Took apart some Beats...heres what we found!

slippers-on

Music...let it move you!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-e...medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_1060901&


This post was co-authored with Avery Louie.

It’s nearly impossible to be on a train, fly on a plane or walk down the street without spotting the iconic “b” logo. Beats has been extremely successful in marketing its headphones and now enjoys large market appeal. But with a sky-high retail price of $199, is there more to Beats than meets the eye?

Lots of optimizations are to be expected in a product manufactured in the millions of units: snaps and glue are used for assembly rather than screws (which require lots of human manipulation) and almost every part is injection molded plastic (which is essentially free at high volumes).

Anytime I take a product apart there are a few exciting surprises to solve some tricky problems. Here’s what I found for Beats:







Use of metal components to increase weight










2015-06-22-1435003325-8026608-beats1.jpeg










Luckily the Beats headphones are fairly easy to disassemble, despite a few pesky glue joints.





One of the great things about the solo headphones is how substantial they feel. A little bit of weight makes the product feel solid, durable, and valuable. One way to do this cheaply is to make some components out of metal in order to add weight. In these headphones, 30 percent of the weight comes from four tiny metal parts that are there for the sole purpose of adding weight.

The two larger parts are cast zinc. Cast parts are similar to injection molded parts in that there is a tooling cost and a per-part cost. Compared to injection molding, the tool is marginally more expensive, but the per-part costs are higher, and the tools do not last as long.

The brilliant thing here is that the two large metal parts are not mirror images of each other — they are actually the same part! This means that only one tool would need to be made to produce both parts, which saves money in tool design and number of tools. It also makes the headphones easier to assemble, since there are fewer unique parts.







Complex mold design of headband










2015-06-22-1435003440-4724122-beats2.jpeg










One-third of the entire weight of the headphones comes from metal weights.
This is a somewhat common trick to make products feel more substantive.






This part probably has the highest tooling cost of any of the parts in the headphones, because it requires many cams in order for the part to be released from the mold. Cams allow for parts of the mold to move perpendicular to the parting line. These extra parts have to meet perfectly, in order for the parts to be molded properly. It is easy to tell what direction the two halves of the mold pulled apart from the round dots you can see in the photo above  — those are ejector pin marks, from where the part was pushed out of the tool.

From the flashing along the long snaps at the top of the part, I can tell there are two side actions that were used to create the undercut. You can see parting lines in the part right under the snaps, and at the bottom of the circle.





2015-06-22-1435003748-9293923-beats4.jpeg










Close-up of witness lines on inner ear cup frame. Many actions and slides are necessary to create this complex part.





You can also tell that inside the circle where the ear cup goes, there were actions to create the pins that the ear cup swivels on — the witness lines are visible, even though it has been post-polished.







Minimal use of screws










2015-06-22-1435003806-3791842-beats5.jpeg










Both parts of the ear cups are made from two totally different molds so a to avoid the extra screw holes on the right cup.





Screws are cheap but are tedious to install, hence nearly every part on this product is snapped or glued together. You can see how the number of screws are optimized at the cost of cutting two more molds by comparing the left and right speaker grills and speaker cups — one of them has an extra two screw holes. Screws are great here because they make sure the PCB does not rattle around near your ear — however, they could have shaved off some assembly time by using heat stake bosses, or simply trapping the PCB between the red plastic and the ear cup.





2015-06-22-1435003916-7438875-beats6.jpeg










Complete commodity earphone drivers





So, do Beats by Dre headphones really enhance the bass? I couldn’t tell from the product teardown but the generic drivers make it seem unlikely. I was impressed, however, by the look and feel that was achieved with so few parts.





2015-06-22-1435003983-982293-beats7.jpeg






While it’s difficult to accurately reverse engineer the COGS of a product, I will do my best with each product that I tear down. In this BOM, I break it down into several categories — plastics, metal parts and electronic parts.





2015-06-22-1435004031-3618300-beats9.png










*Part prices for plastics, metal, and electronics takes various assumptions into account.









****





I estimate that the COGS without labor or shipping is $16.89 — yet Beats is able to successfully retail these headphones for $199+. This is the power of brand. Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine have leveraged their personal backgrounds and a sleek design to launch a remarkable brand that’s become fundamental to music pop culture.

*Plastic part price takes the following assumptions into account:



  • 2 percent scrap rate
  • 1 cavity / tool
  • 20 percent regrind allowed
  • No additives (Meaning not glass filled, etc)
  • Machine rate, setup labor, and direct labor adjusted per component
  • Cycle time of 15 seconds is assumed per part
  • Markup is not included
  • Tooling cost is amortized assuming 1M units
  • No downtime factored into molding machine
  • Assume simple tooling (It’s known that some of these parts have actions, but was not added to the tooling cost)
  • Tooling cost assumptions are broad and based in China
  • Production costs based on Asia. Somewhat conservative and broad


*Metal part price takes the following assumptions into account:



  • 5 percent scrap rate
  • 160 ton press
  • 95 percent uptime, 8hr setup


*Electronics part price takes the following assumptions into account:



  • Quoted from Zirui @ qty 6000 FOB
  • CB with routing and v-score, 1 part placement
  • 25 seconds to solder @ Shenzhen min wage RMB2,030/mo = US1.50/hr
  • Exact equivalent not found; found 40mm x 5.6mm, 32 ohm, 25mW for0.75







A version of this post originally appeared on Medium.





Follow Ben Einstein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BenEinstein
 
Hahahaha...what up botrytis!!!

And the thing about the Beats....the price is there...but where is the quality? Aint none going in!
 
I remember reading about the more expensive beats pro, at least at that time $300, and yeah someone took it apart and found $30 worth of materials used tops. 50-60% profit is the going rate. 90% is just a plain ripoff.
 
That's not the entire picture of course. A large part of that is profit but nobody is posting the retail markup, operating expenses and manufacturing costs.
 
I remember reading about the more expensive beats pro, at least at that time $300, and yeah someone took it apart and found $30 worth of materials used tops. 50-60% profit is the going rate. 90% is just a plain ripoff.
If you're in the manufacturing business and use resellers to sell your product, your SRP must be 4 to 5x your BOM or you won't be in business very long.
 
I read that article after getting a pair of Beats in a package deal. Didn't like the sound (flat, midbassy, no soundstage) and gave after having to pair them for each use- which took an awfully long time, even with an iMac- then having the sound cut in and out all the time.
My middle daughter likes them, though.
 
I think it was consumers report (I could be mistaken) but from sound quality, these were bested by many less expensive headphones).
 
If you're in the manufacturing business and use resellers to sell your product, your SRP must be 4 to 5x your BOM or you won't be in business very long.

Yep, which translates to 50-60% profit which is fair imo. 4 to 5 times the $17 slippers on found the beats headphone to be worth is $68-85 which I do not have a problem with. $199 is very steep/greedy imo.

There is also street price and # of units produced to be factored in. For me the sennheiser hd600, 650 and 800 come to mind. They have both been around along time and sennheiser has sold so many units that you can sometimes find them for no more than a beats headphone, save the hd800. There was a time when the prices of the hd600, 650 and 800 were quite high and price locked. I think allot of people have come back to them lately and the street price is available for sometimes quite a bit less than retail. Maybe I do not follow beats enough but I have my doubts whether or not they had a street price of $68-85.
 
I doubt if a "Beats" user would have enough neck strength to wear my Koss Pro4AAA's, or my Koss ESL 9.b's.
 
People who buy Beats headphones just want to be seen using Beats headphones. The manufacturer has my blessing to rip these people off.
 
redacted comments had to do with your assumption regarding group activities directed at the threads' participants.

Well the entire premise of this thread hinges on the false assumption that a retail product is simply the sum of its parts. However that's not how manufacturing works whether it's other headphones, cars, computers, phones etc. Also perhaps they don't make such poor products as indicated by the above review. Stranger things have happened. See that same reviewers write ups on the older products though for some justified bashing and laughs.
 
People who buy Beats headphones just want to be seen using Beats headphones. The manufacturer has my blessing to rip these people off.
This. My sister asked for a pair of Beats for her birthday last year. The audiophile snob in me said no way. I told her I could get her significantly better phones at a fraction of the price, and that Beats are popular for the branding. She said no to any non-Beats headphones; she wanted the Beats because she's a "brand whore".
 
Back
Top Bottom