Google's controversial Internet-linked Glass eye-wear was made available in the US at $1,500 to the general public for a limited period as a part of the company's Google Explorer programme in April.
Notably, if the whopping $1,500 (90,300INR) price tag of Google Glass is compared to the bill estimate of the materials used (which Teardown.com claims is $79.78 ) it works out to just a bit more than 5 percent of the retail price of the Glass.
Some of the price estimates detailed by Teardown.com for the Google Glass include, display/ touchscreen and glass costs of $3; battery costs of $1.14; camera costs of $5.66; NAND (storage) costs of $8.18; processor costs of $13.96, and SDRAM costs of $4.68, among others.
It's worth noting that in the past year, we have seen quite a few teardowns of this connected wearable device from Google, but none has detailed the price of the materials used for Glass.
To be noted of course is that a bill of materials is usually far less than the cumulative costs required to develop a product, from R&D to talent, especially one in a new product category - like Google Glass.
Google in no time responded to Teardown.com's material cost estimate and called it "absolutely wrong". Wall Street Journal quoted a Google spokesman who however declined to comment further.
Some of the price estimates detailed by Teardown.com for the Google Glass include, display/ touchscreen and glass costs of $3; battery costs of $1.14; camera costs of $5.66; NAND (storage) costs of $8.18; processor costs of $13.96, and SDRAM costs of $4.68, among others.
It's worth noting that in the past year, we have seen quite a few teardowns of this connected wearable device from Google, but none has detailed the price of the materials used for Glass.
To be noted of course is that a bill of materials is usually far less than the cumulative costs required to develop a product, from R&D to talent, especially one in a new product category - like Google Glass.
Google in no time responded to Teardown.com's material cost estimate and called it "absolutely wrong". Wall Street Journal quoted a Google spokesman who however declined to comment further.
0 comments:
Post a Comment