Why are 10 channel radios so expensive?
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Destin, FL
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are 10 channel radios so expensive?
If we look at the incremental cost to go up from 5 channels per increased channel up to to about 9 channels on a radio, why is the incremental price to go from 8 or 9 channels to 10 (or 12) such a quantum leap?
I don't want to open the controversy as to which radio manufacturer does what, but there certainly appears to be a big jump when considering the majors.
Larry
I don't want to open the controversy as to which radio manufacturer does what, but there certainly appears to be a big jump when considering the majors.
Larry
#2
My Feedback: (2)
RE: Why are 10 channel radios so expensive?
ORIGINAL: phakur
If we look at the incremental cost to go up from 5 channels per increased channel up to to about 9 channels on a radio, why is the incremental price to go from 8 or 9 channels to 10 (or 12) such a quantum leap?
I don't want to open the controversy as to which radio manufacturer does what, but there certainly appears to be a big jump when considering the majors.
Larry
If we look at the incremental cost to go up from 5 channels per increased channel up to to about 9 channels on a radio, why is the incremental price to go from 8 or 9 channels to 10 (or 12) such a quantum leap?
I don't want to open the controversy as to which radio manufacturer does what, but there certainly appears to be a big jump when considering the majors.
Larry
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Aurora,
OH
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Why are 10 channel radios so expensive?
There are probably several reasons, but as was alluded to earlier, most of the time there is additional software included with an increase in Channels. It would seem that most of the manufacturers make a feature leap around the 9/10 channel point that requires more expensive IC's to handle the programming, more switches, more sophisticated displays, etc.
To be fair, that's not uncommon in any industry. Camera's are similar...there's a break point in cost/features once you cross a certain threshold.
As I've stated before, I'm biased, but I think you'll find the Airtronics SD-10 to be a very affordable , VERY complete 10 channel radio. It's more expensive than the SD6 for sure, but very minimally, and appropriately so given the significant increase in functionality.
To be fair, that's not uncommon in any industry. Camera's are similar...there's a break point in cost/features once you cross a certain threshold.
As I've stated before, I'm biased, but I think you'll find the Airtronics SD-10 to be a very affordable , VERY complete 10 channel radio. It's more expensive than the SD6 for sure, but very minimally, and appropriately so given the significant increase in functionality.
#5
RE: Why are 10 channel radios so expensive?
ORIGINAL: phakur
If we look at the incremental cost to go up from 5 channels per increased channel up to to about 9 channels on a radio, why is the incremental price to go from 8 or 9 channels to 10 (or 12) such a quantum leap?
I don't want to open the controversy as to which radio manufacturer does what, but there certainly appears to be a big jump when considering the majors.
Larry
If we look at the incremental cost to go up from 5 channels per increased channel up to to about 9 channels on a radio, why is the incremental price to go from 8 or 9 channels to 10 (or 12) such a quantum leap?
I don't want to open the controversy as to which radio manufacturer does what, but there certainly appears to be a big jump when considering the majors.
Larry
And thus, if 12-channel radios sold at the rate of 5-channel radios their comparative costs would be more in line. But since lesser-channel radios sell at a rate likely 10-50 to 1 in comparison to the higher-channeled units, not even talking into account the increased software and assenmbly costs involved in the more complex radios, there's no way for manufacturers to justify costs on an item with so little (comparative) call for.