In my opinion, dropping the concept of a unique and quirky portable self-contained device and externalising a significant portion of the user interface into a device controlled by Apple would be absolutely anti-strategic for TE and would seriously dilute the brand. I hate the iPad idea, and i’m very sure it won’t happen. There are lots of companies already following this “me too” path. TE are leaders and not followers. Long may it continue.
CB
^
I think that's just them looking for someone to fix or build op-1's.Pay an engineer to build OP-1s? It seems like it is more fit-for-manufacturing design, probably to avoid issues like the delay in manufacturing for the POs. My wife’s company is growing rapidly and hitting the same issue. Producing large volumes requires careful planning of manufacturability.
I happen to be a mechanical engineer, and this is correct. A much cheaper (by the hour) technician can handle assembly.
I specialize in mechanical design (not all ME’s do design), and I always emphasis DFM - design for manufacturability. Most lay people (non-engineers) have only an inkling of what it takes to create a really good design, that is not only functional, doesn’t break, but is also MANUFACTURABLE. I often tell my colleagues (other engineers) I work with - "Any idiot can design something, but only a good engineer can design something that works, lasts, and is manufacturable."
I sometimes do a little freelance consulting in my local area (western
USA) and local inventors bring half-baked ideas to me and I turn it into
something that can be made in volume.
Add on top of this “Make it beautiful.” and you are now at a new level (Apple territory). Most engineers don’t care about beauty. Their attitude is “that’s the industrial designer’s job, not mine”. I like to think I have some industrial designer in me. I did lots of art work in high school.
At my current day job, I am often called upon to design, or redesign a
product already designed by other engineers, that don’t really know what
they are doing. I mean, I use their design as a basis for creating something
that is can be manufactured in high volumes. I sometimes even get to design it be better
looking.
IMHO, TE creates stuff that they market test first. This means that its really hard to guess what direction they will go next, because they let the market decide if a product is thumbs up or down. One thing I have observed: They have the OP-1, which we could say is high end, though not as high as full blown work station/keyboards. Then they have the PO series, which is definitely low-end. They don’t have anything in the middle. But, they also don’t have anything in really high end, above the OP-1. But, it also seems like the OP-1 is their flagship product, or their core product. IMHO the PO series do a couple of things for TE: They help gain the company popularity by giving people a cheap way to experience a TE product. This helps drive sales for their more expensive product. The second thing the PO series do is give TE a “Bread and butter” product - something that pays the bills because it sells in high volume. This keeps the bills paid and gives them a smoother monthly sales volume so they can predict revenue better and budget for high CAPEX projects. Engineers cost a lot too, and you have to either pay them during slow times or lay them off (and risk them not coming back).
I’m also surprised that the silicone case for the PO series are as expensive as they are. I happen to be a tool designer as well. (This means I design molds which are tools used to make plastic parts, not that I design wrenches or drills or something). Generally, they should be able to make a product for about 1/4 of the retail price. Molding silicone does require a high initial CAPEX, which is the cost of the mold itself, but in this case, I don’t think it should cost more than 25K, and that’s a high estimate. The idea is to amortize the tool cost over each part you mold and sell. But, I haven’t looked at a PO case closely. Are the buttons separate? If so, are they molded in 2 shots (like older Hewlett Packard calculator buttons)? That can add a lot to the cost.
Also, I don’t know what it costs to manufacture stuff in Sweden, but I have some engineer friends from Switzerland (one still goes back to work there regularly), and I can ask. Maybe costs are higher in Sweden than the USA. I know that there are much higher barriers to entry for starting a business in the EU than the USA, and that only adds to cost.
In my opinion, dropping the concept of a unique and quirky portable self-contained device and externalising a significant portion of the user interface into a device controlled by another company would be absolutely anti-strategic for TE and would seriously dilute the brand. I hate the idea, and i'm very sure it won't happen. There are lots of companies already following this "me too" path. TE are leaders and not followers. Long may it continue.CB
I agree with this. TE does not seem interested in making another Maschine or Midi controller even if it works with the iPad. TE seems much more interested in making self-contained devices. If they wanted to make an iPad product, the easiest and quickest way to enter that market is to just make an app first. No physical product. So far, they don’t seem interested.
I can understand why. If they went this route, with or without hardware, they would lose control over their own product, and be subject to Apple’s whims. I’ve been looking at going into business myself. I rejected the idea of creating apps for these same reasons. Also, I recently acquired data that shows that most app businesses don’t make very much money, because they are so many app businesses out there - mostly just developers that create apps, hoping to hit the "app lottery"
A hardware device that connects to the iPad would almost be just another “me too” product. So far TE seems to make only original products.
But, I haven't looked at a PO case closely. Are the buttons separate? If so, are they molded in 2 shots (like older Hewlett Packard calculator buttons)? That can add a lot to the cost.
It seems to me that PO cases are built in more than one step:
The white symbols are NOT painted and the green button, as all other buttons, is seamlesly molded to the case.
Ok, that looks like a pre-mold then over-mold. This means they have multiple tools. At least 2 to mold all the symbols first, then a third tool for the over mold. They might pre-mold tool molds all the symbols at once, if they are connected and are the same color. The green one would have to be molded separately, because its a different color. Once the symbols are popped from their mold, they have to hand-place them into the over mold tool to mold the second shot - the black case itself. Very laborious for high production (more cost).
So, this explains a lot to me as to why the case is expensive. My inital estimate of $25k for the tool assumed 1 shot. Now that I know its multiple shots, tool costs go way up from $25k.
They need multiple tools and several steps (shots) to make it. Their CM (contract manufacturer) probably charges them a lot per unit, due to the requirements to hand place a lot of very small parts into the over mold tool, and if you add that to their initial CAPEX, it explains why the cases cost so much retail.
Contrast this with doing it the less expensive way: Mold the silicone case in a single shot tool, all at once, all the same color. Many of the cheap silicone cell phone cases are made this way. Only 1 tool required. Nothing is hand-placed. Just close the mold, inject, cool, and eject. Grab the part (or let it fall out if horizontal molding), and close the mold for the next shot. This is a more typical injection molding scenario.
Also, are the battery retention features of the case molded as part of the case, or are they separate? If they are molded as a feature of the same part, the tool would require slides, again adding a lot of cost.
@Prototyper1 The battery covers are seamlessly molded to the case as well. The case adjusts perfectly to the board, pots and display. I wonder how they achieved this. Is it through tool prototyping or CAD design?
Generally the process is to create a “virtual” prototype in 3D CAD. We would model the PCB with all of its components, such as the jacks, buttons (with their housings), LCD, etc. Everything must be in the model, and it must be very accurate. All of these parts are put together into an assembly file, and would appear identical to reality when you look at the screen. See examples below.
We would then model the case around the PCB in CAD. The 3D model
may be created based on hand sketches, artist renderings, a physical
model made of foam, clay or whatever. It may be just created on the
engineer’s whim (I do this a lot), or working with an industrial
designer, or the the project lead, or whoever is in charge of the overall look of the product.
Sometimes a prototype molding tool is created. Sometimes companies go straight to the production tool and no prototype tool is made. Prototype tools are expensive, and production tools are even more expensive, so some companies elect to skip the prototype tool, and just base their decision on the 3D model.
An alternative is to 3D print the design that is to be approved. With silicone, its not currently possible to print it. However, a rough approximation made of non-flexible print media (plastic) could be printed, just to get an idea of what it looks like in reality, and get an idea as to the size.
If going straight from 3D CAD to molded parts, the company must rely on the experience of the part designer and the tool designer to get it right the first time. Small adjustments can be made to the tool once its fabricated, but these can be costly and time consuming, as it requires setting up in the CNC again.
Example of a molded silicone product. First, the 3D model in CAD (Solidworks screen grab):
Photo of the real product after manufacturing:
TE made 3D models of the PO series available for CAD users, probably for the contest to design a case for it.
If I wanted to, I could use this model to design a case around it, in 3D CAD.
Here are some screen grabs:
@Protoyper1 , given your expertise and enthusiasm for speaking about mechanical design, I was wondering if you’d be interested in talking about the OP-1 (if you have it) a bit. It’s such a broad subject, but, for example, addressing the exceptional and disappointing aspects of the OP-1’s mechanical design. If you choose to do so, may I suggest doing it in a new thread? I think some people here, like myself, having great affection for design, would enjoy learning.
^ +1 for @Prototyper1 talking about CNC machined aviation grade aluminium! 
I’d be happy to talk about it. I can only offer opinions. I wasn’t part of the TE design team, and so I can only guess at to why things were done a certain way. There are always compromises in design, be it due to cost, conflicting requirements, etc.
I know a lot about aluminium (or “aluminum” in the USA).
and a little about CNC.
I’m not sure what to pick for a subject for the thread. If you want to start it and post some initial questions, then I will find it and post replies if I have an opinion.
I know a lot about aluminium (or "aluminum" in the USA).
All those Apple keynotes viewed and I still don’t know (as an American) what Jonathan Ives is saying every time he says that word.
I’m not sure what to pick for a subject for the thread. If you want to start it and post some initial questions, then I will find it and post replies if I have an opinion.
we still measure things with our feet. we are genius!
LOL
At my day job, we use the metric system for parts dimensions and our engineering drawings. But we recently used to dual dimension everything (imperial/metric on the same drawing). Now that we have removed imperial units from drawings, our machine shops (contract vendors) are complaining, and we are driving them crazy. They still prefer furlongs per fortnight.
@Protoyper1 , I started the thread here: http://operator-1.com/index.php?p=/discussion/1374/op-1-super-serious-design-discussion-with-super-serious-people
Yea - +1 to see a couple of prototype designs from @Prototyper1 …
CB