Comment by mdasen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mdasen | Hacker News Reader

I'm not quite sure why it's $300. Apple sells their Apple TV for $100 and it's nearly the same device. The Nexus Q comes with a 25-watt amplifier with traditional audio ports (rather than just optical) and a mute button, but that seems to be the large difference. Oh, and it has color-shifting LEDs that coordinate with the music. Apple TV even has a similar "let your guests vote on the music at a party" app.

The direct connection for speakers is nice, but I guess I feel like it could have been accomplished for under $200 - considering that I can order a 100-watt receiver for under $100.

Granted, Google has put in 1GB of RAM (vs 512MB in the Apple TV) and a dual-core processor (vs. the single-core Apple TV), but does that translate into anything? The Apple TV handles 1080p video (including high profile H.264).

I guess I'm just left wondering why it's costing so much - especially considering that the Nexus 7 has a quad-core processor, 1GB of RAM, a battery, and a screen for $100 less.

While the Apple TV has one processor, it has two GPUs and each GPU is more powerful than the one Google chose (Apple TV uses the SGX543MP2). My guess is that the chip in this and the Apple TV are very similar prices.

The amp has to be a bit of the price, but I don't really get that addition. Like a lot of people, I have a receiver and speakers in my family room. Is this device aimed at people in dorm rooms and studio apartments that don't have dedicated sound systems? That's all I can think of.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't even support Netflix, MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, Hulu or other streaming services that $99 and less devices do (although none support all of those).

For the price of this, a person could buy an iPhone 4S and an Apple TV.

Synchronizing such devices in different rooms across my whole apartment might sound better than turning up the volume on the nice livingroom stereo in an attempt to have it heard three rooms farther. That one is too expensive, but I could imagine littering the apartment with sub-100USD devices.

The integrated 25 watt Class D amplifier wouldn't account for more than $20 of the parts cost. That's about how much it costs to buy one wholesale -- including a case and power supply.

What you're paying for is the ungodly number of parts needed to manufacture a cable squid that will collect dust within a few years. Did you see that video where they "explode" the device?

The Apple TV is cheap because there's probably a total of five screws inside that small black case. It probably takes all of three minutes to assemble one.

I appreciate good industrial design, but the Apple TV -- for all its software limitations -- is far more beautiful because of its simplicity and reserve.

The Nexus Q "cable squid" is cute, but so was the PowerMac G4 Cube ... and look how well that sold.

What you're also paying for is manufacturing jobs here in the US, as that's where it's made.

As an Australian, I must admit that doesn't move me as much as it does you.

(And I wonder how much of the manufacturing is done in the US anyway. Is it just the chassis and final assembly, or does that include all of the components too?)

According to the NY Times, it "contains almost all American-made parts" but "Semiconductor chips are more of a challenge. In some cases, the chips are made in the United States and shipped to Asia to be packaged with other electronic components."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/technology/google-and-othe...

That's adding, what $10 bucks to this devices bill of goods? As was demonstrated with the iEconomy series and Apple manufacturing devices over in China, it's not so much about labor as it is the entire supply line.

This device isn't $299 because it's made in America.

If Google was serious about helping the US economy, they'd pay all of their corporate taxes in America, not Ireland.

maybe they are not Keynesians

If the US was serious about growing the US economy, they'd make US taxes more attractive than Ireland's.

Optical and HDMI make so much more sense for a processor like this. Amps are slow evolving technology, and if you own a huge TV/speakers, you almost certainly own a home theater amp (HDMI or toslink in), or at least a TV which can accept an input to its speakers.

Real audiophiles are going to be pickier about their amps than Google could ever be. This looks like a case of someone saying "let's kill Sonos" and then copying their spec sheet too literally, but not all Sonos devices have integrated amps.

> Optical and HDMI make so much more sense for a processor like this.

It has those, too.

> if you own a huge TV/speakers

Lots of 18-25 year olds don't have huge TVs and these will be great for their parties. Move this and a set of speakers into place and they're ready for the party. Everyone else can use the optical output and still have the flexibility to move it around for special occasions and directly connect to speakers.

For that use case, it seems like it would make more sense to plug the speakers into the computer they already have, or the mini-hifi they likely already have. I'm in the 18-25 range, and I run my computer sound through my $100 stereo system and computer video into my HDTV. With that and a free media center app, I have remote control, great sound, and a big picture when I have a party. If the party is somewhere that doesn't have a computer or TV already set up, there are plenty of speakers that connect directly to a laptop or smartphone that don't cost $750.

Why anyone would spend $300 on a device, then another $450 on speakers and cables for it, just to play music from their $600 smartphone... just boggles the mind.

It seems like your argument is against the existence of the device. I disagree. I think it's a much nicer experience than anything that involves plugging in a desktop computer. Although, I do think it should be priced <= $200. I was simply saying that being able to connect directly to speakers is a nice feature that doesn't come at the expense of anything else.

Amps and power supplies are expensive. That feature is probably responsible for $100 of the $300 price. Maybe more. (the relationship between BOM, assembled cost, and retail price isn't always obvious).

I'd rather have no amp for $50-100, or amp+speakers for $300-400 (in a single portable package).

Volume is already going to be variable based on speakers and speaker placement, so having an outboard power amp wouldn't really hurt the user experience.

My argument is against the idea that 18-25 year olds would be buying this for $750 even if they don't have a large TV or a stereo system. It's significantly more expensive than an HDTV plus a discrete stereo. It's also more expensive than using the computer you already have coupled with Windows Media Center, MythTV, or the solution Apple has. Launching one program then using your bluetooth/IR remote control isn't exactly an inelegant solution.

There's a market for this. The problem is, it's made nearly inconsequential by the $750 price tag for the whole kit.

> My argument is against the idea that 18-25 year olds would be buying this for $750

I agree but it's only $300. As I said before, I think it should be $200.

> Windows Media Center, MythTV [...] using your bluetooth/IR remote control isn't exactly an inelegant solution

I was using MythTV years ago, so I'm not personally disagreeing but the average person would violently disagree.

You can argue for Apple's solution but that's not really my point. My point is that this thing (especially at $200) is a much better solution than anything involving a desktop computer and that directly connecting speakers is a nice feature. Additionally, look at how easy it is to play a/v from your friends' phone or tablet without any setup; it just works and doesn't require any wires.

@rdl: If it really does add $100, I'd be nice to see it as an optional feature but I stand by the utility of the feature.

I agree but it's only $300. As I said before, I think it should be $200

Unless you want the speakers and speaker cables they're selling with it, the speakers are $400 and the cables are $50 for two.

I don't think 25 watts will provide enough sound for a party. I think it would be fine for lounging around a room, but not for a party.

Chips are becoming an insignificant part of the total cost, and, increasingly, the overall experience. Nexus Q is made with die cast zinc, has moving parts, and weighs 2 lbs. The Nexus 7 is plastic, has no moving parts, and weighs 0.75 lb.

A consumer will probably replace the Nexus tablet every 1-3 years. A Nexus Q will probably be used much longer. It needs to be more durable. I'm still using my 30 year old Yamaha YST-C10, one of the best audio devices ever made.

Likewise, the materials in an Apple Macbook or an old-school Thinkpad make those laptops a lot more expensive to manufacture than a typical plastic laptop.

Yeah, this seems quite overpriced to me, although I like the concept of integration. The built-in amplifier is a complete waste of time, though. I have professional powered speakers in my studio space and a nice amp for the TV/surround speakers. Who has speakers but no amplifier? Just give me a clean line out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com