5 Replies
Last post:
Jul 25, 2006 7:45 AM by
d00d
Quote:<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.
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 />
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.
- PCW Network
- MacUser
- Mac OS X Hints
- iPhone Central
- PC World
- PCW Business Center
- About Macworld
- Advertise
- Macworld Expo
- MacMania
- Terms of Service Agreement
- Privacy Policy
© Jive Software


