Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!concertina!fiddler
From: fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Why 68000?
Message-ID: <132074@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 20 Feb 90 20:39:42 GMT
References: <1990Feb11.154304.19943@smsc.sony.com> <10090004@hpsad.HP.COM> <1990Feb13.044454.23665@smsc.sony.com>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Lines: 22

In article <1990Feb13.044454.23665@smsc.sony.com>, dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) writes:
> 
> I figured that a 68000 costs $10-$20, so even with your 3-4X figure,
> the 68030 is not costly enough to make it out of the question for a
> low-cost Mac.  Even $100 a chip is worth it for the added
> functionality.

Suppose the machine used a $100 CPU instead of the $10 one it uses...

That $90 differential translates to something more like $360 increase
in finished product to the buyer.  We just ignored the added cost of
any other circuitry/components/casework/etc of the upgraded machine.

The old number used to be something like 4-5x cost of manufacture for
cost of product.  (That was some years ago, but I doubt if Apple's
been trimming things much since then.)  They have to pay for other
things than raw manufacturing costs...and you can bet they do.

------------
"...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise
anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear
and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..."   Plato, _Phaedrus_