Lets presume this thing retails at - very unrealistic low price - of $500.
How many people would buy this weird thing per month - even at this low price point?
10? 50? 100?
Imagine you're an engineer and your competency is worth $200,000/year.
If this retailed at 1/10th - as you suggested - so $500, and lets generously say you make $100usd per unit at this price point.
You have to atleast sell ~166 of these "weird" niche things per month, every month, no exceptions to match. And you're probably not a single person, so way more.
Can you? And why bother?
More importantly, can you even make these things for $400usd when your order quantity is only 166units per month?
And this is after spending years(?) in development, and some non negligible amount of cap ex.
maybe a society which has laws and regulations voted by citizens (anarchy for example) commercial products shouldn't profit over 700% or some absurdity which caps the 5000 usd number... it's not like velocity sensible keys are expensive or overly complex to produce
micro-tonal instruments are prevalent in various cultures which weren't flooded by Europe and then North America by hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. it's pretty easy to find examples on countries inside Africa and Asia
Where are you getting your numbers - profit over 700%?
If so I want in!
Unless you know how many units they sell per month, and what are their expenses exactly, and how many people are employed, and amortized cap ex and R&D cost, you're just making shit up on the spot.
Lets say this thing moves two units per month, and each brings $4000 in pure profit (costs per unit $1000). If company has one employee. Now you've made $96000/yr.
Which is way less than a single competent engineer or entrepreneur in US is worth. Ie. they are losing money.
This is fundamental quality of very low-volume, very niche products. They are almost never priced anywhere near their bill-of-materials cost.
> micro-tonal instruments are prevalent in various cultures which weren't flooded by Europe and then North America by hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. it's pretty easy to find examples on countries inside Africa and Asia
> maybe a society which has laws and regulations voted by citizens (anarchy for example) commercial products shouldn't profit over 700% or some absurdity which caps the 5000 usd number
No problemo. The consequence of that law is you'll simply not get those products on the market because there's not enough profit to justify someone spending the time to make them.
See also: Rent control, minimum wage, price control (e.g. maximum price of gasoline during a shortage).
> it's not like velocity sensible keys are expensive or overly complex to produce
Oh, my sweet summer child; music instrument keys are mechanically not the same thing as a computer keyboard. There are moving parts involved that need to handle routine forces that easily break a normal computer keyboard. 𝆑𝆑𝆑 calls for your whole arm and torso.
I have an FP-10 keyboard 3 feet from me that requires that to generate a midi message with a velocity of 255 at the lowest sensitivity setting, and not much less than that at the middle-low setting. If I hit my computer keyboard as hard as I played it an hour ago, keycaps would have gone flying.
If China government kickstarted their EV sector (along many others) and enabled them to be competitive, strong and dominating.
That means the Chinese government is doing a really good job.
I really hate this argument where every government across the globe have to basically be a drag which sucks the life out of an economy and wastes extracted resources (taxes) on bullshit instead of putting them to good use.
This is what winning looks like fellas, and you're just losing. Get used to it as there's only going to be more of this.
Difference between $1 and $.10 is always irrelevant unless you're mass manufacturing, which I presume you aren't on a remote island.
Plus, arm cortex-m0+ cores aren't $1, they are also available in $.15-$.30 range.
Westeners like to buy the $.10 CH32V003 as an exercise in minimalism, after all its refreshing to work in an environment with very limited resources. For the same reason people enjoy 1KB demoscene categories.
There's no economics behind it.
Authors argument almost entirely leans on Aliexpress shipping things for "free" to his island. It also has arm cores, but I suppose RISC-V MCUs have smaller odds of being fakes/clones.
> When ordering from AliExpress or Crowd Supply he just gets the cheap postal rates which from China are free.
China has amazing prices for genuine electronics components from every manufacturer. Including stm32, NXP as well as local arm32 licensees gd32,hk32,XHSC. From which you can buy Cortex-M0+ down to 10-20cents per piece.
Literally anything you can buy in the West, you get for fraction of the price in China, even in small volumes.
If you live in the third world you wouldn't even think about ordering from "western parts supplier", everything is expensive and overpriced and selection is shit (compared to China).
> US monopoly money has value mainly because of petro dollar.
A currency’s value reflects confidence in the economy issuing it. The dollar is backed implicitly by the size, productivity, and stability of the US economy.
No, the currency has value only in as so far as you can buy stuff you need with it.
Lets say you're Germany, US imports make up only 6.9% of total import value(Netherlands is 7.1% and China 12.5% on top) closely followed by Poland with 5.9%.
Take most countries in Europe, US imports are a rather small very modest portion.
So it doesn't make that much sense that US dollar would be particularly valuable.
After all - you really don't actually even buy that much stuff from US, thus the need for the US dollar isn't particularly large, and why would it be?
On the other hand, if you want to buy oil however, you need the dollar.
That is what makes the dollar valuable.
Now if you can buy oil from Iran, Russia or whatever in some other currencies, why would you need the stinking dollar?
I mean, you do import some US goods, but not that much really.
Why would you have confidence in an economy that regularly has insane trade deficit (1 trillion now)?
Once the petrodollar goes, thing will go tits up. And it will, because there's only 60years of oil left in the global oil reserves in the tank.
I once thought that this would be true, but wars are fought with oil burning machinery. And so countries with oil will always be able to play bully. A country with strong access to oil also has the most important resource in war. Batteries are simply less dense energy storage.
I wish we were at the level where some doofus has red too many "Gang of Four" "Design Patterns OOP" bullshit books and gone to town. Because that would be way better than what we have now.
Whenever I run a thing and it's unbearabily super duper slow, when you look at the process lists the thing will have spawned bunch of chromium instances - on top of probably making bunch of internet connections. Delegating some of the work that can easily done on my PC to "cloud" instead.
What we have now is way worse - it's electron and webshit technologies on desktop. Like you couldn't make software of worse quality even if you tried. The performance way worse than PCs of 1990s. It's almost like using software that's running from a floppy disk.
And now this trash is probably getting generated with LLMs.
> Thanks to heavy subsidization of the industry by Chinese government to gain an competitive advantage.
You can't have a functional government that serves the interests of it's people and enables the country to dominate increasingly more sectors!
It's basically cheating!
The government has to be dysfunctional, and should only collect disproportionate taxes with the idea that they'd be wasted extremely inefficiently.... on god knows what, some bullshit, some "social programmes" and "culture" and the dumbest things imaginable - whatever they might be, but not anything that's actually ... you know good for the country!
Man, every time where there's a Chinese product category you realistically can't compete with - it's always some excuse of - because Chinese state is subsidizing it and supporting it.
All it does is simply makes the Chinese government sound good and competent.
Oh, nice, a government that does good things that lead to good outcomes! How unusual, how unexpected!
That's basically cheating!
We can't realistically have our government be useful and competent and serve our interests, so there's no way we can compete!
It's an interesting comparison. In China they prop up businesses with cheap loans and help from local governments, in the US it's the VCs. So when Uber was subsidized then everything was ok, but when China state propped up EVs then suddenly it's not ok. These subsidies in the majority of cases are over btw, because competition was too big in China between carmakers, cars in China are ridiculously cheap. Because that's their strategy, you fund a lot of players, like there were 100+ EV makers in China, then you let the market do its job, they optimize or they die, some will die and the best will prevail. Margins are so low in China that they are looking at outside markets where legacy carmakers need to drop the margins and scale up or they will have no chance in competing.
And for the argument that they do it to kill the industry so then they can make cars for more price, the most obvious counterargument is why they didn't do it for everything else that they dominate already? Why are solar panels going down? They dominate the world in solar panels, there is basically no competition and prices are still going down, same with batteries.
Capitalism and free markets failed to deliver, lots of cope around that mental model. If it was superior, it would’ve succeeded. China is 1/3rd of global manufacturing capacity, and it shows. Play to win.
It was the market that delivered BYD and Xiaomi. The government did his part with industrial policy and inviting Tesla to China to help start the ecosystem, but the brutal competition between Chinese auto makers following the rules of capitalism and free-market made those who survive the ones that can compete with other global companies. Before that they just subsidised and all they got were regional "champions" that siphoned out the funds and created shitty products no one wanted.
After Tesla came with special laws allowing it to work without Chinese co-ownership, but with a mandate to source from Chinese suppliers, this created the ecosystem needed for the next iteration, by the capitalist urge of Elon to get into the market and by free-market economy of suppliers to Tesla that are up to the standards to supply it.
The government set up the battlefield, and let the free-maket filter the strongest to survive.
In the Western countries the government and regulations are frequently the bane of the car companies. Good luck opening a mine or a battery factory in Germany, regulation, unions, green mandates, 36 hr. week. You can't fight with 1 leg tied.
This narrative overweights free market competition in China and any influence Tesla or Musk might have had versus the $230B in subsides provided to the Chinese EV industry over 14 years (2009-2023), with over ~$1.5B provided to CATL alone (although Tesla did receive ~$17B in total government subsidies in the US). Tesla did not begin production in China until October 2019.
If there’s any hero story here, its the will of the CCP to provide this level of support and subsidy to the Chinese battery and EV industries as part of their five year plans. This is why China can build ~20M EVs per year, Europe ~4.6M, and the US can build ~2-3M.
I understand this deeply challenges the ideas and belief systems around the cult of personality of risk taking entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship being something more than a series of successful calculated risks and bets.
> When it comes to China’s electric vehicles (EV) industry, its market has expanded exponentially compared to other markets. Now, a new study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has revealed that China’s EV industry received at least $230.8 billion in government support between 2009 and 2023.
> As a result, this major investment has played a pivotal role in China’s rapid progress to become the world’s largest EV market, with sales anticipated to reach 10 million units in 2024.
Yes, there was investment, but investment without free markets and capitalism doesn't work usually for end products like cars. It's not a linear function of the capital invested, it's not possible to spend your way into good consumer products. That's not infrastructure. That's why I was mentioning that before Tesla came that investment didn't lead to any strong EV automotive players. In 2016 there was a big scandal on widespread EV fraud, where manufacturers just built to get the subsidy(骗补).
The policy shift came around 2017 when the government understood that subsidies and closed market created lazy automakers (e.g. check the US market for the same dynamic in trucks). In 2018 they removed subsidies for cars less than 150km of range and changed the requirements to receive them tying them to battery density.
After Tesla came and subsidies were reduced, most of the inefficient companies went bankrupt. It was the free-market competition that killed them. The reason why it changes was the competition not the subsidy. The subsidy was somewhat important, but as many of us knows, nothing government run produces good consumer products, you need market and free choice to get productivity. So it was the free-market and subsidy cutting that created the BYD, Li Auto, Xpeng and Nio. That's the proof that without free market it's impossible to have strong companies. And without subsidies you can have strong companies, even if it takes more time.
In EU and USA subsidies didn't create a lot (Northvolt?), because there were not enough free-market driven demand and too much regulation to jumpstart the free-market forces that will start the engine of innovation.
So the answer is not "capitalism and free-market doesn't work and governmental industrial policy is the answer", but it's the market that creates the strong companies. You can speed it up with venture/government capital, but without the brutal competition in the marketplace where people vote with their wallets you won't make it work.
To what end though? If you want financial freedom, and you’re smart, you’re likely to be much better off just working in big tech vs trying and almost certainly failing to successfully found a company.
Of course some people win the lottery, but playing the lottery isn’t a sound strategy for a good life.
How many people would buy this weird thing per month - even at this low price point? 10? 50? 100?
Imagine you're an engineer and your competency is worth $200,000/year. If this retailed at 1/10th - as you suggested - so $500, and lets generously say you make $100usd per unit at this price point.
You have to atleast sell ~166 of these "weird" niche things per month, every month, no exceptions to match. And you're probably not a single person, so way more.
Can you? And why bother?
More importantly, can you even make these things for $400usd when your order quantity is only 166units per month?
And this is after spending years(?) in development, and some non negligible amount of cap ex.
reply