4 ms·
It could be there were many parts made and many of them fail QC. Not to mention a part like this probably has to recoup all of its R&D and overhead costs from i
by daedrdev 2y ago
It could be there were many parts made and many of them fail QC. Not to mention a part like this probably has to recoup all of its R&D and overhead costs from its sale because it was likely made by a supplier to Honeywell, not "substantially subsidized the R&D efforts" like you said.
- compiler-guy 2y agoThey also are amortizing the cost of all that r&d over less than 5k units. All the tooling too.
- x0x0 2y agoThis would be my guess. I worked on microscopes sold to wet labs. When you have limited production runs, the fixed costs, that most of us ignore in saas, become very large on a per-piece basis. Even on 6 figure instruments, to take one that I spent 18 months on, approximately $55k per instrument sold was recovering R&D costs ($20k software, hardware the rest).
- Den_VR 2y agoWhile Airbus is almost famous for its “improper subsidies” through Launch Aid, I’d probably focus on just how GE was subsidized in the development of the CF6 engine family through technology transfers, military “system development and demonstration” programs, and layered tax incentive programs from city to federal levels. Airbus, GE, and Honeywell all have benefited from government subsidies. Many others have as well. But if it’s not “substantially subsidized the R&D efforts” like I said, I guess I’m corrected.
- daedrdev 2y agoA part like this is almost certainty made by a supplier to one of those companies, who does not benefit from government subsidies. Developing the part, tooling, factory, and personnel for an extremely high quality, low part count run is very expensive.