4 ms·
A 2% improvement that only costs 2% more to manufacture, sure. A 2% improvement that costs 200% more to manufacture would be nonsensical to seriously propose.
by MichaelZuo 1y ago
A 2% improvement that only costs 2% more to manufacture, sure.
A 2% improvement that costs 200% more to manufacture would be nonsensical to seriously propose.
- XorNot 1y agoYou cannot possibly know that without knowing the operational lifetime of a plane and it's expected return. An airline doesn't buy a plane planning to break even on the purchase cost, for example. Which basically proves my original point.
- MichaelZuo 1y agoDo you not understand what the word manufacture means? It literally doesn’t matter what the “operational lifetime” or “expected return” is if it costs 200% more to manufacture for only 2% improvements. It won’t ever get far enough in the design process for it to even be an issue.
- XorNot 1y agoSetting aside that you pulled that number out of your ass to argue against it, if something produces 400X it's purchase cost over it's operational life time, a 2% improvement takes that to 408X it's purchase cost for only a 2X increase in initial outlay, meaning it pays for itself 4 fold. But very few innovations have that sort of effect on manufacturing cost to start with.
- MichaelZuo 1y agoThis doesn’t make sense as a reply. How is your own opinion, on another user’s example number, even relevant enough to be “setting aside” in the first place?