First, I apologize for the confusion, I+D wasn't translated to English: R&D. What you wrote about perfume and juice are not unit "cost", but "price". Maybe "c

First, I apologize for the confusion, I+D wasn't translated to English: R&D. What you wrote about perfume and juice are not unit "cost", but "price". Maybe "cost" has a precise definition in Economics that I'm not aware of, but "price" is definitely not right in this context either. In my example, I can't see how the bottle and the box are not costs. For me (maybe not correct, but that's what I meant anyway) "cost" is any expense that you incur to put the product in the hands of the final buyer. And cost per unit is total expenses divided by number of units. Feel free to use other words instead of "cost" and "cost per unit" that fit in these definitions. Let me clarify the original question so it makes more sense. Thirty years ago computers had a single processor. Then they started to make multiprocessor and multicore CPUs. Now it seems that miniaturization is reaching its hard limits so they're wondering how to increase computing power. One of the logical solutions is to put more processors in the same computer, not in the same chip or waffle (so defect rate is irrelevant here), but more like a "cluster in a box". I guess that would bring a number of problems like heat, but this kind of power doesn't seem the kind you want in your pocket. So my question was: would this make economic sense? If "cost per unit" is rigid, it wouldn't. If it's driven by market or R&D, it might make sense.