Al Smith wrote:
> I may have missed it earlier, but it is your opinion that
> money had a lot / a little / nothing to do with the design?

A lot. What else is there (in modern business thinking)?

> Cost of repair was not a consideration?

Having worked in the industry for 7 years, I believe that the primary
driver for designs is intial cost to the mfgr., whether in the form of
parts cost or assembly labor. *IF* it can be determined that making
repairs easier and cheaper will help the mfgr.'s bottom line (i.e., if
the buying public becomes painfully aware of the extra cost of ownership
due to a poor design), then that may influence the design. In
MBA-think, if it hurts the customer or costs the customer money, but the
customer never recognizes that to the point of affecting buying
decisions, then there is no value added in making the design better. No
matter how it's sugar coated, in reality, the term "value-added" means
"it improves our profits". IOW, if it is an improvement (for the
consumer), but doesn't ultimately help the bottom line, then it isn't
"value added" (in MBA-think).

Possibly if it is considered to be a high rate of warranty repair item,
then that might be factored in too. But I believe in this case, the
prime motivator was total initial cost to the mfgr. IMO...

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---