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."
And all so that some trailer trash lady can get trampled for an Apex DVD player the day after Thanksgiving...
i knew i should have waited 10 years instead of getting that $300 dvd player!
...since they sell their hardware at a loss. (Granted, they get money from the service subscription.) Microsoft loses billions of dollars on the XBox, to sell games. This is common, and will be getting moreso. It won't be long before hardware is essentially free, and the software/services you buy are where the money is generated.
Find out about the Lexus Rx400h Hybrid!
You play to the strengths of the manufacturing of each country, take out the middleman, and we no longer have to pay inflated costs for everything.
Kind of wierd to think that it's cheaper to get something made and shipped halfway around the world than it is next door, but if it makes a dollar go farther in this economy I'm all for it.
Fair is defined as a level playing field. If we are playing a game of soccer, and your team cheats, the match was not fair. If no one cheats, it is a fair match. It is not required that our teams like each other: it's quite possible to play a fair match against someone you absolutely despise.
Fair competition is the same. If a government is heavily subsidizing a company, that's not fair competition. If a group of companies is colluding to drive a competitor out of business, that's not fair competition. If lots of people are making the same thing, thereby driving down prices, that's fair competition.
What you seem to be looking for is no competition, wherein either a government or cartel sets prices, rather than the market. That has nothing to do with fair competition, and is really about the exact opposite.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
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
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.