Hacker News Reader

Comment by pif | Hacker News Reader

> What really drives quality up is a big, hardass customer.

You forgot the part where the customer is ready to pay the money for quality.

In my experience, the majority of customers are willing to pay for quality, but unable to distinguish high and low quality, so they buy cheap.

If they are ready to pay, then they can buy a sample of both and spend some time testing the products.

If it is the bean counters who choose, then they are buying cheap for the sake of cheap.

Perhaps we do need to define what it means to "pay." For low volume products, what you suggest could multiply the per-unit cost by a large integer factor, when what most buyers want is to pay 10-20% more for a supplier that will spend maybe 1-5% more buying quality parts and doing proper in-house QA.

There are plenty of cases where adding an extra "9" to the end will significantly increase the costs, but there is also a lot of low-hanging fruit that stays low-hanging because so much purchasing is low-information.

Hence why the original comment you replied to requires a "big, hardass, customer." Small customers often cant amortize the NRE across enough products to determine quality, so even if they are willing to pay 2x on a part for it to be better, they don't know if they are getting something of higher quality or just something with a higher markup.

Years ago I remember a Freakonomics podcast episode that delved into the hostility public and private policy makers had to running experiments. It mainly comes down to not wanting to bear the downside risk of an experiment having unfavorable or economically useless results. While if they just don’t know and no else does there is no consequence for doing the status quo even if the results are poor.

In this specific case, my working hypothesis is that the overwhelming majority (if not all) of my choices are of equally mediocre quality, so spending a lot of money to test this is a waste of money.

The "big hardass customer" buys enough product to have a reasonable expectation of effecting change in the suppliers, so running both the experiments suggested by GP, and performing post-mortem analysis of failed components can be expected to steadily improve quality over time.

This is something Apple have absolutely perfected in their marketing. They're able to get the activation energy such that people need the new Mac whereas they probably wouldn't be so relaxed spending extra money on (say) expensive shoes versus merely the shoe equivalent of a nice but artless Dell laptop.

Sounds like Sam Vimes' Boots Theory[0].

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-r...

You forgot the part where the customer have already paid for working parts.

Only if he actually paid for working parts. He who buys cheap, he deserves cheap.

If I buy a part, I'm paying for a working part.

If I buy a million parts, I'm probably paying for an acceptable (to me) failure rate, which is probably negotiated as part of the contract. He who buys cheap, buys a higher failure rate.

Most people are happy paying moderate prices for 99.9% reliability. Very few people are willing to pay extreme prices for 99.99999% reliability.

When the cost of the electronics is a tiny fraction of the overall product the equation is different. Automotive is a perfect example where spending extra on a few key components is a worthwhile investment if that can increase the reliability of the entire vehicle.

Actually, 1000dppm (99.9% defective parts per million) is not acceptable except for hobbyists. Typical commercial manufacturing requires <100dpppm due to the number of components and cost of returns. This can be met quite reasonably with statistical sampling and process controls. Every single IC gets tested, it's just a question of how thoroughly and whether the control limits are set well. You need to do R&R studies, but the infrastructure/procedures are usually available to approach 6sigma (even if it's a bit hokey).

Where this is going a bit nuts is that that it's hard to make 100 gold contacts last for 1000 compression cycles at 1 dppm (better than 6 sigma!). That requires a lot of excess maintenance on the test infrastructure! That will be expensive... and your assembly connectors/SMT is likely orders of magnitude higher defect rate than 10dppb so it won't improve final assembly performance.

Also, I think you need another 9 on that 99.99999% to hit 10ppb and realistically 2, if you want to have an acceptable yield rate, and 3 on the test equipment since they are used 10k times every day.

> > Most people are happy paying moderate prices for 99.9% reliability. Very few people are willing to pay extreme prices for 99.99999% reliability.

> Actually, 1000dppm (99.9% defective parts per million) is not acceptable except for hobbyists.

Exactly: There are many more hobbyists than manufacturers, so most people are content to pay lower prices for lower reliability.

If the unit that has to be replaced is large enough, as it is for cars, it pays to get the component reliability up. Failure of IC can mean replacement of dashboard or power train.

I'm confused. Is the issue that the parts are out of spec or that the auto makers want to up the spec?

Not-working parts are out of spec (kind of by definition).

Not true. Every supplier worth it's salt will provide you with quality details as part of the product spec (and cost and schedules/volume). 100% is rarely the expectation.

It appears you're conflating the parametric/functional spec of a product with the statistical spec of a process in manufacturing said product at volume.

You forget the part where "quality" is a statistical factor. You can only assess the quality after you bought the product. And the producer wants to make a profit first. Most steps to get a quality product are expensive (testing). That's why they want zero defects. Every failed part on production line is money lost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com