3 ms·

I would think that the "need to pay multiple talented service engineers to be available to fly in on a moment's notice" is reduced when you are talking about a

I would think that the "need to pay multiple talented service engineers to be available to fly in on a moment's notice" is reduced when you are talking about a $500k capital expense sitting idle vs $5M. If you are willing to risk let it sit a few days then you can spread the technician cost among a larger pool.

COGlory 3y ago
While that's true, it'd be exacerbated by a few things (in theory): 1) These instruments would still need to generate income to cover service costs. 2) Income generated per microscope would be reduced because of increased competition lowering beam time prices dramatically, so downtime is still very bad for microscope facilities. 3) More microscopes spread out over a wider geographical area means more service engineers needed (something I've experienced first-hand being in a state with only 3 microscopes, Thermo has been entirely unwilling to place a service engineer here because they can't cover the costs with just 3 microscopes, despite making probably ~1 million/year in service contracts). In general, I think reduced costs and increased accessibility are a very good thing, but when VPRs go to do the math on these, I think they still don't make a lot of sense.
dekhn 3y ago
Never, ever be surprised by the ability of people with large amounts of money to buy expensive toys (err, tools) and then go cheap on all the supporting infrastructure. Like, $1M on a scope, which then runs at about 1/10th capacity because the network is too slow to drain the SSD. I call this the "You bought a Ferrari to drive on 101 at 10MPH when you really needed a fleet of trucks" problem
- ethbr1 3y ago
  I thought it was the "our university/lab wanted to put out a press release that we just spent $xx on cutting edge equipment, to prove how advanced we are" problem.
s0rce 3y ago
Generally most instrument vendors scale the service contract with the cost of the instrument, often around (very roughly) 10% of list price per year. So in a sense a cheaper instrument gets cheaper service. I'm not sure if you'll be sitting down longer (that often depends on how annoying or important you are) or just that parts are going to be cheaper and fewer things that can break. Some stuff is very reliable and you never really get your monies worth from the service contract and some stuff (like electron microscopes) break often.

COGlory 3y ago

While that's true, it'd be exacerbated by a few things (in theory): 1) These instruments would still need to generate income to cover service costs. 2) Income generated per microscope would be reduced because of increased competition lowering beam time prices dramatically, so downtime is still very bad for microscope facilities. 3) More microscopes spread out over a wider geographical area means more service engineers needed (something I've experienced first-hand being in a state with only 3 microscopes, Thermo has been entirely unwilling to place a service engineer here because they can't cover the costs with just 3 microscopes, despite making probably ~1 million/year in service contracts). In general, I think reduced costs and increased accessibility are a very good thing, but when VPRs go to do the math on these, I think they still don't make a lot of sense.

dekhn 3y ago

Never, ever be surprised by the ability of people with large amounts of money to buy expensive toys (err, tools) and then go cheap on all the supporting infrastructure. Like, $1M on a scope, which then runs at about 1/10th capacity because the network is too slow to drain the SSD. I call this the "You bought a Ferrari to drive on 101 at 10MPH when you really needed a fleet of trucks" problem

ethbr1 3y ago
I thought it was the "our university/lab wanted to put out a press release that we just spent $xx on cutting edge equipment, to prove how advanced we are" problem.

s0rce 3y ago

Generally most instrument vendors scale the service contract with the cost of the instrument, often around (very roughly) 10% of list price per year. So in a sense a cheaper instrument gets cheaper service. I'm not sure if you'll be sitting down longer (that often depends on how annoying or important you are) or just that parts are going to be cheaper and fewer things that can break. Some stuff is very reliable and you never really get your monies worth from the service contract and some stuff (like electron microscopes) break often.