[Arm-netbook] pricing on eoma68 cards

[luke.leighton]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Jean-Luc Aufranc
<cnxsoft at cnx-software.com> wrote:
>
> On Monday, April 15, 2013 06:30 PM, luke.leighton wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Roman Mamedov <rm at romanrm.ru> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:06:25 +0100
>> "luke.leighton" <luke.leighton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > http://www.cnx-software.com/2012/12/18/rhombus-tech-eoma-68-cpu-card-prototype/
>> >
>> > jean-luc, i've only just spotted this, doing a google search.  the
>> > very first line states "we, rhombus tech, a for-profit company, will
>> > be going out of business by being a charity and giving away product at
>> > at least a $30 loss".
>>
>> Well I for one can say that I am not confused by this.
>>
>
> Based on what was written in 2011 (BoM cost targets were set depending on
> quantities, and the expected $15 BoM cost was for 100k pieces), I don't
> think it's inaccurate,

 it is - the BOM is around $30 to $32, and it's not what i said.  you
can't knock 50% off a BOM even at 100k pricing levels.  actually, i
believe you're right: the $15 BOM for that tablet product was for 100k
pricing levels.

> let alone misleading,

 it is - because it's not what i said, and people are further
mis-interpreting a mis-interpreted *BOM* guide for a completely
*different* type of product as the actual *retail price* of ours.  we
got flooded with enquiries "please sell me one A10 EOMA-68 cpu module
@ $15 thank you my address is in india".

 so i can tell you - absolute fact - that the mis-reporting which
didn't come out of my mouth but came from everyone else *has* resulted
in people being mis-led.

>  but I've crossed out this part anyway.

 thanks jean-luc.

l.