[NSRCA-discussion] Futaba Receiver Question

[Lisa & Larry]

I work in the electronics manufacturing industry and have dealt with costing
/ pricing issues similar to these.

 

Based on what I read in the link, it sounds like there was a component
change due to unavailability of an original spec'd out part. A scenario
could be that due to the component manufacture discontinuing a part thus
having to find a drop in replacement or actually respinning (designing) a
new PCB. More often than not the price will be higher because of the supply
/ demand issue. I actually had a VP of OPS for a chip manufacturer tell me
they doubled the price because the market would pay it. My customer at the
time was IBM and I arranged a nice meeting for the supplier to explain his
pricing strategy (being that IBM told us we had to buy the part from them).
Once IBM told them no problem, that IBM will flag the supplier and design
all there components out, they reconsidered. Don't think there are any IBM
power houses to influence the suppliers of our products so we are at the
mercy of the OEM's we buy stuff from. 

 

The worst case scenario about 5 to 7 years ago there was actually a
capacitor type (Tantalum) that demand grew faster than capacity creating a
shortage about the time cell phones and other cool device were starting to
boom. It took a 25 cent part and drove the price up over 10x. Not too bad on
the surface, but couple it with a PCB that uses 25 of them and now we need
to adjust the price to keep an acceptable profit margin.

 

RAM memory is another good example as the price seems to be volatile.
Sometimes a great deal and others your paying through the nose.

 

So Tony's guess is probably on target if we are talking material. I would
doubt that the actual assembly processing cost has increased.

 

Larry Diamond

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Tony
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:16 PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Futaba Receiver Question

 

Don't know about the price issue. I presume that it just cost more to
produce the new one, but that is a wild guess.  

 

Tony Stillman, President

Radio South, Inc.

139 Altama Connector, Box 322

Brunswick, GA  31525

1-800-962-7802

tony at radiosouthrc.com

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:59 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Futaba Receiver Question

 

I sent the following to Tony Stillman:

 

"Tony - I have looked at the Futaba R607FS and R617FS receivers "six ways to
Sunday" and can't tell what the difference is between them. They are the
same size and weight, both are 7-channel 2.4 GHz receivers and both have the
same pin orientation, but they have a different price on the Tower Hobbies
website. So, what's the difference? I suspect one of the pictures on the
Tower Hobbies website is the wrong one and that one receiver is a "top
loading" one, while the other is an "end loading" one."

 

Here was his response:

 

"http://2.4gigahertz.com/faq/faq-fasst-q926.html

 

The above should answer your question.

 

I went to the url and it said, under Frequently Asked Questions:

 

"I have noticed a new R617FS receiver offered with the 7C 2.4GHz radio on
your website. Is there something wrong with the R607FS that we should know
about?

 

There is nothing wrong with the R607FS, it is a dependable and reliable
receiver.

There was a component supplier change for some parts, and Futaba renumbered
the R607FS to the R617FS for their reference. These receivers are
essentially identical."

OK, I can understand that, but why are they not the same price?  

I assume the 617 is the newer one and they will replace the 607 with the 617
in their module/receiver package when they run out of 607s.

 

Ron Van Putte

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080104/2e039684/attachment.html