[DUG] Google Phone

[Jolyon Smith]

Smaller is obviously cheaper, in terms of materials but also because "small"
usually comes as the result of higher integration within the component
parts, reducing the number of components, which in turn increases
reliability and reduces servicing/maintenance costs.  VLSI has perhaps been
the single greatest contribution to the commoditization of electronics.

 

My father at one time worked for Motorola Semiconductor.  The "One Chip"
(landline) phone in the 1980's was a hugely significant breakthrough in the
development, and cost, of that technology.

 

(this is a generalization of course - smaller certainly does not always
equate to cheaper.  I simply think that you have the balance reversed. it
*is* more often cheaper than not.  If it weren't, manufacturers simply
wouldn't bother pursuing it as aggressively as they do).

 

 

From: delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz] On
Behalf Of Gary T. Benner
Sent: Monday, 18 January 2010 11:57 a.m.
To: leighw at softtech.co.nz
Cc: delphi at delphi.org.nz
Subject: Re: [DUG] Google Phone

 

[Reply] 

HI all, 

At 11:16 on 18/01/2010 Leigh wrote 

>These phones sells more than a net book which is around NZ$500. I would
consider these phones another rip off. 

Smaller does not imply less ... or cheaper to build ... more often than not
more expensive. 

cheers 

Gary



Gary Benner MNZCS ITCP

  _____  


 <http://www.semantic.co.nz> Semantic Limited - Online Education,
e-Commerce, Software Development & Systems Design

 <http://www.123.net.nz> 123 Internet Limited - Managed Web Hosting,
Virtualisation, High Availability Systems & Cluster Technologies

Mob: 021 966 992

DDI: +64 7 543 1206

Email: gary at benner.co.nz

Skype: garybenner



Ref#: 41006

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.123.net.nz/pipermail/delphi/attachments/20100118/360d4e81/attachment.html