Quantcast
You are not logged in, click here to log in.
5 Replies Last post: Jul 25, 2006 7:45 AM by d00d  
Click to view MW Forums's profile New Member 12,220 posts since
Aug 2, 2004
Reply

Jul 24, 2006 5:40 AM

Trans offers triple interface portable drive

Trans Intl. is offering a new external triple-interface portable drive in capacities up to 160GB. more
Reply
Click to view Nobody's profile New Member 58,347 posts since
Oct 18, 2007
1. Jul 24, 2006 2:08 PM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Trans offers triple interface portable drive
It is amazing how expensive these 2.5-inch drives are. You can get a faster 3.5-inch 400GB hard disk for just $200 insted!
Click to view d00d's profile Macworld Editorial 12,140 posts since
Apr 24, 2001
2. Jul 24, 2006 2:32 PM in response to: Nobody
Re: Trans offers triple interface portable drive
2.5" drives have always been significantly more expensive. This is really surprising to you?
Click to view Nobody's profile New Member 58,347 posts since
Oct 18, 2007
3. Jul 24, 2006 6:56 PM in response to: d00d
Re: Trans offers triple interface portable drive
Yes: larger drives means more material, more travel cost and now these things are made by robots, so the manufacturing cost should be lower for smaller ones. Besides, 2.5 vs 3.5 is not that much difference in size... And, as said, 3.5-inch drives are more robust and faster.
Click to view macnuke's profile Old Hand 6,812 posts since
Mar 5, 2004
4. Jul 24, 2006 6:59 PM in response to: Nobody
Re: Trans offers triple interface portable drive
and many more 3.5's.
lower demand = higher manufacturing cost.

but i really like that it's FW800 as well. nice to see it being supported.

btw,,, that adds to cost also. 400 is cheaper to make.
Click to view d00d's profile Macworld Editorial 12,140 posts since
Apr 24, 2001
5. Jul 25, 2006 7:45 AM in response to: Nobody
Re: Trans offers triple interface portable drive
Quote:<hr />
Yes: larger drives means more material, more travel cost and now these things are made by robots, so the manufacturing cost should be lower for smaller ones. Besides, 2.5 vs 3.5 is not that much difference in size... And, as said, 3.5-inch drives are more robust and faster.

<hr />
The materials costs is negligible, to the point of complete non-point. The robot argument works for both products, so that's not the differential ether. It's not just 2.5 vs. 3.5, there's also the height of the drive.

2.5" drives have smaller components which have a higher manufacturing failure rate. They need higher density platters (one because of the decreased diameter and two because it can't use as many platters). Finally, they need to be ruggedized in ways that 3.5" drives don't have to be, adding yet more cost.

Add to that increased demand and it's not the least bit surprising or hard to understand why they cost more. Reducing cost through manufacturing techniques is a red herring, particularly when comparing to the price of other products.