Did *Glassholes over pay?



  • download (1).jpg
    http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-glass-teardown-puts-total-value-of-parts-at-less-than-80/#!HgvWp

    Lets see.....$80 worth of parts, sell it for $1500 limited time in US = PROFIT 👍



  • i saw google refuted this but has yet to give an exact price



  • Cost of parts does not denote anything. The cost of parts in a Monet is very low. The assembly, design, etc are where the money is.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    Cost of parts does not denote anything. The cost of parts in a Monet is very low. The assembly, design, etc are where the money is.

    I would still contend that somewhere along the line someone is over charging. How can a 7" tablet cost less than this and have more parts? I give it a year or two tops and these will start to fall in price dramatically as more companies create their own HUD eyewear.



  • @Bill-Kindle said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    Cost of parts does not denote anything. The cost of parts in a Monet is very low. The assembly, design, etc are where the money is.

    I would still contend that somewhere along the line someone is over charging. How can a 7" tablet cost less than this and have more parts? I give it a year or two tops and these will start to fall in price dramatically as more companies create their own HUD eyewear.

    It's called development cost. Cost of parts is irrelevant.



  • I'm sure their price point was designed to limit it only to people who really really wanted to try it out, and would provide feedback. They only want to make so many of the prototypes, and they don't want to hand them out like candy to people who'll try them once and throw it in a drawer. The cost of parts and development is irrelevant, especially to Google.



  • Both what @scottalanmiller and @Nic said a bit of development, and a bit of limited nature. The development part is the part that's really jacking up the price. You're talking years of experiments, years of failed attempts, and years of trying new things. That cost them MILLIONS of dollars, they'll have to recoup that cost somehow, and it'll be reflected in the price of the product.

    Can't base purchase price off of cost of materials, if that were true we'd never pay more than $0.05 for a new video game.



  • I'm not denying that development costs aren't playing a role in it. I can see @Nic 's point about keeping the cost higher to weed out people, that makes sense to me.


Log in to reply