PDA

View Full Version : Why is Transporter Soooooo $Expensive$ ?



LovelyFLAC
2007-06-16, 19:53
Let me start off by saying I love my squeezebox. It does nearly everything I wanted it to do, and functions flawlessly.

That being said, what I really wanted was a transporter. Wait... I wanted a device that could slide in easily with my other gear (amp, changer, etc) in my entertainment center.

I am posting this becuase I think SlimDevices is missing a huge sweet spot in the market for folks like me that are looking for a standard size ~16" wide audio device. And, we don't really care if it has super-high quality professional grade outputs and hardware. Standard optical/coaxial digital outs will do, its just going in my entertainment center.

Don't get me wrong I am glad SlimDevices has "Cadillac" of media streamers available, but I am looking for a nice "Chevy". :) I think you could really post some sales if you put out an "entry-grade" transporter which would basically be a squeezebox in a larger case with maybe a bigger display. Slap a $300-$500 price tag and I'd buy one for sure.

crooner
2007-06-16, 21:23
Something like this?

Total parts cost for my Super SB machine was close to $700. And if I were to market this, I'm sure the price would be $1000 or more...

tyler_durden
2007-06-16, 23:41
It is so expensive mostly because of the two displays, the fancy control (with the knob), and the large metal case. Some of the rest of the electronics are better than the SB3, but the additional voltage regulators don't really add much to the cost compared to the things listed above. Small electronic parts are cheap.

TD

peter
2007-06-17, 02:10
tyler_durden wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the
> results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36178
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Question: How low would the Transporter price have to go for you to buy
> one?
>
> - < $300
> - $300 - $500
> - $500 - $800
> - $800 - $1000
> - $1200 - $1500
> - $1500 - $1800
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is so expensive mostly because of the two displays, the fancy control
> (with the knob), and the large metal case. Some of the rest of the
> electronics are better than the SB3, but the additional voltage
> regulators don't really add much to the cost compared to the things
> listed above. Small electronic parts are cheap.
>

Seems like someone could manufacture a rack-size case you could slide
the SB3 into for $200 and make a profit...

Regards,
Peter

amcluesent
2007-06-17, 05:54
I work on a 6 times markup on material costs to retail price. Who can tell, on this basis, whether the Transporter is gouging? Thne again, if 'audiophiles' will pay top $$ for cryogenic dipped directional cable, maybe they deserve to get ripped off?

Mark Lanctot
2007-06-17, 06:39
Actually for its target market, the Transporter is considered on the low end of price.

McIntosh just introduced a similar device (well, it has its own hard drive and server installed) for $6000.

The Transporter is built to a price aimed for its target market - $2K says it's intended to be a serious audio component.

mvalera
2007-06-17, 12:17
In the world of audiophile equipment, apparently the Transporter is priced on the low end, not the high end.

Here's a quote from the Stereophile review (http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/207slim/):


Yes, the Transporter does cost $1999, a not-inconsiderable sum. However, I suspect that we have to thank our lucky stars that Slim Devices comes from the world of computers, where folks squeeze pennies until Lincoln yelps in order to preserve market share—if the company was from the high-end audio sector, there'd be a three or a four at the beginning of that price, if not an extra zero at the end. Two grand seems a fair price for what Slim Devices delivers.

Everything we put in the transporter is of the highest quality. But it's more then the sum of it's parts. Take a look at the measurements (http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/207slim/index4.html) from the review, because in the end that's what you're paying for, not just the DAC, the displays, or the case.

The Transporter just flat out delivers.

Mike

Patrick Dixon
2007-06-17, 12:24
Take a look at the measurements from the review, because in the end that's what you're paying for, not just the DAC, the displays, or the case.

Hopefully, you are paying for the sound (rather than the measurements) - 'cos that's really what 'Hi-Fi' is all about.

ceejay
2007-06-17, 13:27
Q: Why do Slim charge $2000?

A: Because they can.

And no, I'm not being cynical, or bitter, or twisted, this is how markets work - once you get away from commoditised items, the cost price has little to do with the sale price except to set a minimum value.

If you know of a similar item selling for, say $1500, then there's a case for asking for the price to come down.

So should they introduce an intermediate product? Well, my guess is that they will sooner or later - but more likely later, why cannibalise $2000 sales when they are there to be had?

IMHO.

Ceejay

mvalera
2007-06-17, 14:30
Hopefully, you are paying for the sound (rather than the measurements) - 'cos that's really what 'Hi-Fi' is all about.

If you read the article, you will see that the sound and the measurements are interrelated.

Mike

haunyack
2007-06-17, 14:40
"Sean Adams is obviously an immensely talented designer, but Slim also has a fanatical community"

This much is true.

.

Ian_F
2007-06-17, 16:20
I think LovelyFLAC's main point is _not_ that the Transporter is overpriced, since we all agree it's not. Many people here have spent as much, if not more, on interconnects! I think their point is "wouldn't it be nice if Logitech also did the current Squeezebox in a standard ~16 inch enclosure"

The current Squeezebox is perfect for a lot of situations, such as on top of a speaker or on a nice slim shelf. But there are some people that would prefer to include it as part of their "stack" and have it match their existing equipment. Currently the only way to achieve this is to buy a Transporter, and for non-audiophiles that’s just not gonna happen.

I do not know of any other manufacturer that sells a piece of equipment in a variety of enclosures so you’d certainly be doing something no one else does! So why not offer the SB3 in two flavours - asis and in a Transporter-sized enclosure keeping all the innards the same for both? Perhaps beef up the wireless antennas in the latter for those people that need the extra range? I really don't think you'd lose Transporter sales since you're targeting two different markets; the audiophiles and the "style conscious" ;)

stinkingpig
2007-06-17, 20:18
I'm not going to buy one at any price. I don't have a stack of audio equipment for it to slot into, and my hearing isn't good enough to tell the difference between a Transporter and a Squeezebox (yes, I have heard both).

I have Squeezeboxes in the rooms where I want music, with better or cheaper (but always small) powered speakers attached. They're clocks, weather stations, and sound machines.