On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 5:50:48 AM UTC-8, Winfield Hill wrote:> I checked, there's virtually no BFQ149 stock available. > When the inventory disappears that fast, it means, or > it should have meant to NXP, the demand really wasn't > low enough to justify a sharp product discontinuation. > (There are other solutions, they could have increased > the price and waited a few years, or made a mass of > product and deposited it with Rochester, etc.) >This is what I don't get. People who use strange, obscure, and arcane parts like PNP transistors are not all that price-sensitive. If it's not profitable at $0.99/1000, fine. Raise the price until it *is* profitable. Hell, charge $10 each for them. Customers might grumble but they'll deal with it. Yet the manufacturers are consistently choosing to pull the plug at the first sign of a market slowdown. Seems the bean counters are desperate to sell off the fabs for some reason. It probably has to do with labor costs and the fact that the market for these parts has essentially zero room for growth. -- john, KE5FX
A SOT-89 with emitter in the middle
Started by ●December 21, 2017
Reply by ●December 27, 20172017-12-27
Reply by ●December 27, 20172017-12-27
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:42:21 -0800 (PST), "John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> wrote:>On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 5:50:48 AM UTC-8, Winfield Hill wrote: >> I checked, there's virtually no BFQ149 stock available. >> When the inventory disappears that fast, it means, or >> it should have meant to NXP, the demand really wasn't >> low enough to justify a sharp product discontinuation. >> (There are other solutions, they could have increased >> the price and waited a few years, or made a mass of >> product and deposited it with Rochester, etc.) >> > >This is what I don't get. People who use strange, obscure, and >arcane parts like PNP transistors are not all that price-sensitive. >If it's not profitable at $0.99/1000, fine. Raise the price until >it *is* profitable. Hell, charge $10 each for them. Customers might >grumble but they'll deal with it. Yet the manufacturers are >consistently choosing to pull the plug at the first sign of a market >slowdown.It costs money just to have a part in the lineup. If it's not making money, it goes.> >Seems the bean counters are desperate to sell off the fabs for some >reason. It probably has to do with labor costs and the fact that >the market for these parts has essentially zero room for growth.When the product mix moves to a higher productivity fab, older fabs become unprofitable. Widgets that can't be moved, or are marginally profitable to begin with, get orphaned. This isn't anything new.
Reply by ●December 27, 20172017-12-27
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:42:21 -0800 (PST), "John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> wrote:>On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 5:50:48 AM UTC-8, Winfield Hill wrote: >> I checked, there's virtually no BFQ149 stock available.We got most of them!>> When the inventory disappears that fast, it means, or >> it should have meant to NXP, the demand really wasn't >> low enough to justify a sharp product discontinuation. >> (There are other solutions, they could have increased >> the price and waited a few years, or made a mass of >> product and deposited it with Rochester, etc.) >> > >This is what I don't get. People who use strange, obscure, and >arcane parts like PNP transistors are not all that price-sensitive. >If it's not profitable at $0.99/1000, fine. Raise the price until >it *is* profitable. Hell, charge $10 each for them. Customers might >grumble but they'll deal with it. Yet the manufacturers are >consistently choosing to pull the plug at the first sign of a market >slowdown. > >Seems the bean counters are desperate to sell off the fabs for some >reason. It probably has to do with labor costs and the fact that >the market for these parts has essentially zero room for growth. > >-- john, KE5FXThat die can't be very big. They could fab a box full of wafers, stash them somwhere, raise the price, and make everybody happy. EOL policies certainly steer our choice of vendors. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●December 27, 20172017-12-27
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:11:35 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:42:21 -0800 (PST), "John Miles, KE5FX" ><jmiles@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 5:50:48 AM UTC-8, Winfield Hill wrote: >>> I checked, there's virtually no BFQ149 stock available. > >We got most of them! > >>> When the inventory disappears that fast, it means, or >>> it should have meant to NXP, the demand really wasn't >>> low enough to justify a sharp product discontinuation. >>> (There are other solutions, they could have increased >>> the price and waited a few years, or made a mass of >>> product and deposited it with Rochester, etc.) >>> >> >>This is what I don't get. People who use strange, obscure, and >>arcane parts like PNP transistors are not all that price-sensitive. >>If it's not profitable at $0.99/1000, fine. Raise the price until >>it *is* profitable. Hell, charge $10 each for them. Customers might >>grumble but they'll deal with it. Yet the manufacturers are >>consistently choosing to pull the plug at the first sign of a market >>slowdown. >> >>Seems the bean counters are desperate to sell off the fabs for some >>reason. It probably has to do with labor costs and the fact that >>the market for these parts has essentially zero room for growth. >> >>-- john, KE5FX > >That die can't be very big. They could fab a box full of wafers, stash >them somwhere, raise the price, and make everybody happy.Or you can do what you've done, buy enough to keep you in business for the next decade or two. You want them to take a risk they have no interest in taking.> >EOL policies certainly steer our choice of vendors.That's certainly the smart way to run a business but it's not like they're discontinuing a part with no warning.
Reply by ●December 28, 20172017-12-28
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:44:44 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:>On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:11:35 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:42:21 -0800 (PST), "John Miles, KE5FX" >><jmiles@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 5:50:48 AM UTC-8, Winfield Hill wrote: >>>> I checked, there's virtually no BFQ149 stock available. >> >>We got most of them! >> >>>> When the inventory disappears that fast, it means, or >>>> it should have meant to NXP, the demand really wasn't >>>> low enough to justify a sharp product discontinuation. >>>> (There are other solutions, they could have increased >>>> the price and waited a few years, or made a mass of >>>> product and deposited it with Rochester, etc.) >>>> >>> >>>This is what I don't get. People who use strange, obscure, and >>>arcane parts like PNP transistors are not all that price-sensitive. >>>If it's not profitable at $0.99/1000, fine. Raise the price until >>>it *is* profitable. Hell, charge $10 each for them. Customers might >>>grumble but they'll deal with it. Yet the manufacturers are >>>consistently choosing to pull the plug at the first sign of a market >>>slowdown. >>> >>>Seems the bean counters are desperate to sell off the fabs for some >>>reason. It probably has to do with labor costs and the fact that >>>the market for these parts has essentially zero room for growth. >>> >>>-- john, KE5FX >> >>That die can't be very big. They could fab a box full of wafers, stash >>them somwhere, raise the price, and make everybody happy. > >Or you can do what you've done, buy enough to keep you in business for >the next decade or two. You want them to take a risk they have no >interest in taking.I think they should care about customer relations rather than quarterly profit. It *does* matter if engineers specify their parts. But the effect of our design-in decisions takes more than one quarter to show up. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●December 28, 20172017-12-28
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:08:47 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:44:44 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:11:35 -0800, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:42:21 -0800 (PST), "John Miles, KE5FX" >>><jmiles@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 5:50:48 AM UTC-8, Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>> I checked, there's virtually no BFQ149 stock available. >>> >>>We got most of them! >>> >>>>> When the inventory disappears that fast, it means, or >>>>> it should have meant to NXP, the demand really wasn't >>>>> low enough to justify a sharp product discontinuation. >>>>> (There are other solutions, they could have increased >>>>> the price and waited a few years, or made a mass of >>>>> product and deposited it with Rochester, etc.) >>>>> >>>> >>>>This is what I don't get. People who use strange, obscure, and >>>>arcane parts like PNP transistors are not all that price-sensitive. >>>>If it's not profitable at $0.99/1000, fine. Raise the price until >>>>it *is* profitable. Hell, charge $10 each for them. Customers might >>>>grumble but they'll deal with it. Yet the manufacturers are >>>>consistently choosing to pull the plug at the first sign of a market >>>>slowdown. >>>> >>>>Seems the bean counters are desperate to sell off the fabs for some >>>>reason. It probably has to do with labor costs and the fact that >>>>the market for these parts has essentially zero room for growth. >>>> >>>>-- john, KE5FX >>> >>>That die can't be very big. They could fab a box full of wafers, stash >>>them somwhere, raise the price, and make everybody happy. >> >>Or you can do what you've done, buy enough to keep you in business for >>the next decade or two. You want them to take a risk they have no >>interest in taking. > >I think they should care about customer relations rather than >quarterly profit.Sure customer relations matter but only to the extent it generates profit. That's why they're in business.>It *does* matter if engineers specify their parts. But the effect of >our design-in decisions takes more than one quarter to show up.The effects of our design-ins don't show up for two or three years. It's not unusual for a rep to no longer have a line when the parts finally go to production. The pay-off can be rather large, though.
Reply by ●December 28, 20172017-12-28
On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 7:44:49 PM UTC-8, k...@notreal.com wrote:> On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:11:35 -0800, John Larkin> >EOL policies certainly steer our choice of vendors. > > That's certainly the smart way to run a business but it's not like > they're discontinuing a part with no warning.Of course it is! The 'warning' is one message in a mailbox, among thousands. Neglecting the customers' needs but giving a warning is almost exactly the same as neglecting the customer's needs. Wnen you need a transistor, you do NOT want a warning instead. Wasn't there an electronic distributor that noticed the profit margin on resistors was just very small, so they dropped 'em from the catalog? Can't remember the name, they're out of business now.
Reply by ●December 28, 20172017-12-28
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:34:59 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:>On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 7:44:49 PM UTC-8, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:11:35 -0800, John Larkin > >> >EOL policies certainly steer our choice of vendors. >> >> That's certainly the smart way to run a business but it's not like >> they're discontinuing a part with no warning. > >Of course it is! The 'warning' is one message in a mailbox, among >thousands. Neglecting the customers' needs but giving a warning >is almost exactly the same as neglecting the customer's needs.Exactly what do you want them to do? Fly an airplane towing banners over his business? Put multi-page ads in the NYT? Send a dossier to the FBI?> >Wnen you need a transistor, you do NOT want a warning instead.So you're saying that once a manufacturer makes something, that obligates them to make that widget forever? You're nuts!>Wasn't there an electronic distributor that noticed the >profit margin on resistors was just very small, so they dropped >'em from the catalog? Can't remember the name, they're out >of business now.Perfect material for an urban legend. "Did you hear the one about..."
Reply by ●December 28, 20172017-12-28
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 08:42:31 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:>On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:34:59 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> >wrote: > >>On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 7:44:49 PM UTC-8, k...@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:11:35 -0800, John Larkin >> >>> >EOL policies certainly steer our choice of vendors. >>> >>> That's certainly the smart way to run a business but it's not like >>> they're discontinuing a part with no warning. >> >>Of course it is! The 'warning' is one message in a mailbox, among >>thousands. Neglecting the customers' needs but giving a warning >>is almost exactly the same as neglecting the customer's needs. > >Exactly what do you want them to do? Fly an airplane towing banners >over his business? Put multi-page ads in the NYT? Send a dossier to >the FBI? >> >>Wnen you need a transistor, you do NOT want a warning instead. > >So you're saying that once a manufacturer makes something, that >obligates them to make that widget forever? You're nuts!NXP is not obligated to keep making BFQ149's, and I am not obligated to use any more NXP parts. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●December 28, 20172017-12-28
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 08:16:16 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 08:42:31 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:34:59 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 7:44:49 PM UTC-8, k...@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:11:35 -0800, John Larkin >>> >>>> >EOL policies certainly steer our choice of vendors. >>>> >>>> That's certainly the smart way to run a business but it's not like >>>> they're discontinuing a part with no warning. >>> >>>Of course it is! The 'warning' is one message in a mailbox, among >>>thousands. Neglecting the customers' needs but giving a warning >>>is almost exactly the same as neglecting the customer's needs. >> >>Exactly what do you want them to do? Fly an airplane towing banners >>over his business? Put multi-page ads in the NYT? Send a dossier to >>the FBI? >>> >>>Wnen you need a transistor, you do NOT want a warning instead. >> >>So you're saying that once a manufacturer makes something, that >>obligates them to make that widget forever? You're nuts! >>NXP is not obligated to keep making BFQ149's, and I am not obligated >to use any more NXP parts.No more than I have to either. Some are already designed in though. boB
