Hacker News Reader

Comment by x0x0 | Hacker News Reader

this is another teardown with a similar conclusion

https://blog.bolt.io/heres-why-juicero-s-press-is-so-expensi...

I love how Bolt.io tore down a pair of Beats headphones and came to the opposite conclusion -- that they were a ripoff and that the components inside in no way justified the pricetag.

But, take a look at the quality of the internals of Juicero vs. Beats headphones and realize that one of the companies is worth $1.5B while the other is shutting down.

I think you mean "so", not "but" :)

That "Beats" teardown was with a counterfeit pair of headphones.

Even so, I don't think a large difference between the BOM and the price the consumer pays is necessarily a ripoff. There's more to a product than simply how much it costs to manufacture.

The counterfeit pair probably had a more reasonable frequency response than the genuine product it was trying to imitate, so much for Beat's famous distorted bass.

> Even so, I don't think a large difference between the BOM and the price the consumer pays is necessarily a ripoff.

Actually, in some jurisdictions, if that difference goes over 12.5% of the paid price, and the customer is not specifically informed about this (and about potential cheaper competitors), the contract is not valid.

I've not heard of that before. Where is this?

Germany used to have laws similar to this for centuries (also in terms of a limit of how high interest could be, and a general profit limit, see "Wucher"), but many parts of these rules have been removed over the decades and centuries.

Holy crap. That's the kind of thing I expect from undergrads who don't know what COTS stands for.

Like how do you convince yourself that this is a sane design for something more than a prototype? Using more off the shelf stuff might result a little more weight and a higher overall part count but the cost savings would be huge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com