This is a good list. Let me add one to it. I manufacture products in China and I consistently see new designs for injection molded parts where the designer has unrealistic expectations for the tolerances that can be achieved on molded parts. While the tolerance we can achieve will change proportionally with the size of the injection molded part, don't design parts that rely on precisions of 0.01mm. Hard to do this unless you are Apple.
I am fresh out of college. I work for a very big OEM and make drawings for plastic parts. i have no clue of the tolerances which suppliers are capable of holding. how does one learn that? I usually tolerance based on our objectives and source a supplier who says yes.
Hey - this is a long shot, but hoping to connect over possibly moving PCB fabrication, assembly, and test over to Asia from the US. Let me know if it'd be Ok to chat. If not, that's cool too.
I remember coming across this some time ago on HN and being really interested by the white plastic bit. It clicks into place Apple's ability to set itself apart visually during the white earbuds era of iPod advertisements. PCs were black and gray and beige, Apple was a shining white.
And no one else could mimic their style, since it was just too difficult.
This makes me think of Peter O'Toole wearing that shining white ... garb in the middle of "Lawrence of Arabia" in defiance of all the filth in the desert.
Lean did it because he could and because it reinforced the messianic oveure into which the character had fallen. And because it looked amazing in all that light. It still does. The failed theater at which I first saw this on posters kept that image for ten years or more.
But understood in the context of all that history, we gain that Lawrence was the agent of so much destruction. Destruction that we barely understand now.
So I hope all that gleaming white was worth it. Because I'd hate to think of the price we paid to get away from putty color.
The earbuds (and the translucent iMac that predates it) aren't the best example of "no one else could mimic their style".
When the first iPod came out in 2001, Apple wasn't the behemoth it is now; its market cap was around $7 billion (http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Apple_(AAPL)/Data/Market_Capi...). At that time, many companies could have paid as much attention to design as Apple did.
I'd rather go back to what came before Apple: Next cubes. They were sleek, black cubes with better usability and performance than many competitors. Xbox also did great-looking, black boxes. So, one can still differentiate with a good form of black.
I ranted a bit on this as well on Hackaday http://wp.me/pk3lN-PBv . Apple and Foxconn just have an unimaginable amount of capital. However, I don't think hardware designers should despair. There are many ways to design things, and constraint is the mother of innovation. As the author mentions, it's entirely possible to make products just as appealing with a fraction of the cost.
Great post. I don't normally read Hackaday because I can't stand white-on-black text (there's a reason nobody else does that anymore) but your post and your earlier one from March 7 were well worth it.
> What happened when Apple wanted to CNC machine a million MacBook bodies a year? They bought 10k CNC machines to do it.
CNC milling scales linearly. If you want to make 1k things per year, you can probably do it with one CNC machine. I know a startup that's using CNC-milled enclosures and that's probably the single easiest part of their production.
Sure, startups won't buy 10k CNC machines, but they won't need them either.
It's not just Apple vs startups. Large customers like Apple or Samsung have big advantages over smaller phone manufacturers.
Apple can always call Foxconn and tell them that they want even this barely visible detail fixed. Foxconn comes up with number for changes in the manufacturing processes ($10 million for better tooling for example) and it's done. Small manufacturers who have low margins can't justify similar attention to detail.
Or look at phones vs. other appliances that are made for smaller markets. Garmin is the dominant incumbent in portable GPS devices and even their handsets feel like garage-made prototypes compared to even the worst phone, despite being exactly the same technology except for the backlight diffuser film.
> CNC machining is fantastic for prototypes [but] it is not for consumer devices. Figure out a way to cast your metal parts.
Why is that?
I'm trying to build a better quick release plate for DSLR cameras, compatible with Manfrotto tripods but that lets you do a couple of other things (like attach a hand strap to it directly).
I had prototypes made in China with CNC machining, and they are of a very good quality (superb, even, it seems to me).
For production, injection molding is of a reasonnable price but the result would not be the same quality (plastic is a poor choice for this).
Die casting is too expensive for the volume, given it's really a niche product.
So I was thinking of doing short runs with CNC: what' wrong with that option?
There's nothing wrong with CNC for that type of product, and it is necessary as well. Many of the higher-end products in that market use nearly 100% CNC, whereas lower-end mix casting and CNC.
I'm not sure the quoted statement is fully correct, CNC and Casting are processes and each have advantages as well as capabilities the other cannot easily replicate. (Try casting threaded holes -- there are ways to add threading to a casting process, but it's not the same.)
I think the original quote intended to convey the following idea, instead of never CNC: if you have a high-volume product, while CNC machining can effectively handle shaping operations, casting will be less expensive for shaping in the long run, leaving CNC to more difficult to cast operations and final product fit.
In the camera market, there are tons of companies selling equipment in thousands and tens of thousands of units that are fully-CNC'ed and no casting. (See Kessler, Dynamic Perception, CamBLOCK, etc.)
The problem is people build a little widget that would happily fit in a box from Hammond, but they would rather have it customised at great expense and it eats into their profit. CNC is pretty time inefficient and expensive when you get to very large volumes.
The major advantage of CNC though is that if you mess up the first time, you haven't ruined an entire batch. You just send the new model to the company. With molding or die casting, fuckups can easily cost tens of thousands.
If your margin can absorb the cost of CNC - and for photography it's probably a marketing feature - go for it. Plenty of companies sell CNC machined housing simply because they can say it's CNC'd and people go "ooooh".
Have you looked at Really Right Stuff and Kirk Enterprises, they are machining the parts you are making, basically a sick release plate. But they are now ubiquitous enough that I would hate to see yet another quick release style. Never been a fan of the large ManFrotto/Bogen style. Take a look at the two aforementioned, I think they take a cue from Arca/Swiss, and are some of the nicest designs in quick releases that I have seen.
Well, the truth is that very few companies can manufacture like Apple does. Between the obsession with design, details, and having the resources to have the manufacturers create entire new production processes just for them. And often, the companies who do the above are usually not consumer facing.
"Unless you’re a billionaire genius, your product will have noticeable ejector pin marks. A good CM knows how to hide these well. Nearly zero CMs hide them as well as Apple does."
It's pretty interesting to think that quality can actually go up as volume increases. This seems to run counter to general perception that small/hand batches can be of incredibly high quality and once it goes to mass production quality goes lower.
We've never really seen production at Apple/Samsung's scale before and I wonder if this quality curve is something that is all that well understood.
Take a look at the Toyota Production System. A large part of the reason they won (at least temporarily) was that they forced all their suppliers and factories to produce high quality parts.
Then take a look at Six Sigma.
Small batches can be made by experts and thoroughly inspected; but it is prohibitively expensive to scale up artisans and inspections, both in complexity and quantity.
This is not surprising. Cobbled together prototypes and first runs are usually not pretty. It's like the first pancake or waffle, usually not quite right. A machine will certainly be quicker and more consistent once setup correctly.
Perhaps there are artisan niches where a machine cannot do the work, and a human slaves over the minute details, but those are usually luxury items.
When you manufacture at the scale Apple does, you can justify more expensive tooling as the cost gets distributed over many more parts. It isn't that you can't do the high quality at low quantity, just that the fixed costs make it infeasible.
Abstracted code often leads to less efficient performance. With large volume, every bit of optimization matters, and Apple has that money to squash the last bit out of it.
I bought a Hand ground coffee grinder last year. It's a Kickstarter project and we should actually have received the grinder last year some time, but in the spirit of Kickstarter I'm patient.
I think the challenges they've had are similar to what is touched upon in this article.
They've had a ton of clearance and molding issues, and dozens of design prototypes and mismatching parts. To add to the difficulties, the coffee grinder has moving parts that take a lot of stress, as opposed to just a box with a circuit board inside.
Posts like that are why I come to HN. Even if my field of expertise have absolutely nothing to do with manufacturing, its nice to read about problems and solutions of huge industry explained in simple and clean language.
A while ago Andrew 'bunnie' Huang (Remember chumby?) gave a talk on hardware manufacturing in linuxconf-AU. Could not find a link but it covered a lot - why you cant do it like apple or samsung. His book is out now!
Yes, but Apple still has significant say in how its products are made. In many cases they use their own production engineers to figure out the best way to make things. In other cases, they set insanely hard specifications and use their massive buying power to entice their partners to figure it out.
Source: I've worked with ex-Apple engineers at a company that mostly used Apple's hardware processes.
[+] [-] bobjordan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] louprado|9 years ago|reply
Design for Manufacturing Course 5: Injection Molding - DragonInnovation.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx5_gO9LTf8
After watching it I decided to use commodity enclosures with custom milling and avoid injection molding for now.
[+] [-] nameisu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dwolb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tgb|9 years ago|reply
And no one else could mimic their style, since it was just too difficult.
[+] [-] ArkyBeagle|9 years ago|reply
Lean did it because he could and because it reinforced the messianic oveure into which the character had fallen. And because it looked amazing in all that light. It still does. The failed theater at which I first saw this on posters kept that image for ten years or more.
But understood in the context of all that history, we gain that Lawrence was the agent of so much destruction. Destruction that we barely understand now.
So I hope all that gleaming white was worth it. Because I'd hate to think of the price we paid to get away from putty color.
[+] [-] Someone|9 years ago|reply
When the first iPod came out in 2001, Apple wasn't the behemoth it is now; its market cap was around $7 billion (http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Apple_(AAPL)/Data/Market_Capi...). At that time, many companies could have paid as much attention to design as Apple did.
[+] [-] bootload|9 years ago|reply
The magic of Apple isn't their design, it's the ability to re-create and distribute good design cheaper than Braun. [0]
[0] https://twitter.com/HannuRytkonen/status/731511690911711232
[+] [-] kelukelugames|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickpsecurity|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbierwagen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dammitcoetzee|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CamperBob42|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amluto|9 years ago|reply
> What happened when Apple wanted to CNC machine a million MacBook bodies a year? They bought 10k CNC machines to do it.
CNC milling scales linearly. If you want to make 1k things per year, you can probably do it with one CNC machine. I know a startup that's using CNC-milled enclosures and that's probably the single easiest part of their production.
Sure, startups won't buy 10k CNC machines, but they won't need them either.
[+] [-] Animats|9 years ago|reply
It's hard to believe that Apple needed one CNC machine for every 100 (was 10, oops) MacBooks. The MacBook isn't that expensive.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob-RBntcZc8
[+] [-] Nokinside|9 years ago|reply
Apple can always call Foxconn and tell them that they want even this barely visible detail fixed. Foxconn comes up with number for changes in the manufacturing processes ($10 million for better tooling for example) and it's done. Small manufacturers who have low margins can't justify similar attention to detail.
[+] [-] usrusr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bambax|9 years ago|reply
Why is that?
I'm trying to build a better quick release plate for DSLR cameras, compatible with Manfrotto tripods but that lets you do a couple of other things (like attach a hand strap to it directly).
I had prototypes made in China with CNC machining, and they are of a very good quality (superb, even, it seems to me).
For production, injection molding is of a reasonnable price but the result would not be the same quality (plastic is a poor choice for this).
Die casting is too expensive for the volume, given it's really a niche product.
So I was thinking of doing short runs with CNC: what' wrong with that option?
[+] [-] drone|9 years ago|reply
I'm not sure the quoted statement is fully correct, CNC and Casting are processes and each have advantages as well as capabilities the other cannot easily replicate. (Try casting threaded holes -- there are ways to add threading to a casting process, but it's not the same.)
I think the original quote intended to convey the following idea, instead of never CNC: if you have a high-volume product, while CNC machining can effectively handle shaping operations, casting will be less expensive for shaping in the long run, leaving CNC to more difficult to cast operations and final product fit.
In the camera market, there are tons of companies selling equipment in thousands and tens of thousands of units that are fully-CNC'ed and no casting. (See Kessler, Dynamic Perception, CamBLOCK, etc.)
[+] [-] joshvm|9 years ago|reply
The major advantage of CNC though is that if you mess up the first time, you haven't ruined an entire batch. You just send the new model to the company. With molding or die casting, fuckups can easily cost tens of thousands.
If your margin can absorb the cost of CNC - and for photography it's probably a marketing feature - go for it. Plenty of companies sell CNC machined housing simply because they can say it's CNC'd and people go "ooooh".
[+] [-] biturd|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgnelson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fauria|9 years ago|reply
"Unless you’re a billionaire genius, your product will have noticeable ejector pin marks. A good CM knows how to hide these well. Nearly zero CMs hide them as well as Apple does."
[+] [-] FigBug|9 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_manufacturer
[+] [-] dvtv75|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] magicseth|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bane|9 years ago|reply
We've never really seen production at Apple/Samsung's scale before and I wonder if this quality curve is something that is all that well understood.
[+] [-] csours|9 years ago|reply
Then take a look at Six Sigma.
Small batches can be made by experts and thoroughly inspected; but it is prohibitively expensive to scale up artisans and inspections, both in complexity and quantity.
[+] [-] Klinky|9 years ago|reply
Perhaps there are artisan niches where a machine cannot do the work, and a human slaves over the minute details, but those are usually luxury items.
[+] [-] starky|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eva1984|9 years ago|reply
Abstracted code often leads to less efficient performance. With large volume, every bit of optimization matters, and Apple has that money to squash the last bit out of it.
[+] [-] sgt|9 years ago|reply
I think the challenges they've had are similar to what is touched upon in this article.
They've had a ton of clearance and molding issues, and dozens of design prototypes and mismatching parts. To add to the difficulties, the coffee grinder has moving parts that take a lot of stress, as opposed to just a box with a circuit board inside.
* http://handground.com/
[+] [-] funkyy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makenova|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amk_|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whyagaindavid|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ArtDev|9 years ago|reply
A small startup can't just get Samsung and Foxconn to build their parts. This is true.
[+] [-] blackguardx|9 years ago|reply
Source: I've worked with ex-Apple engineers at a company that mostly used Apple's hardware processes.
[+] [-] mcphage|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] AceJohnny2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bootload|9 years ago|reply