edma194 wrote
They produce Shopsmiths! Where the parts were made never mattered if they were made to a good spec. Can he save any money at the current low volume? I don't know. Almost everything can now be made at the lowest cost by a specialty producer with modern machinery that minimizes costs and can perform customization at low volumes. Not everything is made that way though and it only works if you want the kind of parts those machines can make. Working that out is the kind of engineering work that lies ahead for Nick.
You are arguing it is a good thing for Shopsmith to do less manufacturing in Dayton, so there will be some manufacturing jobs lost there - has to be. You believe they will manufacture more outside of Shopsmith and bring those parts in presumably to assemble or maybe only box it up together to ship it out. So manufacturing is reduced in Dayton, fewer heads are needed, less maintenance with those darn manufacturing machines as you indicated. I believe Scott brought up CNC manufacturing on the interview and I believe Saint Nick mentioned something along the lines that would not be their path, at least not for a loong time. So, cast assemblies can be shopped around and milled components can also be shopped around to get it produced outside for perhaps cheaper. I would argue, in the end, it wouldn't be better (cheaper) unless Shopsmith's existing infrastructure is so bloated that they are ineffective at manufacturing. In fact, on more than one occasion I have heard Scott praise them with how much they have produced with so little in that manufacturing facility. Kudos. So, I still don't see how outsourcing manufacturing, what you are suggesting, is going to help them. I really don't know though, just speculating on this part.
Which part has you confused? I would personally pay for insurance for a product with poor reliability and longevity, not for reliable long lasting products. I don't want to stay prepared to shell out 1400 bucks is smoke starts coming out of a headstock. Were you asking about a service contract on the whole machine for commercial users? Businesses want a known cost for the lifetime of a machine they purchase.
Obviously the company needs to take in more than it spends on service contracts, that how all insurance works. And that's how many companies now offset the low margins and high costs of producing their products, and the high quality support services we want them to have. Like anything else it has to priced attractively and provide the service and support customers want.
Ideally I choose never to buy a product with poor reliability and longevity, but obviously that is not always the case/possible. The only place I choose to spend on service contracts are areas where the asset has substantial value and perhaps an accident can happen. Only few that meet these criteria for me are house, car and iPhone. Everything else in my world is either fixable by me or chosen to be a disposable, i.e. replaceable if/when it bites the dust. It is a cost benefit (ROI) calculation for me. What are the chances said product will die prematurely before I received a certain useful life out of it and can part with the $$$ to replace it down the road? So, given my criteria, I will give you this one. A PP1 or PP2 cost boo koo bucks and has we call it some quirks, so yes you are right.
A service contract is probably the only reasonable solution to this problem, even though I don't like it. You are right. By the way, you have reminded me yet again
why I still don't own a PowerPro. ;)
