip their medical bills.

      Not to mention a store full of workers who cost more for our "system" to support than they are making.

      Thanks to capitalism, 10% of us get to live really nice while the masses wear old clothes and live in rental homes reaking of hot garbage.

    30. Re:And that, my friends... by rnd() · · Score: 1

      yeah, let's all spend a lot of time feeling sorry for blacksmiths as we stop buying cars to avoid putting people out of work. Give me a break. The world changes. If you're a blacksmith and you start reading about the Model T in the newspaper, maybe it's time to think about changing careers. The trends that put people out of work are very gradual, and it's only people's denial of reality that allows them to be victimized. By feeling sorry for them and trying to help them out (taxpayer funded subsidies are equivalent to buying horseshoes and destroying them), all you're doing is making the trend less obvious.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    31. Re:And that, my friends... by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 1
      It is also very bad for the small "mom and pop" companies. Only large corporations can afford to do out sourcing

      NO. Where do you people come up with this stuff!?!

      I can hop on RentACoder and get someone in Eastern Europe to do code that I couldn't hope to compete with on price alone. Hell, a friend and I considered a business plan based on bidding cheap for local (US) contracts then farming them out on eLance or RentACoder to see if it would work.

      I can use foreign PC board manufacturers and assemblers at fractions of the US price. And that's just off the top of my head without doing any additional research.

      With the net and FedEx, it's getting to the point that *anyone* can outsource. I'm waiting for the day I see housewives in the Ukraine advertising online that they will sew the latest Donna Karan (or somesuch) knockoff dresses custom fitted to your measurements for $30! I suspect it's not far off.
    32. Re:And that, my friends... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

      "yeah, let's all spend a lot of time feeling sorry for blacksmiths as we stop buying cars to avoid putting people out of work."

      This is not about a new technology displacing the old. This is about big corporations destroying the American way of life. It use to be that anyone had the opportunity to start up a small business but if corporations have there way there will be two classes. The very rich and the very poor. It's not the average person starting a business that can out source work in order to get labor that will work for on tenth the wage paid to an American worker. It is only the large corporations that can pull that off. If you want to be a peasant in some corporate kingdom more power too you but I for one prefer that opportunity for the average Joe not disappear from the USA, thank you very much.

      "The trends that put people out of work are very gradual, and it's only people's denial of reality that allows them to be victimized."

      Again this is not people gradually being put out of work because they didn't keep up with technology, it's peoples jobs being shipped over seas and being done an a much smaller wage. The American worker CAN NOT COMPETE because the cost of living in the USA will not allow him to do the work at such a small wage. Skilled workers such as programmers and others are losing there jobs because people in some under developed countries can afford to work for a wage that someone working at McDonald's in the USA gets. This isn't an option for someone with a family and mortgage. Saying "too bad, adapt or die." is really cold hearted and ignores the fact that American corporations are really selling their own people out.

      "By feeling sorry for them and trying to help them out (taxpayer funded subsidies are equivalent to buying horseshoes and destroying them), all you're doing is making the trend less obvious"

      Again this is not about horse drawn carriages verses automobile and I didn't say anything about subsidies.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    33. Re:And that, my friends... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

      "With the net and FedEx, it's getting to the point that *anyone* can outsource. I'm waiting for the day I see housewives in the Ukraine advertising online that they will sew the latest Donna Karan (or somesuch) knockoff dresses custom fitted to your measurements for $30! I suspect it's not far off."

      Well gee, I guess it's just a fluke that only large corporations are doing it. I expect you to get rich very soon. When you do, please drop me a line and tell me "I told you so." I would dearly love to hear that!

      No, the outlook for the average american is NOT as rosey as you make out. If corporations have there way we all will be stuck in low paying jobs and they will be sucking up every dime we earn. The upside is that in the future the only requirment for a job is the ability to say "Would you like fries with that!"

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    34. Re:And that, my friends... by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 1
      Well gee, I guess it's just a fluke that only large corporations are doing it

      Are you really that dense or are you just not very good at trolling?

      There are many small companies doing it; it simply doesn't make the nightly news. There are small manufacturers all over the net whose blogs claim that their PC boards are made by Olimex in Bulgaria (whose prices are so cheap it is not worth my time to make them in my basement any more). I've done this: not with Olimex, but from other foreign vendors. It's no more difficult than dealing with the guy in the next town. I know of a small business of about 6 employees that outsources programming to India.
      I could go on, but since I can't prove any of my anecdotes, you'll probably just claim I'm making it up.

      If you honestly think this is only the province of large corporations, you're sadly mistaken.

    35. Re:And that, my friends... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I work in China, and it costs us $2200 USD to send a 20' container from Shanghai to Long Beach, CA. Don't blame the Chinese, blame huge cargo container ships and ruthless competition among shipping companies.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    36. Re:And that, my friends... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      And put millions out of work overseas, and lead to many angry nations filing complaints with the WTO (which forbids such protectionism as you describe), and would result in political instability (i.e. civil war) in several countries. But I guess that's OK for your neosoc agenda, eh?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    37. Re:And that, my friends... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      That's incredible...good work! We could never do that with our product (molded plastic). Just the machinery costs alone would be astronomical. Labor would be ridiculous as well, not to mention the lawsuit risk. The Chinese aren't so bad at quality, but you have to really keep on them and check EVERYTHING. They'll screw you in a second and not think twice about it. Customs and shipping isn't a big deal...the only time we ever had something held up was when some idiot shipped wire on WOODEN spools instead of plastic and it was detained to look for bugs in the wood.

      And as for this evil "profit" that's being made, you know what our investors do with money that they make? They invest it in other business ventures.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    38. Re:And that, my friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A local wood processor in Eugene, Oregon is getting fined $20,000 a month for exceeding particulates. They don't want to invest money to take care of the problem because the EPA is still rewriting the regulations, so they don't know if the new equipment will comply or not.

      Or try the glue manufacturer in Springfield, OR that is being labeled a nuisance because of the stench. They have spent dollars on vacuum pumps, but they can't find the source.

      Enough of that stuff and I'd ship it all off to China just to spite them.

    39. Re:And that, my friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is about big corporations destroying the American way of life.
      It use to be that anyone had the opportunity to start up a small business but if corporations have there way
      ...will work for on tenth
      more power too you
      it's peoples jobs
      being done an a much smaller wage.
      are losing there jobs
      carriages verses automobile

      If you're so worried about the American way of life maybe you should have paid more attention in school.

    40. Re:And that, my friends... by Forbman · · Score: 1

      No, the WTO doesn't like this kind of protectionism when it comes to the United States. Hasn't stopped Japan. Doesn't stop Canada from suing the US to reinstate MTBE back into its gasoline. Doesn't stop Mexico from raising a stink about mexican trucks having to meet US safety standards. Lets the US promote growing asparagus in Peru to import back into the US, essentially killing off US asparagus production, but hey! it keeps them from growing coca leaves, right?

      The US doesn't even know how to protect its own agricultural production (not product manufacturers), selling them out to get better deals for ADM, Con-Agra, Monsanto, etc.

    41. Re:And that, my friends... by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Or worrying about "loggers" when their jobs have been replaced by a group of mechanized feller-bunchers or their parent companies sell raw logs to Japan instead of setting up shop to make dimensional lumber to Japan's standards.

      Loggers weren't screwed over by environmentalists, but by their own employers and shareholders not willing to figure out how to deal with smaller non-first-cut logs because their old equipment and mills have been amortized off the books for 50 years and getting new equipment is "too expensive" (but profits are up!), as paper and lumber demand gets bigger and bigger every year...

    42. Re:And that, my friends... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Actually, I heard something recently about a case where the French government prosecuted someone for working more than their maximum hours, even though they wanted to earn more money.

      Sometimes, 40 hour limits are more about creating more jobs (ie reducing unemployment figures) than protecting people's rights.

    43. Re:And that, my friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, it makes a dollar go farther alright.

      Question is, once that dollar's gone all the way over to China, how are you going to get it to come back home again?

      What do WE sell that's so cheap that the Chinese can't buy it from each other using that dollar?

      Not much, if the latest trade deficit figureas mean anything.

    44. Re:And that, my friends... by pk2000 · · Score: 1
      Out sourcing is NOT good in the long run for most people.
      I would say that if one job lost in US creates two somewhere else in the world then it's good for most people.
    45. Re:And that, my friends... by forgnogzambrucken · · Score: 1

      thats all because people blatantly ignore true cost economics. the ecological cost of shipping that stuff halfway round the globe. we're living on credit.

    46. Re:And that, my friends... by rnd() · · Score: 1

      It's about jobs changing and the demand for skills changing. Not long ago in history, someone who was capable of doing mathematics as advanced as what is typically taught in US schools in the 5th grade would have a lifetime career as a mathematics expert, and would perform all sorts of feats that were marvelous to his/her peers: Square roots, proportions, long division, etc.

      Now that most people learn these skills, the value of them has decreased, and one can no longer make a career out of simply knowing them.

      Nobody owes anyone else employment. It must be mutually voluntary in a free society. That means no slavery and no forced hiring or forced wages.

      In case you want to outsorce, try rentacoder.com... you can get others to do your work for next to nothing. Some coders are in the US, and some are in India, etc.

      Your comment about corporations was completely false. Most anyone can become a shareholder. Corporations are not evil, they are simply collections of normal folks who happen to own shares of stock because they decided to take a chance and invest.

      Forcing the shareholder to pay some coder higher than the market wage is equivalent to forcing the shareholder to pay the coder welfare. If you want to be on welfare, so be it, but most self-respecting people do not.

      Maybe it's time to find other skills, or to hone an existing skill that is in higher demand.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    47. Re:And that, my friends... by rnd() · · Score: 1

      It's too bad that some people lost their jobs... There is risk with any investment. To expect shareholders to come up with a bunch of capital to fund a major overhaul is potentially somewhat unrealistic. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and maybe doing so was the best idea, but you can't blame people for being unable to foresee the future.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    48. Re:And that, my friends... by rnd() · · Score: 1

      By the way, laws that prohibit American companies from outsourcing create additional costs, which get passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. Such policies are equivalent to just raising taxes on everybody and writing a welfare check to the people whose jobs are being "protected".

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    49. Re:And that, my friends... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

      "It's about jobs changing and the demand for skills changing."

      My point is that it is NOT about change of skills or jobs. It is about out sourcing the same job to cheaper labor.

      And I stand by my statements about corporations.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    50. Re:And that, my friends... by yoder · · Score: 1

      "A business is a living being run by people."

      That, my friend is the extremely dangerous thinking that got us in the incredible mess we are in right now. Corporations and companies are not living things. In 1898 there was an incredible mistake made that gave corporations the same status as a human and that legislation almost single-handedly turned this country into a haven for immoral sociopaths who found that they could hide behind a corporate name and do just about whatever the hell they wanted. This led to Shell hiring mercenaries to terrorize South American villages, dragging children out of their homes in the middle of the night and killing them because their parents would not agree to sell their land. It led to Union Carbide killing many thousands of people in Bhopal and getting away paying pennies on the dollar of the total cost of damages. It has led to mega corporations wielding perverse amounts of power in our country and making an absolute mockery of our electoral system and government.

      No, companies and corporations are not living entities. Companies and corporations are inanimate objects, that are at this time being used as weapons against the majority of people in this country. Of course not all companies or corporations are this way. However, our current legal system does not restrict this behaviour and in fact perpetuates and rewards it.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
    51. Re:And that, my friends... by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Jobs changing hands is no different from jobs changing countries, when you think about it.

      If suddenly nurses are able to perform a procedure that was only performable by doctors, then a job has changed hands. If a novice programmer is able to write code (using Java) that an expert programmer used to be able to write (in c++), then a job has changed hands. Each niche in the labor market is subject to the forces of supply and demand. Just because two niches may be in the same industry or in the same country doesn't mean they should not respond to those forces. Here's why:

      Forcing people to pay an expert extra $$ to have software written by an expert in c++ creates a situation where companies like Sun have no incentive to invent Java. The major appeal of new technology is that it increases the productivity that one can buy per dollar. You may feel sorry for a c++ coder who gets displaced by a Java coder in the US or a c++ coder in India, but both are the same. The highly paid expert c++ coder is still out of work. Demand has shifted, due to innovation (Java) the money that was going to overpay a c++ coder to reinvent the wheel using the STL is now going to Sun and to the company that is able to get cheaper bids on its software project because it can be done in half the time using Java as compared to c++, the manager who ran the project gets a bonus, consumers get cheaper software, etc., etc.

      If nurses are able to do a task that doctors used to, or if hospitals begin outsourcing certain tasks to doctors in Bangalore, patients are still getting the same procedure (value) for less money. That is what consumers/patients want (last time I checked people like to pay less for things, rather than more).

      In the US we have a very heavily regulated labor market. We have the 40 hour work week, unemployment insurance, overtime laws, minimum wage, etc. The consequence of this is that we are much less competetive than other countries are that haven't adopted such standards. The standards benefit some, but harm others, even in the US. Think of all the hardworking people who would happily work >40 hours in order to put some extra stuff under the Christmas tree for the kids, but who don't get the option because overtime would cost their employer time and a half and so it's not offered.

      Since the height of the communist movement in the US in the 1940s, there has been a TON of empirical data from nations all over the world that illustrates that free trade benefits everyone. The worker who is displaced by an outsource worker may find another job that only pays 80% as much (in the short term), but everyone benefits from cheaper products and increased competition.

      Besides, who are any of us to claim that we deserve to sit on our lazy asses working 40 hours per week when some starving person in India is willing to work a heck of a lot harder just to put food on the table.

      Some people sweat and strive for the American dream, but happen to live in India. Many of us here have it staring us in the face but would rather sit around complaining about outsourcing.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

  6. Whatever by periol · · Score: 0, Redundant

    And we care why?

    It's called supply and demand. Yes, it impacts computer hardware too. Adapt or die. There's nothing to see here.

    1. Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice attitude. People like you make the world unpleasant.

  7. Distribution power by viniosity · · Score: 1

    Just like in other industries, a good amount of producers and a huge amount of consumers, but limited distribution (Walmart, McDonalds, Home Depot, etc.) I can't remember the last time I saw clothing may in the US. At the same time, almost everything I see (not buy) is really expensive despite the 'cost savings' the distributor gets from outsourcing to Vietnam, China, etc.

    1. Re:Distribution power by blackmonday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a lot of clothing being made in Los Angeles. In the area where I grew up every available space seems to be housing a garment maker. It's very, very low pay, they cheat the workers, etc. My friend worked for an agency that essentially crashed these places looking for abuses. They always found them. I guess the question is, what's the point? even by cheating workers they're still paying fifty times for for thw labor than they would in China. I think these are small-rrun operations, where they just can't wait for the turnaround time in getting them made in China.

  8. Profit margin is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you're more than making up for it in volume. Oh, and of course, let's not forget the cost of living in China is not comparable to the West.

    1. Re:Profit margin is irrelevant by Ryu2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also, of course, it eventually allows the Chinese companies to gain a foothold in the US market, under their own names. That's how most Japanese and later the South Korean electronics firms slowly made a name for themselves and their countries in the US market.

      First, they start by selling low-end stuff, usually under another manufacturer's brand, and often justifiably branded as crap. But they're cheap, and consumers don't care about quality, just price, so they buy them in droves.

      Then, slowly move up the market towards the higher end once your distribution and manufacturing experience is honed, and you have more budget for R&D.

      Now, China is posed to follow after Japan and South Korea's footsteps now. Already, you're strating to see Chinese brands marketed under their own names in the US, like Konka and Haier. It shows no signs of stopping.

      --
      There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
    2. Re:Profit margin is irrelevant by Kenshin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Already, you're strating to see Chinese brands marketed under their own names in the US, like Konka and Haier.

      You mean I won't be able to buy a TV from Magnetbox, Panaphonic, or Sorny anymore?

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  9. Some detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're leaving out a couple of details. Is this net or gross profit margin?

  10. Manufacturing in China by foidulus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    is kind of like the dot com bubble of sorts. A few people made the risky investment, and made a lot of money off it due to the availability of cheap labor, lots of natural resources, an interested government etc. Then the gold rush started, and people just poured money into China without thinking in the long term, they were told that China was a guarenteed gold mine. This led to a glut of over production(not just in DVDs, but almost any commodity you can think of), and now people have to fight eachother off with lower and lower margins to survive. That is what happens in a commodity market. They knew that getting into the business, and now we are supposed to feel bad for them?
    I for one will not be crying because they were too stupid to plan more than a month ahead.

  11. profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's a $1 profit per player to the owner(s). That's plenty to live off of. This is a no-story. The workers are still getting paid, and that amount is already accounted for with this $1 figure.

  12. Welcome to capitalism by BillsPetMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Enjoy your stay.

    If those players were made in the US or even Japan they would start at $100 a piece. If you're an unemployed electrical engineer in the US / Western Europe (and I know there's quite a few), relieve the boredom with a $35 multi-region DVD player.

    Welcome to globalisation too - those Chinese manufacturers _are_ in it for the money

    --
    "It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
  13. Oh no! by vuvewux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The CEO can only give himself a -1- million dollar bonus this year, and the stockholders are barely taking in any dividends! They better start cutting wages!

    --

    Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
    1. Re:Oh no! by rodac · · Score: 1

      Problem solved.
      You just sell 100 milion players instead and give the extra 99milion to the shareholders in dividends.

    2. Re:Oh no! by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Uh. China doesn't have CEOs. They have slave labor.

  14. maybe.. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

    we should cut out the middle man?

    Lets start buying right from the source, offer him $15 profit on his DVD players. I can't think of many companies who would say no to a 150% increase in profit

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:maybe.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets start buying right from the source, offer him $15 profit on his DVD players. I can't think of many companies who would say no to a 150% increase in profit /i?

      Dude, finish the GED or something before posting. The increase from $1 to $15 is way more than 150% !

      Answer is left as an exercise to the reader.

    2. Re:maybe.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was a typo, I ment 1500. I'm not THAT stupid :)

    3. Re:maybe.. by Chairboy · · Score: 1

      Dude, finish the italics tag before posting. That's way more annoying then a math error.

    4. Re:maybe.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1500% 150% would be $1.50

    5. Re:maybe.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your gonna pay 14 dollars more for something and wait for it to be shiped from china instead of driving around the corner, getting it today and saving 14 bucks?

    6. Re:maybe.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $1 -> $15 = 1500%, doctor Math.

    7. Re:maybe.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a 1500% increase.

    8. Re:maybe.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm seeing a bunch of "Dude it should be a 1500% increase" posts. I think it should actually be a 1400% increase . The manufacturer is already making a dollar. Thus if you offer the guy 15 bucks the increase in profit is $14. Thus the increase in profit is 1400%. The total profit is 1500% of what he used to make. It's semantics but I'm bored and cold so I thought I'd try to get flamed.

  15. Different way of thinking compared to US businesse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My last company was shopping around for various parts for one of our products. Wiring harnesses to be specific. We shopped a number of companies in the US, most of the harnesses were pricing out at around $16 each. When a board of director for the company called around to some of the smaller factories in his native land, we was able to get pricing on the harnesses in the $2 range. Why the big difference?

    I asked the same question of him, and this was how he put it. Some of it is labor. A lot of it is greed by management. In the US, companies aren't content to break even. They feel they have to make profits every year, owners, management make more money than the previous year, and on and on. Pretty soon, they are priced at non-competative levels. In his country, a business is happy to be able to pay it's employees, sometimes employing an entire village, thereby keeping that entire village alive. They aren't concerned with profits. Just that everyone have a decent quality of life, and that the can stay open for years to come. They don't feel the need to be the next Microsoft or GE or HP.

    Well, that's what told me.

  16. Cry me a river by pb · · Score: 0

    for the poor Chinese manufacturing industry; having all that demand for their products must be horrible for them. Never mind *our* manufacturing industry, which largely doesn't have that opportunity at all. At least, not with Wal-Mart hawking these Chinese DVD players for less than half the price of what a VCR would formerly sell for.

    And note that--from the article--apparently their best move is to consolidate--i.e, get bought up into some mega Chinese manufacturing company that can then increase profits, and perhaps eventually exercise some monopoly power to boot.

    Thank God they haven't figured out how to do that yet--let's hope Wal-Mart doesn't show them how.

    --
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
    1. Re:Cry me a river by KillerCow · · Score: 1

      for the poor Chinese manufacturing industry; having all that demand for their products must be horrible for them. Never mind *our* manufacturing industry, which largely doesn't have that opportunity at all. At least, not with Wal-Mart hawking these Chinese DVD players for less than half the price of what a VCR would formerly sell for.

      That's how capitalism works. If you can't compete, you're out of the market. That way the resources that you consumed (and wasted since you were using more) are freed for another area of the market to use.

  17. Re:maybe they should outsource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get it, what's the pun?

  18. Not in all cases, pal by wintermute1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Think of the iTunes Music Store, which isn't making much money but is selling tons of Apple hardware in the form of beautiful, beautiful iPods.

  19. Isn't that what Sun has been saying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It won't be long before hardware is essentially free, and the software/services you buy are where the money is generated.

    I'm not sure if I buy that idea just yet, but maybe Sun is right about something?

    Perish the thought!

  20. PC parts not necessarily subject to this by Buran · · Score: 1

    I got some 512MB PC3200 DDR RAM modules for $75 or so each online, from a reputable warehouse/discount outlet. Everyone else wants at least $100 for them. Since I have a motherboard that has two DDR slots and two SDRAM slots (you can use one or the other but not both simultaneously) I also looked at SDRAM, since I figured it'd be cheaper. Nope! Same prices.

    If commonly-needed computer components were being sold at such low profit margins, we wouldn't be getting ripped off so badly (last time I upgraded my machine a while back I got 512MB of RAM for ... $50? I don't recall anymore) but the prices never seem to go down, which they should be as the industry matures. They're not.

    1. Re:PC parts not necessarily subject to this by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      The difference is that a DVD player is a DVD player, while RAM standards change every year or two. In the case of DRAM, manufacturers have reduced production on SDR (using that production capacity for DDR instead) because of lower demand, which causes the price to stay the same. It appears that these Chinese DVD player manufacturers can't easily shift to some other, more profitable product, so they just keep cranking out DVD players at lower and lower prices.

    2. Re:PC parts not necessarily subject to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computer memory is a bad example, as it seems to yoyo in price like nothing on earth.

      In addition, I don't know how current the example you gave was; it didn't sound very obselete, but if it was, then the price would go up as demand went down.

    3. Re:PC parts not necessarily subject to this by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      RAM is actually sold at a loss as often as not. Manufacturers temd to go through cycles where they'll bleed huge amounts of money for a couple of years, then make a nice profit for a few years.

      As far as pricing right now goes, last summer memory prices were the lowest I can remember having seen. I bought a stick of 512mb DDR for $58. Then Hynix got slapped with a major tariff by the US and EU for receiving multi-billion dollar subsidies from the Korean government, and prices shot up. IE: The market was flooded with not low margin, but significantly below cost RAM at the time. 3 months after I bought that $58 stick, the same stick was going for $120. Today it goes for about $80, so there's definitely been a price drop.

      With regards to SDRAM being relatively expensive even though it's older technology, this is because manufacturing has shifted away from SDRAM so there's a reduced supply. Manufacturers can get better use of their facilities by producing DDR and flash memory (noticed how much cheaper flash cards and jump drives have gotten?). Expect SDRAM to continue to increase in price - the same thing happened to 72 pin EDO when SDRAM was introduced.

    4. Re:PC parts not necessarily subject to this by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Last time upgraded memory for one of my machines, memory was $1/Meg.

    5. Re:PC parts not necessarily subject to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I remember paying $32/MB for RAM, and it doesn't really seem like all too long ago.

    6. Re:PC parts not necessarily subject to this by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Funny thing, though, a 64MB DIMM for my old Pentium computer costs more than 512MB of DDR ram does today.

      Besides, the DDR RAM is faster than SDRAM anyways. I have a mobo like this too. It was a "bridge" mobo to make athlons an easier upgrade path. Get mobo, new CPU, and reuse your old SDRAM.

      No, getting ripped off is buying a 10' Cat5 cable at BestBuy for $15.00.

      Prices for HDDs are also funny. 2 years ago, my 80GB HD cost me about $150. Nowadays, a 200GB HD can be had for close to that amount. Oh well, I could always just partition 80GB, and keep 120GB in "reserve", right?

      Of course, backup solutions are still freakin' expensive. It used to be possible to expect to be able to do backups with a QIC-based tape drive. At the time, DAT was expensive and SCSI to boot.
      But now that DAT is cheap enough to use with 5-yr old systems, there is no way I'm gonna back up a full 200GB HD on DAT. Newer tape backup systems are just too freaking expensive. Even burning images to CD-ROM is not really feasible.

      What to do? Look into hot-swappable, removable, IDE/SATA drive trays, and back up to HDD.
      Crazy, huh? But hard to beat the price (and speed!) for a 200GB HD for backing up.

  21. not making enough money? by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 0

    bah, if you're selling your product for less than you ought to be, that's nobody's fault but yours. This is exactly what makes me shake my head when I see hard drive manufacturers complaining about not making enough money. Well, sell your damn product for what it's actually worth, instead of selling it for way less than it should be sold for. Personally I wouldn't go make something at a cost of $10 and sell it for $5, but that's just me.

    1. Re:not making enough money? by ElDuderino44137 · · Score: 1

      You apparently have to have a chat with the makers of the xBox ;)

    2. Re:not making enough money? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      When your competitor is selling the exact same thing for $6, what can you do? Only thing you can do is reduce your costs, and sell it for $5.

    3. Re:not making enough money? by realdpk · · Score: 1

      There's a third option - make something else.

    4. Re:not making enough money? by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 1

      that's a special case. they also make money off of the other products needed to make the first product useful in the first place.

    5. Re:not making enough money? by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 1

      but it's not the exact same thing, there are performance differences. And some people are more than willing to pay for more performance. That aside, you invalidated your argument with your 'reduce your costs' statement. If someone else is making a *comparable* product for cheaper than you are, then there is something that needs to be taken care of in your organization. Even when that's not the case, there's no reason to be selling your stuff at a loss just because the other guy is undercutting you, and then complaining about it. You chose to make hard drives. You chose to sell them for less money than you should. Don't complain about what you chose to do. If you can't make money making hard drives, quit making hard drives because you obviously aren't proficient at it.

    6. Re:not making enough money? by ElDuderino44137 · · Score: 1

      100% ...

      However, both of those factors make their business model unstable.
      Remember xBox independence day?

      Micro$oft wigs were flipping over this.
      If folks were to start to use the xBox for anything other then it's intended purpose Micro$oft Game Studios would sink faster then the Titanic.

      This may sound like more fiction then fact.
      But I seem to remember a certain eMail appliance that was bankrupted 'cause folks realized that it was just a PC w/o the benefit of a OS. Geeks came to the rescue w/ a Linux installation HowTo. People start to buy the eMail appliance ... but not the eMail subscription. Company goes bankrupt! It happened!

      Cheers,
      -- The Dude

  22. Whats the pricerange for commoditization? by NeoGeo64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most new DVD players at Wally World right now (using Wal-Mart as an example because their shit is cheap) are between $70 and $100. Thats a far cry from the $700 and $900 DVD players from 1998.

    How low does a price have to drop for an item for it to be commoditized? $200? $100?

    If that's the case, PCs certainly havent hit that commoditization point yet... unless you count those crappy Wal-Mart ones with no OS.

    So, how long until we see PCs for $50?

    1. Re:Whats the pricerange for commoditization? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      Wow, Wal-Mart is ripping you off. I saw an Apex DVD player at the grocery store for $38 the other day. It was stacked up near the checkout lines with all the other impulse buys. That's when something is really commoditized.

    2. Re:Whats the pricerange for commoditization? by CuriousKangaroo · · Score: 1

      My theory is that, eventually, everything will cost $19.95... whether it is a computer.... or a gallon of gasoline... or a first class stamp.

    3. Re:Whats the pricerange for commoditization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to a friend who works at a corporate HQ in the retail electronics industry, $300 seems to be the "magic" number.

    4. Re:Whats the pricerange for commoditization? by tabacco · · Score: 4, Funny

      Martin: "How much is your penny candy?"
      Apu: "Surprisingly expensive." :)

    5. Re:Whats the pricerange for commoditization? by Veramocor · · Score: 1

      Well its 200 for the DVD Writers/VCR combos. Regular DVD players are pretty damn cheap.

      I'm waiting for the commodication of HDTV. The wal-mart near my has started selling them finally. That means LCD tv's, DLP, and plasma are on their way down quickly.

      I wonder what product will be the next big margin maker for companies once they lose their HDTV cash cow. Blu-ray DVD's, maybe but I think those will drop quicker than DVD players. Any other ideas of what the next big expensive electonics component (1000+) will be?

      --
      Veramocor
    6. Re:Whats the pricerange for commoditization? by argent · · Score: 1

      When 80G hard drives cost $60 it's hard to see how a whole PC can sell for less than that. And $60 is a pretty damn good price for a hard drive, too. You can't get a 60G hard drive any cheaper, and "new" (old stock but not refurbished) 40G drives are still over $50.

      PCs are pretty close to commodity products, except for gamer machines. I suspect you could build a PC using a purpose-built super-integrated motherboard for "dollar margin" sale prices in the $150 range if you really had to.

    7. Re:Whats the pricerange for commoditization? by B1ackDragon · · Score: 1

      I haven't actually "laughed out loud" at anything on the internet in a long time - thank you.

      And I must say I agree, that does seem to be the trend... where are the mod points when I really need them?

      --
      The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
    8. Re:Whats the pricerange for commoditization? by rodac · · Score: 1

      You can get a PC today for 50USD excluding monitor.
      Problem is, it wont play doom3 very well.

    9. Re:Whats the pricerange for commoditization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most new DVD players at Wally World right now (using Wal-Mart as an example because their shit is cheap) are between $70 and $100. Thats a far cry from the $700 and $900 DVD players from 1998.

      Where do you shop? I bought my first DVD player in '98 for $300.

    10. Re:Whats the pricerange for commoditization? by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      and shipping will still be $12.95.

  23. Ayn Rand would have loved this by LordOfYourPants · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the scenario that Ayn Rand dreamed about? A company that's achieved the ultimate in efficiency now making huge volumes of sales as a reward because no one can become more efficient than them and make a cheaper product?

    Actually, someone will but they'll cut even more corners to do that and humorous customer stories of Apex's power buttons falling off will become "Remember when things weren't that bad?" tales of the past.

    Maybe I'm slippery sloping but things already are pretty crappy in terms of low-end DVD players.

    1. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by TWX · · Score: 1

      "Maybe I'm slippery sloping but things already are pretty crappy in terms of low-end DVD players."

      I'm tempted to agree with you. These multifunction DVD/receiver/surroundsound kits for $100 are really cheap pieces of shit. I've seen physical problems with the machines pop up over a short time, and I've seen software problems causing playback issues. They don't have the duty cycle that better equipment has, either.

      I'm still looking for a Pioneer DVL-700, DVL-909, or DVL-919 for my DVD player. I have a large collection of Laserdiscs and the Pioneer player that I have (CLD-D503) is indestructable. I want to replace it with something equally good, not just add some junk to my entertainment center.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the scenario that Ayn Rand dreamed about?

      Not likely. Two themes she expressed regarding capitalism were morality and accountability.
      21st (and late 20th) century capitalism has neither. At least in the days of the 19th century robber barons there was accountability; they weren't hiding behind diaphanous boards of directors.

    3. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Maybe I'm slippery sloping but things already are pretty crappy in terms of low-end DVD players.
      They are? My crappy low-end Chinese DVD player is all-region, and has way more features than my $350 JVC player. The JVC broke down after a year of light service, while the Chinese player is still going strong. Heh, the thing cost less than a color cartridge for my HP inkjet printer (ok, maybe that isn't saying much...)

      Nope... so far I'm quite pleased with the products from China.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Features? What features? Shouldn't you judge a DVD player on the picture (and possibly, sound) quality?

    5. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by Luigi30 · · Score: 1

      Isn't a CLD-2200 damn near indestructible too, but more readily available? I've got 5 of them used in schools and they all work fine.

      --
      503 Sig Unavailable

      The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    6. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1
      Features? What features? Shouldn't you judge a DVD player on the picture
      Features like the ability to play SVCD files from a DVD-rom, for one. My crappy JVC won't even read DVD-Video from a DVD+R or -R.

      As for picture and sound, it'll do. I'm not into high-end stuff, and a reasonable picture and audio quality is good enough for me.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      What do you consider "high-end"? Greater than $100?

    8. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by alienw · · Score: 1

      Dude, if he's using a $35 DVD player, it's probably with a fairly small TV. In that case, picture quality does not matter at all, since even a $35 player will be enough to use all of the TV's resolution. Finally, many people (such as me) do not honestly care about picture quality. Considering that most digital cable and satellite feeds are horribly compressed, even a $35 DVD player is an improvement -- and people happily pay hundreds of dollars for cable and satellite.

    9. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Give it up...there are like six people in the country who give a crap about "high-end" players. The rest of us just want to watch Batman and Jumanji.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least in the days of the 19th century robber barons there was accountability; they weren't hiding behind diaphanous boards of directors.

      Or the ridiculous lies about shareholders and democracy.

    11. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

      At least in the days of the 19th century robber barons there was accountability; they weren't hiding behind diaphanous boards of directors.

      They just hid behind the immunity of vast wealth, armies of hired goons, and bought legislation. But I suppose you did know exactly who to blame when things went all pear-shaped...

      --
      Freedom: "I won't!"
    12. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      I use a "fairly small" RGB monitor myself.

    13. Re:Ayn Rand would have loved this by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      They just hid behind the immunity of vast wealth, armies of hired goons, and bought legislation. But I suppose you did know exactly who to blame when things went all pear-shaped...

      Exactly. The world knew that Gould did this or Carnegie did that or Stanford did the other, etc. No Enron-style crap.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that either way is good.

  24. no by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fair is defined as a level playing field. If we are playing a game of soccer, and your team cheats, the match was not fair. If no one cheats, it is a fair match. It is not required that our teams like each other: it's quite possible to play a fair match against someone you absolutely despise.

    Fair competition is the same. If a government is heavily subsidizing a company, that's not fair competition. If a group of companies is colluding to drive a competitor out of business, that's not fair competition. If lots of people are making the same thing, thereby driving down prices, that's fair competition.

    What you seem to be looking for is no competition, wherein either a government or cartel sets prices, rather than the market. That has nothing to do with fair competition, and is really about the exact opposite.

    1. Re:no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so ... i can be more then one thing ... there are no
      gods.
      what a god damn shit comment parent comment is ...

  25. It's this called perfect competition? by nmosfet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least close to perfect competition since in perfect competition, the profitsare zero. I don't really see how this is a problem.

    1. Re:It's this called perfect competition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, perfect competition mean zero economic profit, which is when you couldn't make any greater return by putting your money somewhere else. In this case, these guys actually have economic losses. They get a return of 40.80/39.80 = 1.0251, or 2.5% from each DVD player, but if they sold their factories and bought 30-year US T-Bonds, they could get effective returns of 5%. T-Bonds are probably a bad example, for a number of political and world economic reasons, but the 5% number is indicitive of the expected return on a project to make it "worthwile".

    2. Re:It's this called perfect competition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What what??? +4 Insightful?!?!?!

      In "perfect competition" you will still expect to see some return on equity. Think about it, if you could only sell a product on the market for exactly what you paid for it, then why produce at all?? Somehow I don't see investors buying into a 0% ROI...

    3. Re:It's this called perfect competition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out turnover time though. Say it takes one month from the time the materials are bought for the DVD player to the time that the manufacturer gets paid for the DVD player. That's 2.5% in a month, which can be reinvested in more materials for more DVD players, which yields a rate of return greater than US bonds.

    4. Re:It's this called perfect competition? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      "At least close to perfect competition since in perfect competition, the profitsare zero."

      Actually, the profits are zero, accounting for opportunity costs. From, say, a pure accounting standpoint, the profits could be pretty high in pure dollars in that condition. However, if the Chinese could manufacture, say, hard drives instead of DVD players and make $10 per unit, then the $10 per unit they're not earning as a result of not manufacturing hard drives is considered opportunity cost. If they're making $1 profit per unit on DVD players, factoring in a $10 opportunity cost per unit on hard drives, they're really losing $9 per unit in economic terms.

      In perfect competition, profits are zero because you're making just as much money manufacturing DVD players as you could make if you manufactured hard drives instead--or, in other words, the raw profit you make from DVD players is exactly equal to the opportunity cost of not making hard drives.

      I say this to explain the concepts involved, and not as a representation of this or any other actual situation.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  26. Dangerous extrapolation by siskbc · · Score: 2, Informative
    Too bad it also means fewer jobs to make the money to buy the cheap items... Since it takes fewer people to make the same # of items it did 10 years ago.

    If you had made that analysis 200 years ago, then we'd have 99% unemployment by now since it currently takes 1 person and a lot of machines to do the work of 100 1800's laborers. The long term outcome isn't fewer jobs, it's more stuff since demand will keep up and lower prices mean a better-stretched dollar.

    In this way, low margins are a sign of a very efficient world economy. Nothing bad here that I see.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  27. Sometimes outsourcing doesn't work. by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once you figure in shipping costs, customs & foreign legal costs, time delay, and sometimes translation problems sometimes changing how you operate in the USA can actually be cheaper.

    I remember reading how MPC computers (formerly Micron) was considering outsourcing like dell and gateway have done. They took a different approach, and are doing much better. They have found that they can compete while staying in the USA and not outsourcing anything. Of course, the fact that they're not in a high-rent area of the USA probably helps. The cost of living in areas like California and NYC really skews the numbers.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  28. The answer (not 42 this time) by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ``You wonder if other business, like low-end PCs hardware, are in similar trouble.''

    Yes, they are. This is why they try to squeeze every cent out of everything, leaving us with motherboards with leaking capacitors, harddrives with 1 year MTBF, memory errors, etc. Those of us who run cheap PC hardware, anyway.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:The answer (not 42 this time) by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      The leaky cap thing, while generally a property of cheap boards, was actually a result of industrial espinioge gone wrong. A Chinese company stole an electrolyte formula form a Japanese manufacturer, but failed to steal the stabilising formula. Hence, the caps developed flaws. They were able to sell them cheaply, having slipped on R&D in favour of theft.

      As a side note, if you check for Panasonic or Nichon caps on a motherboard, you are pretty safe. They both are rather reliable brands. As one might expect, however, they are not often found on cheap boards.

    2. Re:The answer (not 42 this time) by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 0, Troll
      leaving us with motherboards with leaking capacitors,

      I'm having a big problem with that! In fact, I had to place a drip-pan under my capacitors to catch all the leaking!

      Of course, that's nothing comparied to the floods that people get when their new 2.5 GHz G5sstart to leak.

    3. Re:The answer (not 42 this time) by vudufixit · · Score: 1

      I'm a big fan of cheap computer hardware. Realtek network cards are great, cost as little as $2.00 each. They never break.
      Ditto the $10 internal modems, $7.50 sound cards, etc.
      Hard drives - different story. Quality control is slipping amongst all the manufacturers, but Maxtor by far is the worst.
      My Western Dig and Seagates still run like champs.

    4. Re:The answer (not 42 this time) by runderwo · · Score: 1
      Realtek network cards are great, cost as little as $2.00 each. They never break.
      They also have atrocious busmaster performance due to broken design. Use RTL8139C+ or else get a Tulip instead.
      Ditto the $10 internal modems,
      Winmodems -- real useful.
      $7.50 sound cards,
      Sure, if you consider a 90dB S/N ratio good, or don't mind your CPU doing PCM streams mixing instead of other work.
      Hard drives - different story. Quality control is slipping amongst all the manufacturers, but Maxtor by far is the worst. My Western Dig and Seagates still run like champs.
      Maxtor - We've found some bad blocks. Please backup all your data and RMA the drive.
      WDC - ka-click, ka-click, ka-click, ka-click ....

      Ribbing aside, anyone who intentionally buys a hard drive with a 1yr warranty from a mfg who also offers drives with a 3yr or 5yr warranty should have their head examined. You get what you pay for with respect to hard disk longevity.

  29. Artifically cheap by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Those DVD players cost $40 only because the Chinese government keeps the Yuan artifically pegged at roughly 8 yuan to 1 US Dollar. Floating the currency will bring the ratio up to 4:1, maybe even 2:1.

    1. Re:Artifically cheap by hagbard5235 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it kind of the Chinese government to subsidize US consumers this way? What you are basically saying is that everytime I chip in $40 for a DVD player, the Chinese government chips in between $40 and $120 towards the cost of that DVD player.

      How is this a bad thing again?

    2. Re:Artifically cheap by tumbaumba · · Score: 1

      Isn't it kind of the Chinese government to subsidize US consumers this way? What you are basically saying is that everytime I chip in $40 for a DVD player, the Chinese government chips in between $40 and $120 towards the cost of that DVD player.

      How is this a bad thing again?


      Because soon you won't have any job to buy that super cheap DVD player.

    3. Re:Artifically cheap by timeOday · · Score: 1

      So what's the long term effect of that?

    4. Re:Artifically cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Chinese government does this by by printing yuan and buying dollars with them. This means that the Chinese commies are storing up a lot of dollars. At somepoint, say when the growth rate begins to level off or if the depression fully kicks in after a Bush win in November, the Commies will start using those dollars to prop up that economy, thus putting them back into circulation; the resulting inflation will be from a source that Greenspan can't adjust.

    5. Re:Artifically cheap by grainofsand · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, the Chinese yuan (renminbi) is soft-pegged to the US dollar. It is exchange-traded between in a floating range of 8.25 and 8.3 to the US dollar. This has been the case for over five years now.

      There is very little evidence that a free-floating renminbi would drop to the levels you suggest. My own research shows that a value of between 7.2 and 9 (yes a depreciation!) would be the likely mid-term outcome from a more freely exchanged yuan.

      --
      A dream is good. A plan is better.
    6. Re:Artifically cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot, and the only one in the world who believes that.

    7. Re:Artifically cheap by grainofsand · · Score: 1

      Which part of my post makes me an idiot?

      --
      A dream is good. A plan is better.
    8. Re:Artifically cheap by hagbard5235 · · Score: 1

      And those dollars get spent to buy US Treasuries. Which keeps US interest rates low. So not only are the Chinese sending us artificially cheap goods, they are lending us money at artificially low rates.

      As near as I can tell only the citizens of China are getting screwed here. US consumers are making out like bandits.

    9. Re:Artifically cheap by psetzer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the Chinese have one thing going for them. If they start dumping dollars, then the RMB goes up in value and the dollar drops. Invade Taiwan, and they're set. We're low on our weapon stocks, having used them to make a whole bunch of craters in the sand. We buy our weaponry. A rush on the dollar means we have to pay more for everything, and the government would have a difficult time borrowing to go to war. Net effect, the US looks bad, China gains power in the region, and trade breakdowns let the hard-liners roll back any liberalization. Highly unlikely however.

      --
      "Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is living in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
    10. Re:Artifically cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Everything in your post implies that the Chinese are getting screwed in this deal. So why complain?

      And if you really think that the US is getting screwed via some wishy-washy theory, why don't you lobby your government to peg the US currency to China's? That'd be fun.

    11. Re:Artifically cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I know they still call themselves communists in China, but it sure looks real weird when you talk about the "Commies" playing elaborate games in the money markets. Let's face it, they are a totalitarian capitalist country where the worker has less rights than in America.

    12. Re:Artifically cheap by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

      I understand how getting Taiwan back is a major point of honor for the PRC, and the ROC might have a lot of gold on the island, but I fail to see how actually conducting a war in Taiwan would net the PRC anything.

      Ignoring any gold the ROC may be stockpiling, the bulk of Taiwan's value is in its extremely fragile semiconductor industry. Tanks rumbling down the street would probably throw the fabs all out of allignment. Actual combat, particularly morters and rockets, would do further damage. The PRC ends up with an island full of dead people, and a factories full of broken machinery.

      What am I missing?

    13. Re:Artifically cheap by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      If the Chinese really were storing up lots of dollars, it would exert a measurable backpressure on inflation here - because that money is coming out of circulation. China does not own a significant enough number of dollars to cause a significant inflation, even if they did "dump" them - although to "dump" them would mean they had to SPEND them on something to get them back into U.S. circulation. The only way to get them back into U.S. circulation is to either buy stocks, bonds, products, or just give them away. They would not buy bonds in this "depression" that you speak of because the interest rates would be too low. They'd either buy stocks or product, which would stimlate the economy, create jobs, and improve the economic health of the country, much like Bush's tax cuts have done in conjunction with low interest rates. A Bush win in November would be great for the economy because the stimulation would continue.

    14. Re:Artifically cheap by FussionMan · · Score: 1

      What the Chinese will is buy oil with the huge amount of dollars that they've accumulated through unfair trade with the U.S. Since they have a ton of dollars which they don't need they'll be willing to pay high prices for oil.

      The U.S. economy will be significantly damaged by high energy prices. The only way to fight back against this will be for the U.S. to raise interest rates and print lots of dollars,thus slowing the economy and creating massive inflation.

    15. Re:Artifically cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it would have been nice had Clinton not spent almost the entire decade of the 90's just giving our economy to China in exchange for influencing the 96 election.

      Unfortunately, I'm afraid it might be checkmate already insofar as an economic war with China. The WTO is markedly anti-US, as is the U.N., so we may just be fscked.

    16. Re:Artifically cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What you're missing is the need for the perpetual state of fear. It used to be communism, Mutually Assured Destruction, the Japanese economic machine in the 1980s. Now it's terrorism, China, and many Middle Eastern countries.

      Fear, Uncertainly and Doubt.

    17. Re:Artifically cheap by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      What am I missing?

      That China ends up whole again (their view, not mine).

  30. roads aren't subsidized by Trepidity · · Score: 1, Informative

    The highway infrastructure, at least in the United States, is not subsidized by non-users at all: it's entirely paid for by the approximately $0.30/gallon taxes on gasoline (in some areas supplemented by local gasoline taxes and/or tolls).

    1. Re:roads aren't subsidized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $5 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel corporations.

    2. Re:roads aren't subsidized by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      And that doesn't mention the amount of international action done to stabilize pricing, namely Gulf War I and II. Not that I think that Hussein should have remained in power but let's not forget why the many of the bigwigs decided to get involved.

    3. Re:roads aren't subsidized by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Really?

      That 0.30 pays for the increased police presence required? Increased medical costs due to crash injuries and pollution?
      (Just to name a couple of usually unnoticed costs.)

      The problem with your statement is, there are no non-users of the road system. Just about everything you buy is delivered by truck, and that delivery cost is part of the purchase price.

      I'd love to see a tracking of the gas tax income, and a reporting of the actual costs of the road system. I think you'd find quite a large disparity. Which is made up through all the other taxes and fees we are separated from.

  31. Trouble? by ravind · · Score: 1

    Since when is a company making profit in trouble?

    1. Re:Trouble? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Since when is a company making profit in trouble?"

      Not that I read the article or anything, but if you spend $40 to make $41, you're pretty much better of putting your investment/captial money into a savings account.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they are a public company that has stockholders demanding 10-20% return annually. Which is what most stockholders would like to see when they buy the stock.

      Lesson in captialism: The participants are not satisfied with profit. They also want profit growth.

    3. Re:Trouble? by Rick+Richardson · · Score: 1
      if you spend $40 to make $41, you're pretty much better of putting your investment/captial money into a savings account.

      Not if your goal is to keep your people employed AND make a tiny profit.

    4. Re:Trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true if it takes you a year to get the $41 after putting up the $40, but not true if it takes you month.

  32. correct link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I flubbed the link, here is the correct one:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/05/national /main587049.shtml

  33. Commodity PC hardware makers do have trouble by Weasel+Boy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's pretty much what selling a commodity is all about: scraping by on pennies of profit and hoping for lots of volume. When your product is completely interchangable with somebody else's, it's very hard to compete on anything but price. That's why premium brands go to so much trouble to differentiate their products, even if the difference is as minor as a cosmetic flourish and a $100 million branding campaign. If you can't afford a $100 million branding campaign, you're stuck racing all your competitors to the bottom. It's awesome for the consumer, but sucks to be the manufacturer.

  34. Eh? So? by peatbakke · · Score: 1

    This is a standard shakedown. So what?

    The article states a volume of 35 million units in the first quarter of this year, with no sign of slowing down. This isn't trouble -- it's a competitive commodity market, like almost all the markets Chinese companies work in. They're quite accustomed to this sort of phenomenon, and a $1 profit margin ($140M/yr @ volume) really isn't that bad.

  35. Crap, I meant "Isn't this called ... by nmosfet · · Score: 1

    I need to start checking over my posts before submitting

  36. No no.. it's not that kinda problem.. by FractalPenguin · · Score: 0

    $1 margin for the manufacturers means that the owners of the Factory not giving(or less) the money to the workers.

  37. Re:Different way of thinking compared to US busine by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1
    Maybe it's not just a different way of thinking, maybe it's no thinking or foresight at all.

    My (current contract) Indian boss called a staff meeting at 4:45 PM Friday (!). Announced he was under a mandate from headquarters to reduce his budget costs by outsourcing a percentage of work. Then he asked us for suggestions on what parts of our work could be outsourced.

    This is definitely the right way to motivate your staff before a weekend. Management greed and stupidity know no bounds.

    I wanted to suggest "How about outsourcing management to Bangalore?" but I have to keep putting rice and fishheads on my dinner table.

  38. Maybe they need to add the W to "DVD+-R" by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1

    1. Just add more feature like "-W" and hike the price.
    2. Bigger profit.

    Adam Smith (clue: economic theory) couldn't have listed it in fewer steps.

    Maybe these businessmen needs to take capitalism lessons that made USA the powerhouse of economy.

    1. Re:Maybe they need to add the W to "DVD+-R" by makavelli · · Score: 1

      Step 1. Just add more features like "-W" and hike the price. Step 2. ?? Step 3. Bigger profit.

  39. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that labour costs are one of the larger costs of production? You must be using a lot of capital equipment in order to compensate for 100x increase in labour costs with respect to China ;).

    1. Re:Hmmm by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The labor is much cheaper but a lot of other expenses make up much of the difference. Despite Mexican wages being 10% that of US workers, a $500 US refrigerator still costs about $470 when made in Mexico.

    2. Re:Hmmm by danila · · Score: 1

      Actually about 15 years ago Drucker quoted labour costs as low as 5% for some industries and 15% for car manufacturers, IIRC. And labour costs as a percentage of total never go up. So whatever advantages China et al. have, it is not as simple as lower salaries. On the other hand, it should not be that difficult to compete for American or a Swiss manufacturer if you must.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    3. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn your Math:
      US autoworker gets MINIMUM $20/Hr, mexican one gets $10/WEEK!
      10% Difference?

    4. Re:Hmmm by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      US workers have better equipment, work longer hours. The purchased components will have the same cost. Paperwork for border crossing and transportation add to the expenses. Products made in Mexico have higher failure rates and that adds to warranty expenses.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:Hmmm by EddWo · · Score: 1

      He didn't say 10% less as in 9/10 he said 10% of, as in 1/10 as much. Big difference.

      Still that would mean by your figures that a US autoworker only works 5 hours a week. So it still doesn't quite add up.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    6. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US factory produces 90% yield.

      Mexican factory produces 9% yield.

      This is not an exaggeration, these are real numbers from a product my company moved *back* from Mexican manufacturing due to quality issues. Of course, this was after our customer almost sued us for failure to deliver working product.

      There's more to consider than labor cost.

    7. Re:Hmmm by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      So it still doesn't quite add up.

      Only because he's wrong about the $10/wk. Even in Nicaragua laborers make $3 a day. Skilled labor makes $5. And Mexico is at least as prosperous.

    8. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Price always boils down to one of two things: Premium paid for a scarce resource (raw materials, fuel/energy) and labour. While labour might be as low as 5%-15% for some industries when judging THEIR direct payments, they are indirectly paying a lot more: They are buying processed parts and raw material, both of which labour has gone into in several steps (transport to their facilities, production, administrative overheads at each step along the way, mining of raw material etc.). Labour is significant. And even in cases where labour is "only" 5%, notice how the profit margins quoted for the DVD players in the article is only 2.5%?

      If these people had to pay double the labour cost, they'd be losing money. If the labour cost is "only" 5% and they could halve it, it would double the profit.

      Ultimately, given stable supply and demand for raw materials and energy, labour is the only other variable you can adjust to reduce prices. You can adjust it by pushing prices down for services you procure, or by reducing your direct labour costs. But ultimately, unless demand drops or supply increases of raw materials you need, ANY price cut will come as a result of pay cuts, personell cuts, or production increases without equivalent labour cost increases.

    9. Re:Hmmm by danila · · Score: 1

      Good point. I should have been more specific. Direct labour costs usually go down as a fraction of total costs.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. Re:maybe they should outsource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when they reach 14, they start to realize what a pun is...till then, we'll just have to cope.

  42. I'm serious this time by Ass,+Ltd.+Ho! · · Score: 5, Informative
    Actually, cell phone manufacturers are in as much trouble as these Chinese DVD player manufacturers.

    EETimes covered this last month. http://www.eet.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=256 00132

    This is the way it works. Every new handset generation comes with a compelling new set of features. Each is subsidized by service providers to get it on the market. But each feature set quickly triggers a market share war among service providers, causing them to offer the handset for bubble-pack pricing or to simply bundle it with a service contract and give it away. The only money for the service provider is in services -- not in hardware. This exerts incredible pricing pressure on handset makers, both to innovate and to ruthlessly eliminate their own margins.

    This is just the way things go in electronics manufacturing, and it makes sense. Electronics technology moves much faster than manufacturing technology, so there is just inherent pressure in the market that eventually drives out profits. The nice thing about this is that it forces innovative new ideas to come along to a) Make improvements in manufacturing efficiency, b) Stay on the bleeding edge of technology with new products that can generate high margins for a good while (see Dell's foray into high-end "gaming" systems) and c) Build highly innovative products with killer features and high consumer appeal (see the iPod).

    As for the commodity manufacturers, the market corrects itself. There is a glut in worldwide DVD-player manufacturing capacity. Some of these companies will continue to eek out meager profits building DVD-players, while others will retool and remain successful manufacturing the next generation of commodity electronics, and still others will die. But this is merely a sympton of progress. Those companies that survive will be the reason we can get LCD TV's for $200 by Christmas 2006, and the whole cycle will repeat itself.

    --
    HO
  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Troll

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. No it means more service jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Service jobs have taken up the slack, consumption hasnt been growing at the same pace as productivity for a long time.

    1. Re:No it means more service jobs by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nice vague comment, with nothing to back it up. There is higher demand for home computers than 25 years ago. Same for DVD players, MPG players, music CDs, etc. You know why? They didn't exist.

      You can't judge future demand for products that do not exist yet. That is the point. Once again, the "glass is half empty" crowd predicts the demise of the human race because of terrible, horrible, job threatening productivity.

      My guess is that had you lived 100 years ago, you would have been anti-refrigeration, since it means the end of the ice block industry. This would ignore, of course, how it increased the average lifespan more than any other product ever invented.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  45. Re:Capitolsim.. by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1

    I thought it was Capitalism (with an 'a').

    Capitolism is the study of the main building found in Washington D.C., U.S.A where all the congressmen/women congregate.

    But then again, you can be correct if one thinks hard about this.

  46. Re:maybe they should outsource by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    If Chinese jobs are moved to the US would that be insourcing?

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  47. PROFITS are near ZERO?! by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1

    This is starting to sound like Communism.

    oh, Red China is still a communist, last time I checked the CIA Fact.

    I see... Nothing new here, move along.

    1. Re:PROFITS are near ZERO?! by mrtroy · · Score: 1

      PROFITS are near ZERO?! This is starting to sound like Communism.

      Economics 101 called and said you failed.

      Profits approaching zero is a result of an open marketplace with perfect competition. Profits going to the state would be communism, because the company would be owned by the state...

      But keep checking your CIA fact sheet, and making sure China is "a communist"

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    2. Re:PROFITS are near ZERO?! by nmosfet · · Score: 1

      Perfect competiton in an international market maybe, since they are not just producing DVD players for just Chinese consumers. Have you thought of that? If the misunderstanding is because you don't understand microeconomics, let me breifly explain the situation. In a perfect competition, if you are making a (economic) profit, another company can com in and undercut your prices (earn less profit than you of course). This keeps happening until profits are reduced to zero. Less then zero profit will result in the company refusing produce the product. There are maybe one or two reasons that the DVD market cannot operate in the textbook definition of a perfect competition (if any, very few products do) but it comes pretty close. for a more detailed explaination go to: http://www.business.uiuc.edu/ldebrock/econ102s04/o ll/Chap08/index.html

  48. not just the bigwigs by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Whenever gas prices go up, people get pissy and start demanding the government do something about it.

  49. How? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    we should cut out the middle man?
    Lets start buying right from the source,...


    Unless you get on a plane, fly to China, show up at the factory and hand the guy $55, you can't buy direct from the source. Unless he wants to change his business model, and sell it to you. Which requires a big adverising budget (to get you to buy from him and not the factory next door), storefronts everywhere (down the street from you), big customer management outlay (call center, warranty handling, etc), capitol outlay for delivery (trucks, etc).
    Bingo, he's just created a new division, and become his own middleman, and you get to pay the same price you do now.

  50. Makes it hard to export to them by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If your currency is weak, in relation to another, it's easy to export to them, hard to import from them. Strong currecny goes opposite.

    So let's say I'm an American manufacturer and I have something I want to sell to China, like maybe Intel. Well, if they fix their exchange rate artifically low, I have trouble competing since that makes my prices (from their view) artifically high.

    With currencies there's no right or wrong way, strong and weak currencies both have advantages. If they get too strong or weak it can be problematic (Europe is warning money traders about runing up the Euro as it could hurt Europe's export market) however in general, there is a good and a bad side to currency moves in either direction.

    Artifical fixing can be problematic, however, and China may find that they have to stop it if they wish to deal in the WTO. Fixed exchange rates are largely a thing of the past.

    1. Re:Makes it hard to export to them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every country try to control the exchange rate of its currency. Most of the time it's by playing with the interest rate, and the US does it too. China just do it more openly.

  51. Re:Different way of thinking compared to US busine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hammer meet nail. You hit that one dead on!!! Mod this up to a 5 someone.

  52. They're Disposable! by Mean_Nishka · · Score: 1
    One thing the article doesn't mention is how often you have to buy one of these things to consider yourself an owner of one :). I had a $40 Wal-Mart Apex player that lasted all of six months - just long enough to surpass the warranty period. No thanks..

    I'm sure the government is subsidizing the manufacturers like they do in other industries to squash foreign competition. They've been doing this on cotton products for years to lock out the Pakistanis and other rival producers.

    1. Re:They're Disposable! by Jarf · · Score: 1

      And I bought a $300 player that lasted just over 1 year- - just long enough to surpass the warranty period.

      I replaced it with a cheap chinese model that has lasted three and also is a better player.

      All products are disposable today. It's a crap-shoot how long things will last. Your car will fall apart after 5 years. Quality is almost nonexistent in the market. Garbage piles up.

  53. Here's an idea by fleener · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just increase their asking price? Duh. I don't believe this story for a second.

  54. I believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So with a $1 margin, they could up the price by $1 and make twice the profit.

    Ok, with a higher price, they wouldn't sell as many, but adding $1 to the price isn't going to make much difference.

    So for $1 more, they're going to sell maybe 95% as many with a $2 margin... that's 90% more profit!

    Am I the only one who passed algebra class?

  55. no way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The company I work for outsources to China, and I can say unequivocably, our prices to the customer are lower because of it.

    Also, just to to Wal-Mart and look at the price of a microwave oven. Think that would have ever dropped to the price it is at if there weren't cutthroat labor competition.

  56. Tort reform won't solve anything by Aexia · · Score: 1

    At least not the kind the Republicans are talking about. For example, medical malpractice rates. Several states have already put caps in place and it didn't budge insurance rates a damn bit.

    They kept going up anyways because insurance companies couldn't competently invest the money they were being paid. They started doing riskier and riskier investments and when the economy went to shit, they couldn't cover their bills anymore. Jury awards have been trending slightly down for a while, actually.

    Not to sound degradating, but do you really believe that the people who all run a corporation are trying to do nothing but poison the environment and put us all into economic slavery?

    Corporations aren't evil; they're amoral. They're not out to poison the environment and enslave people economically; they simply don't care if that's the side effect. Just as long as they're "maximizing shareholder value", everything is fine.

    1. Re:Tort reform won't solve anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at MICRA? in California, you'll find the insurers didn't drop the rates until the lawyers had run them through the courts for about 10 years. Remember one of the main insurers is owned by the doctors themselves.

    2. Re:Tort reform won't solve anything by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Not to sound degradating, but do you really believe that the people who all run a corporation are trying to do nothing but poison the environment and put us all into economic slavery?

      Those are all externalized costs. Best way is to not deal with them, or to figure out how to amortize them to invisibility (i.e., government picks up burden, passes on the cost as taxes, the problem disappears).

      One example of a personal externalized cost is car insurance. You leverage the surety of a monthly insurance payment to help cover you in the event of a negative Big Deal. People who make lots of nickle-and-dime claims on their insurance then complain when their rates go up on their $100-deductible policy, not figuring out the full cost over time for paying much less for $1000-deductible insurance and living with a few minor dings and dents here and there until you pay to get them all fixed at once before you turn in your car at the end of its lease or whatever.

      The people running the company worry about their investors or shareholders caring more about whether they filter out all the nasty stuff from their industrial effluent, reducing profits, vs waiting until they have extracted their investments * N and the company has long since been dissolved for other reasons or bought by another company, so that it's now Someone Else's Problem.

      It's the same mindset for a corporation as for people who throw away their household garbage in the dumpsters at the highway rest station a few miles away from their house or at McDonald's in town, or, heck, just cause it to fall off the back of their truck into the ditch accidentally, just to avoid paying at the dump or for their garbage pickup...

  57. What trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You wonder if other business, like low-end PCs hardware, are in similar trouble.

    What trouble? They're still making enough money to pay their saleries, their employees, the heating bill, equipment repair, etc. Why the hell do they need any more money than that? They should be happy they're getting an extra buck out of it.

  58. This is why... by Geiger581 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... China wants control of future standards. They would rather sell razor blades than handles. Until they actually produce a substantial volume of actual content, they can't do much, however. If the government were to forbit the manufacture of foreign designs to eliminate imposed royalties, manufacture would just resume in India, and China would just have their own proprietary standard. See stories over the lsat year regarding the Chinese optical media standard, the spat over wireless protocols, etc.

  59. The state is taking in most of the profit by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1

    Economics 455 called and said you failed.

    Apparently, China is experimenting a bit right of Communism as they are taking in their usual cuts from the Chinese manufacturers.

    Who are we to know that $1 is a token profit for her manufacturers?

  60. Adam Smith will roll in his grave by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1

    Agreed with all of your points.

    I'm just wondering how much are the states taking in their profit before it is really profit before we can actually label their economic model.

  61. why are roads different? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    You can say similar things about nearly anything. For example, are bars taxed heavily enough to pay for the increased police presence required? Increased medical costs due to crash injuries? What about hardware stores that sell spray-paint? Are they taxed heavily enough to pay for the cost of graffiti cleanup? Etc.

    And, fwiw, gas taxes actually do pay for an assortment of "other stuff" besides actual road construction and maintenance: usually there's an overrun, which is siphoned off into other budget areas. Often non-road transportation such as light rail and subways are also paid for by taxes paid by road users, so not only are road users paying for the roads they use, but they're also paying a portion of the costs of the subways other people use.

    (and my numbers were a bit low; apparently the US gas tax average is $0.40/gallon, according to Wikipedia)

    1. Re:why are roads different? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Sure, pblic transport is highly subsidiised. But the oft-repeated phrase that 'gas tax pays for the roads' is no more true than 'bus fare pays for the buses'.

  62. $20 patent fees by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to this post the patent fees for a DVD player work out to be about $20. The author is effectively anonymous, so hard to verify, but the DVD 6c fees are listed here and they are only part of the picture, so $20 may be the real deal.

    Given that half the cost of the system goes to the patent holders (remind anyone of Microsoft?), it is no wonder that China has licensed On2 Technology's VP6 codec for a reported flat $2 a player for there own hi-def video disc standard.

    That should get them out from under the thumb of the big-corp licensing fees at home and lead to a flood of DVD players in the USA that also support VP6. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if within a year or so we start seeing asian bootleggers who currently do VCDs and SVCDs switch over to bootleg VP6 discs that are higher quality than even any DVD.

    Wouldn't that be some global karma for the pigopolists in hollywood? I, for one, am actually rooting for China on this.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:$20 patent fees by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      a flood of DVD players in the USA that also support VP6

      Ahh, but they would still have to license MPEG-2, or those wouldn't be DVD players and would be useless for playing normal DVD's. It does make sense to license VP6 rather than H.264 (HD-DVD) because H.264 would probably cost more to license (unless H.264 licenses would somehow be bundled (for only $1 extra) with MPEG-2 licenses).

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    2. Re:$20 patent fees by Cyno01 · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't that be some global karma for the pigopolists in hollywood? I, for one, am actually rooting for China on this.
      Yes, because the PRC is certanly on a higher moral level than Hollywood fatcats...
      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    3. Re:$20 patent fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you will see are DVD players that are made for both the domestic chinese market and for abroad. The players that ship abroad -- at least to the USA -- will probably be paid up for the DVD consortium's extortion, the ones that stay home will probably not be paid up, or not until the WTO really beats down on China, which China is hoping won't happen until VP6 is firmly established there. So, since the players will be the same (economies of scale and all) the VP6 functionality will come to America too. That's the plan at least.

    4. Re:$20 patent fees by WoTG · · Score: 1
      I'm pretty sure it's not $20. You'll note that on your 2nd link, it states:
      2. Royalties of 4%, with a minimum royalty of US $4, will be charged for a DVD-Video player, DVD-ROM drive, DVD-Audio player, or DVD-Multi player, or any combination thereof.
      Which with todays manufacturing costs, effectively means that the royalties are at the minimum $4 USD level - which happens to correspond to what others with some knowledge of such things have told me in the past.
    5. Re:$20 patent fees by Forbman · · Score: 1

      ...if the players get available, and they get the recording stuff into the hands of the porn industry, it very well could take off.

    6. Re:$20 patent fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Line item #2 is not the only fee that applies to DVD players. There are at least two more from DVD6C and then there are the fees from DVD3C and there may be other patent pool groups with their finger in the pie now too. $20 as a minium sounds about right.

    7. Re:$20 patent fees by Detritus · · Score: 1

      From some things that I've read, many Chinese manufacturers were/are paying $0 in patent fees for DVD players. That's supposed to be a major reason why some DVD player prices are so low.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    8. Re:$20 patent fees by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      I don't know if the firmware would be the same on the exported players. The firmware might be modular, and by removing VP6 support they could triple their profits ($1 -> $3). It's be unlikely that VP6 will be used extensively outside of China, I think.

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
  63. Cheap Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, they are. This is why they try to squeeze every cent out of everything, leaving us with motherboards with leaking capacitors, harddrives with 1 year MTBF, memory errors, etc. Those of us who run cheap PC hardware, anyway.

    Perhaps they're doing that because that's all that people will buy?

    It's like floppy disks. I used to buy packs of a hundred real cheap, becuase I knew they went bad all the time. I wondered why no one made good floppy disks anymore. Then I thought to buy the expensive ones.

    When people decide they don't care about quality and base their purchases only on price, then the market will give them exactly what they want to buy: cheap crap.

  64. Byproduct of the Consumer Mentality by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

    This is a typical byproduct of consumer mentality, and a driving force in the development of features and extensions for products.

    Commoditization of computer hardware and electronics drives the price of that hardware down, as manufacturing costs are lowered, technology is improved, investment capital is reclaimed, and competition heats up. The market would not stand to have DVD players always at $300, and it wouldn't make any sense - not everyone would buy them, and the profit margins after initial set-up costs (manufacturing, developing, etc) were recouped would be obscene on a per-unit basis.

    The problem is that the manufacturers can't make money on $40 DVD players. This is why DVD players, PDAs, laptops, and any other product inevitably gets cheaper in terms of a cost/benefit standpoint - cost is reduced for the same feature set, but also cost is maintained for an increased feature set. The ability to play MP3s, CD/DVD-+RW, progressive scan, and aesthetics are all improved in order to keep products at the point where the profit margins can be maintained (or even increased, due to improvements in technology and e.g. the offloading of work onto software which can be replaced with better software on the same hardware).

    Take a look at the iPod, everyone's favourite example. It started at 5 gigs, then it was 5 and 10, for more, and eventually they moved to the current three-tier setup - low, medium, and high-end. When the lines are updated, the models are effectively bumped. The medium starts selling for the low-end price point, the high-end becomes medium, and a new high-end model with more features (well, more storage) arrives.

    In the end, what happens is that the hardware and software used to make these iPods gets cheaper, and once it does, they bump everything down. Apple maintains the same (or similar) profit margins on each iteration, and, rather than thinking of it as lowering the price on a particular model, think of it as increasing the feature set of a particular price point.

    This is another important (for the companies) reason for slave labor - it allows profits to stay up that much longer, and allows for higher profits on low-cost items, which is an enabling factor for those people disinclined to spend $300 on a DVD player. This in turn fuels the DVD software market, which I'm sure comes full-circle.

    Sheesh, you'd almost think I was an economics major. Too bad I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

    --Dan

  65. What goes around comes around by jobugeek · · Score: 1
    Seen the trade deficit lately? Every month it sets a new record. Not really a good position to be setting trade policies on those that the US trades with. They will and have returned the favor.

    Besides most of the time trade restrictions only work on the symptom. Higher salaries are only part of the equation. Like others have said, rising insurance, overburdening govt regulation/restrictions add much to the cost of many items.

    --
    I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
    1. Re:What goes around comes around by div_2n · · Score: 1

      I should have been more clear. Beyond trade policies, it isn't difficult to employ tax benefits for companies to keep manufacturing and such in the US and impose tax penalties on those that don't. That is what should be done IMO to balance the playing field and make it attractive to not outsource and send jobs overseas.

      But that cuts into the ability for companies to make disgusting profits and that is why Bush isn't considering it.

    2. Re:What goes around comes around by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Yes, and insurance is my pet peeve. A quick look gives me an estimate that those providing insurance are at least 0.5% of the workforce, and provide almost nothing of value. They are a dead weight on the economy, they use their power to corrupt the law (such as promoting laws that make insurance mandatory), and promote cowardice. How much richer would you be if you never had to buy insurance, including insurance provided "free" by your employer? I'm 55, and the answer for me is about $100,000 not including interest.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:What goes around comes around by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I wasn't born with a $100,000 nest egg sitting in a trust fund as a balance on my lifetime health cost, car self-insurance needs, etc.

      Neither were most people born.

      So my lifetime earnings could be over $1,000,000. Great... how useful is that to me when I'm 2 or 21 years old?

      Besides, if I didn't have to pay for those things, I'd still have to pay for the taxes to cover the equivalent government programs I would get those "benefits" from.

    4. Re:What goes around comes around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I`ll put money down you wouldn`t have been 100,000 dollars richer. I bet if you actually got that from your employer, you wouldn`t have seen nearly the salary you did, no matter what it was.

      If your employer is going to have to pick up some bill as a benefit, you definitely aren`t going to get the same salary in dollars handed to you. I love my insurance personally, I`ve been in one bad wreck and a while back, my sister loved her insurance when she was in a bad wreck. But guess what, if we want to have that 100,000 dollars in a long time, there is an easy way, just don`t get insurance. You keep that higher salary and don`t have to pay that extra 100,000, but be careful, if shit happens to you, your completely on your own.

  66. Shoddy reporting by The+Man · · Score: 1
    No mention is made as to whether the $1 (2.5%) is a gross margin or net margin. If it's gross, then indeed the manufacturers are in a world of hurt. But if that's based on net operating profits, it's not that bad. While most investors would like to earn more than a 2.5% return, any company that profits at all right now is in good shape, and only a very small improvement could translate to a very strong return. A diversification into another higher-margin business is given as an example; a shop earning 2.5% returns that can employ even a small measure that improves efficiency is likewise in a very good position.

    Again, since the reporter didn't bother to find out the exact financial condition of these manufacturers, it's almost impossible to know what this number really means. As such, the article is of no value.

  67. Solution to regional coding by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

    Just buy a stack five cheapo DVD players, each coded to a different region. Maybe they could package them all into a single cabinet.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
    1. Re:Solution to regional coding by saiha · · Score: 1

      This would be the same as getting a player that can do all regions. Either way you are subverting a business model. How can the entertainment industry keep tight control of what you watch if you have the unsanctioned desire to watch a dvd not released in your area?

  68. that's not true though by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Bus fare simply doesn't raise enough revenue to cover operating costs. Gas tax does raise enough revenue to cover construction and maintenance cost, with some left over to pay for buses.

  69. see also: by pb · · Score: 1

    Laissez-faire economics, globalization, plutocracy. And note that the US doesn't have a perfectly capitalistic economy, which I think is a very good thing.

    --
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
  70. china by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Increasingly over the next ten yearts currency won't be as important in international trade as commdoities, especially energy. Soon china will have a large enough domestic market that it won't need US dollars or us as a market, they will only need massive amounts of raw materials and energy sources, which we can't supply much of. Our dollar has been dropping steadily the past several years. that makes our exports cheaper, but we are exporting less, and what we have been exporting is more in the line of factories/machine tools, etc, things to make manufacturing easier to china. They are also heavy into double digits into force-projection styled military buildup, and a buck there goes a lot further than here. A million bucks in china actually gets stuff done, here it forms a few committess to decide if more committes are necessary to study the project at hand. They are also pumping out engineers like we pump out wannabe pro sports starts and musicians.

    It's gonna get ugly sometime, and we stand a good chance of losing.

    1. Re:china by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I dunno man...I've seen firsthand how the Chinese do things. I wouldn't worry too much. Their engineers aren't particularly creative, more like plodding drones that are great at making copies of others' product, but when you ask them to come up with their own ideas, they either come up with something really obvious or really questionable.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:china by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It wouldn't matter much in a war. If their copies were good enough, and close enough to top of the line, and they could pump out ten to one on the copies, it might be sorta hard to fight them. One thing is for sure, given their huge industrial expansion that is poised right now to outstrip the rest of the planet in raw material needs and in energy requirements, something is gonna give. It's one thing for-say-a US dominated coalition to go in and takeover and sorta run a small nation like iraq, with total air superiority, etc, quite another with a nation the size of china. All the projections I have seen show china starting around 2010 to be up a very large stump when it comes to energy needs. They are going to not only want but *need* this huge amount of petroleum, right when a lot of even the larger fields are peaked out every place but a few nations in the middle east. I don't see them remaining passive about it for too much longer.

      I also think the west bankrolling their industrial expansion will be proven to be the most critical geopolitical strategic blunder ever in the history books of the future. The western bankers got away with it when they bankrolled all sides in the leadup to ww2, and we saw what happened then. This time, the only difference is the scale is much larger, and the technology available-even crummy copies- is much more lethal.

      But, we'll see. Maybe the Mr. Fusion backyard reactor will be perfected, and the chinese overlord leaders will all automagically turn into really nice guys in the next decade.

      The theory where we started to bankroll them was that if we forced them to be trading partners, there would be no incentive for them to want to hurt their trading partners then. My concern is that if you look at what they buy from the west, it's all geared to make them independent from the west. Like I said, they buy factories and machine tools, why we close factories and machinists get older and are forced out of work. We buy walmart stuff from them, they buy *infrastructure expansion* products, so that they can make their own infrastructure expansion products. They are switching to vertically integrated manufacturing, while we are dropping to mere assembly of outside produced components, almost busywork.

      I know that is simplistic, but it's based on a lot of research I have done over the years and just noticing where "stuff" comes from now. I mean, you have to give them some credit, they are a space power now, we've shipped them airplane factories and technology, they are manufacturing a deep sea navy with some advanced weaponry especially designed to counter the carrier battle group, etc. It looks like they are serious to me. And you look at projected population and various demographical demands, then the released reserve numbers for various raw materials around the world, and the conclusion is inescapable. We have a world poised on the brink of a 10 gallon need and desire and at best around 2 gallons remaining. That's why I said something's gonna give.

      And I sincerely hope I am wrong.

  71. Fuck hollywood then? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    China should take the stick in its own hands - let the manufacturers skip paying the DVD licensing, skip or the region coding bullshit and make players that dont 'officially' play DVDs. And of course not playing DVDs means they dont answer to stupid DRM that tells you what you can play where - sell them to the world, we'll lap them up! either that or just create a better format (not hard).

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Fuck hollywood then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From a market viewpoint, this is quite an interesting post.

      Region coding is a classic example of this. Market segmentation turned to crap because the market always finds a way. I have very few friends without players that can be switched so they can buy cheaper R3 or R1 discs (and also get a better choice of films).

    2. Re:Fuck hollywood then? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Region coding is also like mobile-phone locking - its an unfair business practice and theres not a (clean) judge in the world who couldnt say that by-passing region coding was totally the consumers right.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  72. Trouble? Not hardly by magarity · · Score: 1

    You wonder if other business, like low-end PCs hardware, are in similar trouble.

    If only a $1 per unit margin becomes too much trouble then some of them will drop out of the race. So since they're still in business, it doesn't really appear that this is "trouble".

    Let's do a little remedial business math: One dollar on $40.80 is about 2.5%. Don't know about the rest of you but at local banks hereabouts the going interest rate for certificates of deposit runs around 1/2 of 1% and the stock market is down over the last month or so. So making DVD players at a 2.5% return is looking darn good!

  73. What I'd like to know is what profit you think ... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ... should be on each DVD unit?

    Keep in mind this is above what it costs to operate.

  74. Re:Cell phone makers would be jealous... or NOT by drjzzz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is the old razors vs. blades argument, but Apple seems to be making money reversing the equation: selling songs (software) for near cost while making money on the iPod.

    --
    to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
  75. The unfortunate side effect of commoditization by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    ...is that the technology gets frozen. Nobody wants to invest in developing better players when they have to compete with $40 el cheapo models. We saw this happen to VCRs. In this day of cheap digital electronics, VCR timers can still remember maybe 8 events, with a user interface that has barely advanced in 20 years. And better VCRs are not even on the shelves at mass-market dealers. Now, the same thing is happening to DVD players. It's hard to find a quality DVD player at Best Buy; instead, the shelves are lined with VCR/DVD combos (a stupid idea, but it is an excuse to charge a higher price). Paradoxically, as the price drops at the bottom end, the price for quality units tends to rise, because they become more of a specialty item (a lot of people are willing to pay twice as much for quality or features, but 10 times as much?).

    1. Re:The unfortunate side effect of commoditization by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      If anything, commoditization is what encourages competition.

      If you can make a discernably better DVD player than the next guy, you might be able to sell for more. Of course, once people realise this, you'll have to move on again, but that's reality.

      There's two routes - get really good at commoditization (improve efficiency and quality) or specialize.

    2. Re:The unfortunate side effect of commoditization by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      If you can make a discernably better DVD player than the next guy, you might be able to sell for more. Of course, once people realise this, you'll have to move on again, but that's reality.

      In reality, unfortunately, it just doesn't work this way. Companies know that in the minds of consumers, a VCR is a VCR. That's what commoditization does: the item becomes generic. It becomes virtually impossible to convince consumers that the new and improved model justifies a substantially higher price. And given that risk, who is going to invest in the development effort? It would be much smarter to invest in something that could more plausibly demand a premium price. So features that could easily have been added to VCRs, such as on-screen searchable program guides, "season passes" and the capacity to schedule dozens of show for recording appear instead on PVRs and DVD recorders, where the manufacturer can say, "It's not a VCR, it's something new and better!" and charge a price 5 to 20 times what consumers are willing to pay for a generic VCR.

  76. Re:Trouble? Not hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Where did you get your degree in economics? A Cracker Jack box? What about other amortized costs for R&D and other miscellaneous business expenses? Do you think a factory runs on it's own? A 2.5% return on a high initial capital investment is not very good.

    Are you a PC user by any chance? Many PC users seem to be oblivious to the fact that their "cheap" PC's are produced by an industry that is living on borrow time. You ungrateful cheap bastards.

  77. Leave it to slashdot... by nwbvt · · Score: 1

    ...to portray free market competition as a bad thing.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  78. Huh??? by Kombat · · Score: 1

    Cell phone makers would be jealous since they sell their hardware at a loss. (Granted, they get money from the service subscription.)

    They do? Where exactly can I sign up for Nokia, Audiovox, Samsung, or Sony's wireless services?

    You have no idea what you're talking about. The service providers buy the phones from the manufacturers (at a healthy profit to the manufacturers, contrary to your absurd claims). The service providers are the ones that turn around and give away the phones, or sell them at a loss, in exchange for service contracts.

    --
    Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
  79. Chinese Makers Squeezed by Patent Royalties by crucini · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The owners of the DVD patents have been battling the Chinese makers to extract very high royalties. They have succeeded in harming this industrial sector. Here's one story. This is a great example of how all the value is moving to IP, and what the stakes are in today's IP wars.

    Just think - of the $50 purchase price, $27 goes to patent owners and only $1 in profit goes to the factory owners!

  80. You think that's thin, wait for the robots by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

    I believe that the cost of manufacturing goods will fall close to zero soon. Most economists agree that cost is based solely on human time and or effort. When machines can do all of the labour, prices for manufactured goods will become insignificant.

    IMHO, it's best you find creative or service work that cannot possibly be done by a machine, and do it quickly.

    --
    Words to men, as air to birds.
  81. Regulatory reform THE most important factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without regulatory reform for US manufacturers the will be no growth in US mfg beyond cyclical spikes along a declining moving average.

    Why?

    Because anyone who invests their money or time in working for a us MFG or distributor is playing "you bet your future" with every sale.

    Manufacturers are one products liability lawsuit away from being uninsurable and out-of-business. They are subject to regular litigation on frivolous patents, employee disputes, state and fed environmental and safety regulations, and now class action lawsuits on behalf of bogus shareholder complaints.

    Litigation triage legislation is needed. There should be higher standards for instituting litigation in the US.

    Lawyers you heard it here first --- if you want to have clients down the road to defend you need to think long-term and give ground today.

    1. Re:Regulatory reform THE most important factor by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Product liability lawsuits happen because products injure or kill people.

      Not all lawsuits stem from some rocket scientist being burned in the groin by hot Mickey D's coffee. I doubt even most lawsuits are like that.

      "Litigation triage legislation", when the corporations (whose sole function is to maximize shareholder value) define it as "we need fewer standards for the quality and safety of our products so we can sell whatever we want and not be liable if it hurts someone." That is also how they will lobby your political leaders to define it.

      I'm sorry if my original post portrayed this as a giant conspiracy - it's not. The act of holding America and our values hostage - including the corporate poisoning of regulatory/litigation reform - is nothing more than a logical extension of their need to protect and maximize profits and returns for their shareholders.

      They need to be restrained by the radical concept that the survival of the human race, the safety of consumers, the health of our ecosystem, and the time honored rights of workers (as already defined in America today) come first, and shareholder returns come second.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  82. Its all about volume-A lesson unlearned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Its all about volume-A lesson unlearned. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      In order to secure certain orders, Boeing outsourced the tail assembly of its 777 to factories in China. Boeing prefers to concentrate on "large scale integration", but I can't help thinking that in a decade or two, Xian Aircraft Company may be supplying the bulk of the Chinese market for widebody aircraft.

    2. Re:Its all about volume-A lesson unlearned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give them the tech to make the tail, and they can make everything else too since things like the wheel assemblies are the same as on their copies of russian copies of US made WW2 aircraft. The interesting thing is that once China starts getting into the spare parts game and making something in the 727 class, boeing won't have any more business in many parts of the world.

    3. Re:Its all about volume-A lesson unlearned. by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Sales of 777's to China's state-owned airlines may also have been a part of this deal...

      Japan builds licensed copies of F-15's...

  83. A Scary Context: by WaltFrench · · Score: 1

    While traveling in China recently, I saw an article claiming that each Chinese DVD player includes something like $14 in royalties to the MPEG consortium and other royalty holders. That means LOTS of royalties going to US residents; we benefit from each one of those zillions of imports that would NEVER be made in the USA.

    Imagine if Chinese engineers were to come up with a decent replacement for those standards, and consumers had the choice of $79 DVD's or $59 CV's. Hollywood would immediately assume that was another $20 that consumers could spend on content. Why WOULDN'T they release all the content in both formats?

    So how do Slashdotters feel about IP being such a big part of the purchase price for a favorite technology? (PS: The work is well underway for an efficient, IP-lite or IP-free format.)

    --
    "Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
  84. Profit is not the point. by colonel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really, profit isn't the point.

    The first objective is to create jobs. Especially in a socialist/communist country, it doesn't really matter whether the company makes big profits, it matters that they provide good jobs to the people. So, if the company pays the workers $2 per DVD player more than a US-owned company in China would, and makes a $1 profit per DVD player, then a US-owned company in China making the same DVD player would make three times the profit.

    The second point is to build up specialization. Making DVD players takes much more skill and training than making bamboo furniture for export. This encourages Chinese kids to stay in school longer because better jobs are available, which increases the net national education, which leads to more innovation and development.

    The third, and most important point, is to take over the world. Take a look at the Chinese currency. China's been making more and more stuff for export, and the US has been importing more and more from China. So, you would expect the Chinese RenMinBi to have increased in value compared to the US dollar over the last decade -- but it didn't, really.

    The reason that the RenMinBi has not dramatically increased in value compared to the US dollar is that China has been systematically buying (investing in) US companies with their new US dollars just as fast as those US dollars are coming in from the US. This is called a "balance of trade deficit" for the US. It's not sustainable for China to keep doing this, but very soon the communists will OWN capitalism.

    Forget this cold war shit, the best way to beat the capitalist pigs is to play by their rules (internationally), buy them out, and it's working.

    1. Re:Profit is not the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, you're saying that the damn hippy commie bastards will OWN capitalism when they become capitalists. Hmm, sounds like victory for capitalism to me. It sounds like this trade is forcing China from a centrally-controlled communist country to a decentralised capitalistic country.

      What's the problem? Capitalism rulez! Bring on cheap electronics.

    2. Re:Profit is not the point. by aCC · · Score: 1

      Especially in a socialist/communist country, it doesn't really matter whether the company makes big profits[...]

      Uh-oh. If you really think that this is the case, then you should come to China. It's "socialist/communist" only in the sense that they have party dictatorship, censorship, and no functioning law system. The economy is pure capitalism, sometimes in its worst meaning.

      Take a look at the Chinese currency.[...]

      Your explanation for the same exchange rates in the last decade have one big problem: the exchange rate is fixed to the dollar. The state decides what it should be which is a big problem as the exchange rate would develop in a extremely frightening way for the Chinese if it was freed. The Chinese companies invest not even close to 3% of the amount of incoming money into American (or other) companies. Complete nonsense.

      So, sorry, as someone who lives and works in China, I can tell you that your knowledge about it is very lacking. Please read more about it or go to China to experience it (but don't just go to Beijing and Shanghai and then think everything is honky-dory).

  85. 1/40.80 = 2.45% not great, not bad by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    There are plenty of companies making less margin.

    Why is this a story? The factory will start making something with a higher margin as soon as they get asked.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  86. Profit Margin by Trailwalker · · Score: 1

    Their margin is a bit over 2%. There are a lot of business doing quite well on that much margin.

    500,000 units @ $1 is a half million net. I really doubt that any manufacturer makes only one product line.

  87. what about quality control?? by jazzbo54 · · Score: 1

    what about quality control??
    Iv been having a nightmare with DVD RW ,new external USB 2. version by Liteon, it wont burn any media,trying to get support by email to tiawan is tedious or not impossible

    retail cost is $250,so how can margins be so small?

  88. $.03 an hour by KB1GHC · · Score: 0

    it's easy to make DVD players with only a $1 margin, if your only paying your emplyees 3 cents an hour.

  89. God Bless The Chinese... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's face it kids. The only things America Exports these days is Music, Movies, Weapons, Software, Pharmaceuticals and Fast Food. Frankly if you had to buy DVD Players made in America you'd pay $800 and they'd be big as refrigerators. If you want to earn a living in the USA in an industry that still pays well in America today, either work for one of the ones I listed above or get into something for domestic use like Auto Manufacturing, Construction or Transportation. Americans seem to take for granted that oil should be cheap and cars should be big and jobs should pay union wages. Reality check people. Most of the world doesn't play by those rules and if you want to be a player in the Global Economy you'd best be prepared to take a few lumps and write off the products that you can't compete at.

  90. That $1 is about by HermanAB · · Score: 0, Troll

    one hundred million Chinese Dollars - that's why they can live with it...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
    1. Re:That $1 is about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well done, "Herman", you dumbass troll. You just hit the shit list.

    2. Re:That $1 is about by LiMikeTnux · · Score: 0

      " one hundred million Chinese Dollars - that's why they can live with it..." actually its about 8 no?

      --
      yap
  91. Just look at ink jet printers by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    You think a 40.00 (U.S.) printer costs that much to produce? They sell at a loss, to make it up on the cartridges. I have a guy at work who doesn't print a lot, takes him over a year to use up a print cartridge. He buys 29.00 printers where ever he can find them, uses them until the ink runs out, and then gives them away, and buys another one.

    1. Re:Just look at ink jet printers by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      And almost certainly saves a bundle doing so.
      I got my last printer for $9 after the sale at store a plus the rebate form from store b.
      Only bought a new black cartridge once, now two moddles later it's cheaper to buy a new printer than more color ink.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  92. Dangerous extrapolation-Slim Pickins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In this way, low margins are a sign of a very efficient world economy. Nothing bad here that I see."

    Naw! When the world's living on .001% Margins. Now that's efficient. Anything else is just badly bloated.

  93. Re:Different way of thinking compared to US busine by TheGavster · · Score: 1

    At the turn of the last century, companies in the US employed whole villages. In fact, they built the villages for the people. One problem: there were no worker protections, no OSHA, and barely enough pay to keep the people living in the employer-financed villages. In short, it was slavery, as all of the money paid out in wages went back to the employer in the form of housing and food payments. The reason that we outsource is that while this is no longer allowed in the US, some countries still permit their populations to be enslaved, provided that the proper premiums are paid.

    --
    "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  94. on the bright side by Mantorp · · Score: 1

    raise prices a buck and you double your profits

  95. $1 not too bad for the manufacture... by lucifer_666 · · Score: 1
    The Chinese are used to making 'low' margins. There are so many people in China that pretty much every industry is extremly competitve anyway.

    The other point to consider is that US$1 is worth a lot in a country where the factory pays the workers about US$25 a month.

    Combined with the sheer volumes these manufactures are doing, I would not be surprised if they were doing OK at the end of the day.

  96. Re:Different way of thinking compared to US busine by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
    The people who came to these company towns, they were kidnapped and taken there? Prohibited from leaving by force of arms? There were worker protections and OSHA-equivalents on the farm or wherever else they came from?

    The products that make it possible to live are paid for by productive effort. This is not slavery, it's reality.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  97. Re:Different way of thinking compared to US busine by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you should outsource the work done after 4:45 PM Friday.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  98. This Is Called The Market by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    Rate of return in any investment drops to the "general rate of return" which is historically some small figure of 1-2% or whatever as soon as competitors enter the market in search of whatever "monopoly profit" existed when the specific market was first created.

    So what else is new?

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  99. Re:Different way of thinking compared to US busine by TheGavster · · Score: 1

    They were forced to work there by virtue of there being nothing else. They were prevented from leaving by there being no economically feasable way for them to move very far geographically. You've heard of a water-monopoly emipre, yes? The company provided the only source of food, water, and shelter that these people could find. At the wages they were paid, the only option was the company provided system. Even the children of those who lived in these towns were denied the option of bettering themselves; from day 1 the only thing they knew was serfdom under their corporate masters.

    --
    "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  100. Same thing wil oik companies..... by funkdid · · Score: 1
    It's true.

    No, not really. I've learned to believe nothing in an SEC filing. If they're not claiming that they made $40 billion this quarter, they're claiming that their corporation is really a charity.

    BOW to your corporate masters.

    Disclaimer: I recently started an insurance company, I guess I'm "The Man" now. I'm going to have to get started with my "Holdin people down" and what not...

    --

    I boycott signatures

    1. Re:Same thing wil oik companies..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You started an insurance company, and you're complaining about OTHER peoples' morals?

      Insurance companies are worse than lawyers. Legalized racketeering and extortion - that's all it is.

  101. Patent fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to this article, the patent fees can be as high as US$27.45 per unit. (about 20 to 30 percent of their production cost.)

    According to this artice, they exported 41 million units in five months... that makes an average of 8.2 million units per month. US$8.2 million isn't that bad of a monthly profit.

  102. Cheap caps in Cheap DVD players by Rebar · · Score: 1

    The fallout of this is still with us, and even on topic:

    I just had to replace the caps in my $35 DVD player's power supply after only 8 months of use.

    I expect every player sold last Christmas from the huge pile at the local chain-store outlet has these symptoms: when seeking on a DVD, the TV screen flickers (due to insufficient power), and eventually the player won't read a disk because the power supply is so weak.

    Solution: replace the two largest caps with those of the non-bulging variety; now it works great.

    How can a $35 DVD player (or anything else) use anything but the cheapest of caps? Do the manufactures know or care that their products are doomed to failure within a year of plugging them in?

    Or a better question still, how can I know for sure that a more expensive DVD player uses non-crappy components?

    1. Re:Cheap caps in Cheap DVD players by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Well, using cheap caps doesn't necessiarly mean the product will suck. Caps don't have to be good ones for many applications. Panasonic makes a whole range of caps, with different prices. High end analogue stuff, like audio, uses better ones than power. The problem here was faulty caps.

      As for high end equipment, there is no way to know for qure, but it's a good bet. When a customer drops a good chunk of change and you provide a 5-year warentee, your stuff had better not suck. You can also open up a case and look and see if the components are quality or not. Or try and buy from manufacturers that tell you. Like my power amp, it's a professional amp (Hafler) and marketed as such. Included is a complete PCB layout, circut diagram, and parts list.

      If this is honestly something you care about, and you are willing to spend the money, then look mostly at pro stuff. For something like a DVD player, look for one marketed to studios and such. They care about reliability since time lost costs more than the part. Be ready to pay though.

      Like with VCRs (since I haven't looked at DVD players): You pay maybe $20-30 for a basic VCR and still less than $100 for one with features these days. For a nice entry level pro one, you pay about $500. Of course the pro one is built to last, supports SVHS, has better heads, links with editing boards and so on.

      You really have to decide if the quality and reliability justifies the extra money. I mean a throw-away model is valid. If I buy a device per year for $50 or a device for 10 years for $500, it's all the same. However the pro stuff also is generally better quality, so there's that to consider. A $500 pro amp will sound way better than a $50 bargain amp AND will last much longer.

    2. Re:Cheap caps in Cheap DVD players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long did it take to replace those caps?

      How much do you make an hour?

      Someone with enough skill to replace caps in a DVD player is probably employed in some fairly technical or at least above average job, or at least should be.

      Your time is worth money.

      So, how much money did you lose by bothering to replace those caps instead of, say, just buying a new DVD player? Couple of hours times $$$?

      That's why TV and electronic repair shops are going out of business: it's far, far cheaper to replace the broken DVD players, microwaves, VCRs, TV, etc than to repair them.

      It does not hurt any that most folks are happy to accept mediocre quality. They don't care if their $38 DVD player is only adequate or that their $44 VCR has a horrible remote. They sure as hell won't pay to have it fixed, not when the bench fee is more than the sale price.

  103. Think about the implications by hieronymus · · Score: 1
    If OEMs are willing to sell DVD players for cost + $1 and retailers are willing to sell this hardware at $0.50 above cost, think about what this means for labor costs to build and sell these goods.

    And people wonder why their jobs pay a lot less than they used to ...

  104. that would explain.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the billion dollar profits they keep reporting...
    the competition will keep going till these profits shrink to that of other IT sectors..

  105. Re:maybe they should outsource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope. China = Zhongguo = the Central Country = the Number 1 Country.

    Therefore, any instance of "our" in Slashdot should refer to China and not the US.

    Supposedly.

  106. Moore's Law by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    Considering the amuont of bang that can be purchased for a buck a $1 margin is a bigger accomplishment now compared to a few years ago. This is a consequence of Moore's law.

    Lower price tags put technology into more homes. The feeling of affordability creates a greater desire to consume. In the long run that should result in a stronger economy.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  107. Re:Trouble? Not hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget that every growth percentage is associated with a time period. If it takes one month to make a DVD player that earns you 2.5 % profit, then your annual return is actually 34%. That should be plenty to pay for R&D...

  108. Go to the poorhouse for the newest gadgets by spyware+scams_suck · · Score: 1
    i knew i should have waited 10 years instead of getting that $300 dvd player!

    10 years! i'll wait 20!! vhs was good enough for me. they keep making you pay more to switch from one format to the next. my brother wasn't too lucky--2 years ago he spent over $600, that's right, 600 big ones, for a DVD player as a birthday for my father. and right now it's collecting dust in the closet since the first day he gave it. yeah, people are funny falling over themselves for the newest gadgets. :-)

    --
    * weedshare.com 50% to artists, webjay.org iuma.com CDBaby.com Epitonic.com ampcast.com
  109. No, no, no by spisska · · Score: 1

    China is attractive for producers for two reasons. Tne first is that, at least for now, labor is much cheaper there than elsewhere. But a company forever chasing the cheapest labor will find problems. As more investors move in, the price of skilled labor rises.

    Secondly, and more important than labor costs, is that China presents new markets and new opportunities.

    You're right that the country is not now the world's powerhouse in consumption, but it certainly has the potential to be.

    Business is not attracted by temporarily cheap labor, but by a market of over 1 billion people.

    It's well known that Bollywood already produces more films per year than Hollywood. I've never seen any statistics on this, but I would bet that in terms of PPP (puchasing power parity) Bollywood is more successful.

    We in America seem to forget how recent our industrial revolution was, and how greatly it changed the lives of people who lived here.

    When people have a bit of disposable cash, they spend it. And like it or not, there are four times the number of people in China as here, and many of them are finding themselves with a bit of cash, and many of them want things like TVs and DVDs and cars. And as things stand, there won't be many people in Beijing (or Jakarta or Mumbai) selling Zeniths, RCAs or Fords.

    The goal isn't in making things half-way around the world to sell in Chicago, but creating new markets to sell things locally.

    Even at a $1 margin, I'd much rather sell to a billion Chinese and another billion Indians than to 300 million whiney Americans.

  110. Someone please mod up Aexia's post by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    Corporations aren't evil; they're amoral. They're not out to poison the environment and enslave people economically; they simply don't care if that's the side effect. Just as long as they're "maximizing shareholder value", everything is fine.
    This is absolutely positively right. I did not clarify my point well enough, but you did. Thanks a lot, and I sure hope your post gets modded up. :)

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  111. outsourcing really is a double-bladed sword! by squidgyhead · · Score: 1
    "For the people that lose their jobs because of out sourcing it is very bad."

    However, it is good for the people who get jobs because of it.

    This must be tempered, however, with proper environmental and labour laws in whatever country the jobs happen to be in.

  112. Re:Different way of thinking compared to US busine by Forbman · · Score: 1

    Denied from leaving the company town? Yes, because odds are you had a running tab with the company, and you were always perpetually in some amount of debt.

    You were in the middle of nowhere, and the company owned the means of transportation into and out of the town. You may have arrived willingly, but there was no way to leave and survive. Trying to establish your own free enterprise was met with harshly by the people running the town.

    Everything you used you paid the company back for (hint: sounds like the recording industry).

    It's kind of well-documented.

  113. Re:Different way of thinking compared to US busine by Forbman · · Score: 1

    Well, there was an issue of National Geography that talked about current slavery. Most of it is in the sex trade.

    or look at life in Mexico being a worker vs being a land owner or business owner.

  114. Re:Capitolsim.. by Forbman · · Score: 1

    They do not import and are more less self sufficent, everybody is employed. ...and, in CUba, you can smoke hand-rolled cigars all day! And drive a '55 Chevy (if you can afford it and the gas).

    Cuba also has no "crime", because the fear and incentives for your neighbor to turn you in for anything (real or imagined) is very very real.

    The USSR took all the land and product away from the farmers, also, so that there was no incentive for them to do anything, least of all for themselves.

    If yow own your farm property, the incentive to keep your fields and crops in good shape is slightly higher than if you're just a sharecropper, er, working the farm for someone else for a fixed wage.

    How happy would you be if you were encouraged to drive the cultivator out so that the crop owner might get the extra money, but your only incentive is to do it to keep your job? It's different if it's your own crop.

    Oh well, you either get and understand this motivation, or you don't.

  115. Pirates and subsidization by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    That's actually an interesting and underrecognized aspect of the "Internet econonmy".

    At one point, techies were subsidized by others -- if you knew how to crack a piece of software or use IRC or something, then your goods were paid for by others.

    As tools to pirate software and content are made easier and easier to use and distributed, this ceases to be the case -- *everyone* can pirate content. Which eliminates the value of being a techie.

  116. Re:maybe they should outsource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope.
    Actually, the insistance on translating Zhong Gua as Middle Kingdom is nothing but an example of what Edward Said called Orientalism, the desire to objectify the East in inscrutible terms, which is just a symptom of racism.
    In fact, it would be quite reasonable to translate Zhong Gua simply as Empire or Nation. This doesn't create the basis for a curious racist algebra like that in the above post however so it is not the privileged translation among such fools. Nonthless, it is no more than a racist mythology.

  117. Millions of dollars. by Adolph_Hitler · · Score: 1



    $1 profit margins are great, if you sell 50-60 million DVD players.

    PS2 did not have profit margins and its now making Sony some money.

    --
    People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
  118. ahhh - high tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder high tech stocks are so terrible. FREE HARDWAREs and FREE softwares. so when is free service going to be next? :-)

  119. Service jobs the end of civilization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im sorry, I wasnt aware I needed to prove the obvious. US department of labour good enough for you?

    http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/herman/rep orts/futurework/report/chapter4/main.htm

    I wasnt predicting the demise of the human race, I was predicting an ever decreasing percentage of manufacturing jobs (R&D too IMO ... I think commodization and consolidation will accelerate). So most of us will have to be employed in service jobs ... a new age of servitude, not the end of civilization.

  120. Great profit! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    especially because $1US is a SHITLOAD of money in China...

  121. Re:Trouble? Not hardly by Blue_Wombat · · Score: 1
    Wrong comparison. One dollar in $40.80 does translate to a net margin of around 2.5% on sales. However, investors are concerned with return on capital and, while related, this is a seperate beast. If they sell 1,000,000 units for $40, and make $1 per unit net profit, then they have a 2.5% net margin and a $1,000,000 profit. However, if the plant to make them cost (say) $10,000,000 then they have a 10% return on investment, which would likely make them very happy.

    Net Margin != Return on Capital

  122. Such low margins are the norm, not the exception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This I know from first-hand information, as I am doing business with China (living in Hong Kong). The problem China has is the over capacity: the buyers (American buyers are considered worse in that) always demand lower prices, and simply shop around factories who can make their DVD players cheapest. Mind that 90% of the production is OEM production; most factories do not sell their own products, let alone they have their own brand. Those things are separate in China.
    This problem is not only in electronics (where the margins are not even that bad), it is worse in the garment sector. But basically all manufacturing in China suffers under their own enormous capacity. There is so much production capacity, that buyers can shop for who can be cheapest, instead of that they have to source for who has capacity available to make their products. That results in killing competition, rock bottom prices, and also of course underpayment and exploitation of workers. A situation not likely to change. Something to remember when you see "made in China", as it does not only accounts for DVD players.

    Wouter.

  123. This is news? by ca1v1n · · Score: 1

    Repeat after me:

    "The long run economic profit of any perfectly competitive business is zero."

    There. Now that we've reminded ourselves of one of the many reasons that economics is called "the dismal science", the fact that they're making $1 on each unit seems like a good idea for everyone involved.

  124. OT: Your sig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is awsome. Can I use it on another forum? If so, who should I put it as being from (if anybody)?

  125. Labor costs as a percentage of total never go up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Actually about 15 years ago Drucker quoted labour costs as low as 5% for some industries and 15% for car manufacturers, IIRC. And labour costs as a percentage of total never go up.

    Could you post a reference for the claim that non-labor costs as a percentage of total always go up or remain the same? I'll accept a loose definition of "never" = "rarely" as I'm not try to nit pick about rare exceptions.

    It seems to me that materials costs are more likely to drop as suppliers compete with each other and the market gradually selects more efficient suppliers.

    As far as China goes, I'll give the viewpoint of a US citizen living in China. The cost of food, clothing and shelter is about 4-8X lower than it is in the US. Cars and consumer electronics seem to cost maybe 10% more here than in the US (I believe there is a ~20% tariff on imported computer parts, including the TFT's in flat panels).

    My limited exposure to the local software engineers suggests that they live perhaps a bit better than US college students on the ~$6/hour that they make, which I'm told is taxed only around 10%. I think their standard of living might be equivalent to earning $22/hour ($44k/year) in the US. Chinese engineers often own their own cars, but their cars are crappy, and there might be only one car shared between husband and wife, both of whom usually have paying jobs. They seem to buy clothes more often, but they tolerate more synthetic fibers in their wardrobes (someone told me that 70% of all textile production is now in China; don't know it's true). The Chinese engeineers I've met seem to own their share of consumer electronic gadgets, home entertainment and computer hardware, but it's usually what American nerds were playing with 18 months ago, which means that it costs about a third as much. On the other hand, it's a lot more common (and at least 10X cheaper) in China to hire domestic help. So, perhaps US engineers might spend more time doing domestic chores than their Chinese counterparts. I understand that most Chinese white collar workers put some money aside for savings, and do not carry consumer debt, but they do take out bank mortgages to buy homes (there are a lot of nice cheap new condos here), and the banks lend using essentially the same formulas used in the US: 10-20% down, payments should not exceed 30% of salary, etc.

    I hear similar accounts about life in India and some Latin American countries. There are enough differences between any two countries that I doubt one could conclusively prove the reasons for the radical cost differences, but I believe most of the answer is probably that the costs of the minimum wage and litigation in the US is enormous. It is amazing to me how many jobs and businesses exist in China that could not profitably exist in the US because of liability and minimum wage laws, from the street vendors repairing bicycles or selling food on the street to a field of 40+ construction cranes rapidly erecting buildings with what appear to be two or three separate shifts of work crews.

    I'm not saying the China (or any other country) is some kind of Utopia. I read somewhere that the total number of manufacturing jobs in China dropped 15% over the last n years (5 years?), due primarily to automation, and there is a lot of question about the quality of the loans that the banks are making: i.e., if there is a big recession, could there be a debt collapse like in Japan? Also, the last time I checked the Chinese constitution, it gave the cities 4X more voting power in the legislature than the countryside (amended down from 8X a decade or two ago), so it would not surprise me if some money was being funnelled from the 1 billion people in the countryside to the ~150 million people in the cities.

    I feel I should offer some kind of suggestion in conclusion. I guess, if I had my druthers, I'd make two changes to the US economic system: (1) eliminate the minimum wage while adjusting welfare to ensure that it is always more profitable to be underemployed than unemployed, (2) make punitive litigation damanges go to the government, not to the plaintiff.

  126. Not "awesome fo the consumer" by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

    When competition is based solely on price, quality becomes a virtual non-issue. Ever had a stick of RAM (let alone, heaven forbid, a HD) fail 3 months after you bought it? Sure, you might get an exchange at the store (if you bothered to keep the receipt) but your inconvenience and possible lost work means you lost something - because quality is not an issue to the manufacturer, as long as the units function going out the factory door.

    Sadly, "branded" hardware seems to be equally shiatty in a lot of cases, but they have marginally more interest in QA because you'll remember "yeah, my Acme mobo cacked out the night before my big stats project was due, boy Acme sure do suck!"

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  127. Hasn't it always been this way? by snero3 · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't it always been this way.

    What i mean is this, it is normally the one how gets to market first that milks a product for all it is worth (think DVD players 5-6 years ago). The Guys that come late and copy/purchase this idea normally only make profit buy making it cheaply and selling large numbers of the item.

    --
    It said "windows 98 or better" so I installed Linux
  128. POS by Galley_SimRacer · · Score: 1

    Who in the heck buys these cheap POS players? I sure as heck would never own one, or give one as a gift. "Here ya go pal; your friendship doesn't mean enough to me to warrant spending a few more bucks on a name brand player".

    --
    "I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet". Galley
  129. Re:Labor costs as a percentage of total never go u by danila · · Score: 1

    First, intersting post, thx. As for the reference, the last place I read about it was Managing for the Future a collection of articles and essays by Peter Drucker written around 1990.

    Your guess that material costs go down is correct. Despite the increasing shortage of raw materials, prices for most of them went down in the second half of the 20th century. But what happened with wages was different - the amount of direct labour needed per 1$ of output decreased (actually the amount of raw materials used decreased too).

    The rest of the costs are capital and knowledge. Some products, such as Intel processors, are almost 99% capital and knowledge. It's almost completely irrelevant to them what the labour costs are. Car manufacturers, such as Toyota, may have direct labour costs as low as 10% of total. In other indistries it varies, but according to Drucker, overall trend was a decrease.

    Of course, the capital (machines, robots, etc.) had to be produced at some point and direct labour was used there too, but a particular company doesn't need to care about it - and the multiplicator effect ensures that labour can continue to become less relevant (Will Smith would call it using machines to make machines).

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  130. An informative How-To by jarsyl · · Score: 1

    Easy there chief, Methinks you need to read this How-To: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/ index.html

  131. Utter nonsense by annenk38 · · Score: 0

    There are several purposes for this pegging, with the main one -- prevention of capital flight, and plundering of the country by foreign "investors". Chinese government had enough sense not to repeat the mistake of the former Soviet block countries who have turned their entire populations into beggars and prostitutes.