On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:51:44 -0800 (PST), the renowned 1 Lucky Texan
<alckytxn@swbell.net> wrote:

>On Feb 14, 8:36&#4294967295;pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> First, remind them just what you are paying them for.
>> Then it is time to try some other vendors, just to find out.
>
>Yeah, a coupla good approaches with 'negotitations' like this are to
>ask them "If you were in my position, how would you feel about pricing
>like this?"
>
>also, "Why are you trying so hard to never do business with me again?"

The nice thing about combined designs is that you're unlikely to be in
all that much of a hurry (otherwise you'd not have bothered combining)
so there is time to shop around or ask for a quotation then not place
the order if they don't want to do business. 


Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

On Feb 14, 8:36=A0pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:35:20 -0800 (PST), linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us=
> wrote:
> >On Feb 11, 9:54=A0pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:25:16 -0800 (PST), linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.=
us> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 7, 9:28=A0pm, don <don> wrote:
> >> >> linnix wrote:
> >> >> > On Feb 7, 4:28 pm, Tim Watts <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us>
> >> >> >> =A0 wibbled on Monday 08 February 2010 00:18
>
> >> >> >>> In one case, I paid and submitted files. =A0They saw different
> >> >> >>> functional blocks and wanted to charge more. =A0I told them to =
cancel
> >> >> >>> the order and they back off. =A0Another fab's web says that the=
y are
> >> >> >>> trying to protect jobs by charging more and forcing designers t=
o
> >> >> >>> submit multiple orders. =A0By killing us (designers), I don't k=
now how
> >> >> >>> they can create more jobs for them.
> >> >> >> So does that mean if you created one board with a snap line (whe=
re the
> >> >> >> functional parts *could* (but needn't) be separated, they would =
charge more?
> >> >> >> Sounds very subjective - and a rather prehistoric and misguided =
charging
> >> >> >> approach. Reminds me of the RIAA/MPAA.
>
> >> >> > Yes, some say so explicitly, with or without snap line. =A0Usuall=
y, I
> >> >> > can negotiate it out, but I am tried of dealing with such nonsens=
e.
> >> >> > Am I the only one having these experiences?
>
> >> >> > By the way, I never have design issues with combined designs, exc=
ept
> >> >> > for money issues.
>
> >> >> No, you are not alone.
>
> >> >> 4pcb.com charges an extra $50 to step and repeat !!!
>
> >> >But I do all the shift, merge, step and repeat. =A0All else being
> >> >equal. =A0They charge $126 if I says it's 1 design, =A0$163 if 4 desi=
gns
> >> >and $315 if 8 designs. =A0They do exactly the same work regardless.
>
> >> Do i correctly understand that it is the exact same Gerbers and Excell=
on
> >> and soldermask and silk screen for all 8 cases? =A0And that they are o=
nly
> >> providing blank PCBs? =A0If so don't tell them.
>
> >Yes, you are correct. =A0They see different functional modules on the
> >PCB and want to charge more. =A0They don't have to do anything else with
> >the additional designs. =A0This usually cause delays on the job, so I
> >either pay or suffer the delay. =A0It's the industry's best kept dirty
> >secret.
>
> First, remind them just what you are paying them for.
> Then it is time to try some other vendors, just to find out.

Yeah, a coupla good approaches with 'negotitations' like this are to
ask them "If you were in my position, how would you feel about pricing
like this?"

also, "Why are you trying so hard to never do business with me again?"

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:35:20 -0800 (PST), linnix <me@linnix.info-for.us> =
wrote:

>On Feb 11, 9:54=A0pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:25:16 -0800 (PST), linnix =
<m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>> >On Feb 7, 9:28=A0pm, don <don> wrote:
>> >> linnix wrote:
>> >> > On Feb 7, 4:28 pm, Tim Watts <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
>> >> >> linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us>
>> >> >> =A0 wibbled on Monday 08 February 2010 00:18
>>
>> >> >>> In one case, I paid and submitted files. =A0They saw different
>> >> >>> functional blocks and wanted to charge more. =A0I told them to =
cancel
>> >> >>> the order and they back off. =A0Another fab's web says that =
they are
>> >> >>> trying to protect jobs by charging more and forcing designers =
to
>> >> >>> submit multiple orders. =A0By killing us (designers), I don't =
know how
>> >> >>> they can create more jobs for them.
>> >> >> So does that mean if you created one board with a snap line =
(where the
>> >> >> functional parts *could* (but needn't) be separated, they would =
charge more?
>> >> >> Sounds very subjective - and a rather prehistoric and misguided =
charging
>> >> >> approach. Reminds me of the RIAA/MPAA.
>>
>> >> > Yes, some say so explicitly, with or without snap line. =
=A0Usually, I
>> >> > can negotiate it out, but I am tried of dealing with such =
nonsense.
>> >> > Am I the only one having these experiences?
>>
>> >> > By the way, I never have design issues with combined designs, =
except
>> >> > for money issues.
>>
>> >> No, you are not alone.
>>
>> >> 4pcb.com charges an extra $50 to step and repeat !!!
>>
>> >But I do all the shift, merge, step and repeat. =A0All else being
>> >equal. =A0They charge $126 if I says it's 1 design, =A0$163 if 4 =
designs
>> >and $315 if 8 designs. =A0They do exactly the same work regardless.
>>
>> Do i correctly understand that it is the exact same Gerbers and =
Excellon
>> and soldermask and silk screen for all 8 cases? =A0And that they are =
only
>> providing blank PCBs? =A0If so don't tell them.
>
>Yes, you are correct.  They see different functional modules on the
>PCB and want to charge more.  They don't have to do anything else with
>the additional designs.  This usually cause delays on the job, so I
>either pay or suffer the delay.  It's the industry's best kept dirty
>secret.

=46irst, remind them just what you are paying them for.
Then it is time to try some other vendors, just to find out.

On Feb 11, 9:54=A0pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:25:16 -0800 (PST), linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us>=
 wrote:
> >On Feb 7, 9:28=A0pm, don <don> wrote:
> >> linnix wrote:
> >> > On Feb 7, 4:28 pm, Tim Watts <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
> >> >> linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us>
> >> >> =A0 wibbled on Monday 08 February 2010 00:18
>
> >> >>> In one case, I paid and submitted files. =A0They saw different
> >> >>> functional blocks and wanted to charge more. =A0I told them to can=
cel
> >> >>> the order and they back off. =A0Another fab's web says that they a=
re
> >> >>> trying to protect jobs by charging more and forcing designers to
> >> >>> submit multiple orders. =A0By killing us (designers), I don't know=
 how
> >> >>> they can create more jobs for them.
> >> >> So does that mean if you created one board with a snap line (where =
the
> >> >> functional parts *could* (but needn't) be separated, they would cha=
rge more?
> >> >> Sounds very subjective - and a rather prehistoric and misguided cha=
rging
> >> >> approach. Reminds me of the RIAA/MPAA.
>
> >> > Yes, some say so explicitly, with or without snap line. =A0Usually, =
I
> >> > can negotiate it out, but I am tried of dealing with such nonsense.
> >> > Am I the only one having these experiences?
>
> >> > By the way, I never have design issues with combined designs, except
> >> > for money issues.
>
> >> No, you are not alone.
>
> >> 4pcb.com charges an extra $50 to step and repeat !!!
>
> >But I do all the shift, merge, step and repeat. =A0All else being
> >equal. =A0They charge $126 if I says it's 1 design, =A0$163 if 4 designs
> >and $315 if 8 designs. =A0They do exactly the same work regardless.
>
> Do i correctly understand that it is the exact same Gerbers and Excellon
> and soldermask and silk screen for all 8 cases? =A0And that they are only
> providing blank PCBs? =A0If so don't tell them.

Yes, you are correct.  They see different functional modules on the
PCB and want to charge more.  They don't have to do anything else with
the additional designs.  This usually cause delays on the job, so I
either pay or suffer the delay.  It's the industry's best kept dirty
secret.

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:25:16 -0800 (PST), linnix <me@linnix.info-for.us> =
wrote:

>On Feb 7, 9:28=A0pm, don <don> wrote:
>> linnix wrote:
>> > On Feb 7, 4:28 pm, Tim Watts <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
>> >> linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us>
>> >> =A0 wibbled on Monday 08 February 2010 00:18
>>
>> >>> In one case, I paid and submitted files. =A0They saw different
>> >>> functional blocks and wanted to charge more. =A0I told them to =
cancel
>> >>> the order and they back off. =A0Another fab's web says that they =
are
>> >>> trying to protect jobs by charging more and forcing designers to
>> >>> submit multiple orders. =A0By killing us (designers), I don't know=
 how
>> >>> they can create more jobs for them.
>> >> So does that mean if you created one board with a snap line (where =
the
>> >> functional parts *could* (but needn't) be separated, they would =
charge more?
>> >> Sounds very subjective - and a rather prehistoric and misguided =
charging
>> >> approach. Reminds me of the RIAA/MPAA.
>>
>> > Yes, some say so explicitly, with or without snap line. =A0Usually, =
I
>> > can negotiate it out, but I am tried of dealing with such nonsense.
>> > Am I the only one having these experiences?
>>
>> > By the way, I never have design issues with combined designs, except
>> > for money issues.
>>
>> No, you are not alone.
>>
>> 4pcb.com charges an extra $50 to step and repeat !!!
>
>But I do all the shift, merge, step and repeat.  All else being
>equal.  They charge $126 if I says it's 1 design,  $163 if 4 designs
>and $315 if 8 designs.  They do exactly the same work regardless.

Do i correctly understand that it is the exact same Gerbers and Excellon=20
and soldermask and silk screen for all 8 cases?  And that they are only=20
providing blank PCBs?  If so don't tell them.

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:20:01 -0800 (PST), linnix <me@linnix.info-for.us> =
wrote:

>On Feb 7, 2:12=A0pm, Spehro Pefhany <speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), the renowned linnix
>>
>> <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>> >Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
>> >in a board. =A0They don't have to do any extra work or different
>> >processes than single design. =A0Why do they insist on this extra
>> >charge? =A0Some of them will waive the fee after negotiation, but =
this
>> >is just unnecessary hassle.
>>
>> >I know this is very common in the industry, but why do they care =
about
>> >number of customer designs? =A0For identical board area and spec, 4
>> >designs cost 30% more and 8 designs cost 100% more in setup. =A0Are
>> >different versions of the same board consider as different designs?
>>
>> 1. Because they can
>>
>> 2. Because they want to discourage people from trying to combine
>> =A0 =A0designs.
>
>It usually just encourage people to find another fab house.
>
>>
>> 3. Because manually combined designs probably cost them a lot
>> =A0 =A0of support time due to duplicated tools or other anomalies.
>
>I am not asking them to do that.  I am combining them myself with
>matching set of tools.  If anomalies come up, I would be willing to
>pay more.  I should not have to pay more because there are separate
>functional areas on the board.

Case 1 the PWB fab house sees exactly one layout for all variations=20
and does not populate the boards; don't ask, don't tell -> no premium.

Case 2 the PWB fab has to differentially stuff the boards -> lots of=20
extra housekeeping on their part; depending on volume, ordering them=20
separately may get better deals.

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:59:28 -0800 (PST), linnix
<me@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:

>On Feb 8, 4:50&#4294967295;pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:13:01 -0800 (PST), linnix
>>
>>
>>
>> <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>> >On Feb 7, 6:45&#4294967295;pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), linnix
>>
>> >> <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>> >> >Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
>> >> >in a board. &#4294967295;They don't have to do any extra work or different
>> >> >processes than single design. &#4294967295;Why do they insist on this extra
>> >> >charge? &#4294967295;Some of them will waive the fee after negotiation, but this
>> >> >is just unnecessary hassle.
>>
>> >> >I know this is very common in the industry, but why do they care about
>> >> >number of customer designs? &#4294967295;For identical board area and spec, 4
>> >> >designs cost 30% more and 8 designs cost 100% more in setup. &#4294967295;Are
>> >> >different versions of the same board consider as different designs?
>>
>> >> Might help if you identify which ones have given you this problem, and
>> >> to what extent.
>>
>> >I have encountered this both in US and China, PCBcart included.
>>
>> >> When I am prototyping I have sent multiple designs on a single file to
>> >> one fab which I no longer use, and in production I have sent
>> >> two_on_a_board to PCBcart more than once and it was treated as one
>> >> job, one startup charge.
>>
>> >Take PCBcart for example:
>> >size of board: 400mmx200mm
>> >10 pcs @ $21 each
>>
>> >Setup cost based on number of designs:
>> >1 126
>> >2 138
>> >3 151
>> >4 163
>> >5 189
>> >6 252
>> >7 283
>> >8 315
>>
>> >I am willing to pay $163, but not $315.
>>
>> I just reviewed one past job. &#4294967295;My notes on the PCBcart order form for
>> one of the files read "size is two boards same size one slot each see
>> Huang". &#4294967295;The tooling cost was consistent with the area of the combined
>> pair of boards.
>>
>> This followed an email exchange:
>>
>> >About to place an order for several designs, and I have some questions
>> > about how your system handles certain situations.
>>
>> > 1. &#4294967295;I have one pair of board designs that are only ever used as a pair -
>> > they are the front and back of a small case. &#4294967295;I have always provided my
>> > previous supplier with one file incorporating the two designs spaced as per
>> > his separation routing clearance of 100 thou (attached), and this has been
>> > treated as ONE design for setup purposes.
>>
>> > (a). &#4294967295;Do you treat this as ONE setup charge?
>>
>> > (b). &#4294967295;You normally separate by V-groove and snap. &#4294967295;If these were to be
>> > ordered as a single design, should I "panelise" them adjacent with no
>> > clearance between or just space them on the file and leave it to your
>> > people to panelise?
>>
>> Response:
>>
>> >Nice to receive you again.
>>
>> >1. a. It could be treated as one design with one tooling cost.
>> > &#4294967295; b. It would be better if you could panelize them such as file 255FBNEW.PCB. Do you
>> > need us to separate front and back boards into pieces when finished, not on panel?
>>
>> And even though they V-groove_and_snap rather than rout, they accepted
>> the file with 100 thou separation between the two designs.
>
>So, what is their concept/definition of different designs?

No idea.  I only know what they have done with my jobs.  But where I
am unsure how a file/job will be treated ,I ask (as above).  So far
the answers haven't been unpleasant.

>Perhaps they should remove that from their quotation screen.

On a sunny day (Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:51:08 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<r7j1n5p6gklqdoihr5je38hpo7cd3vt9os@4ax.com>:

>>>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/DSC01371.JPG
>>
>>It is a nice big screen, but the edges of the waveform are rounded,
>>not a real square wave.
>>< 10GHz bandwidth?
>
>The scope is 20 GHz, 17 pS spec'd risetime. It's my pin driver circuit
>that's slow. Here it is as a product:
>
>http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T860DS.html
>
>The undershoot is my bad on the pcb layout. I'll fix that some day.
>
>John

Yes, that is what I mean, I could do a board with those speeds, but have
no way to check it.
Well I have not personally had a request for anything like that,
I will keep you in mind if it happens.
For equipment, before such a fast scope, on my wish list would be a good *cheap* spectrum analyser
Got an email from Altera today, about ASTA and their FPGAs.
If I understand it right, that could mean eliminating a PC mobo...
and then there are those 18 Gbits / second serial links sigh...
 http://www.altera.com/education/webcasts/videos/videos-sata-soc-solutions-40nm.html

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:15:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:59:49 -0800) it happened John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
><uqf0n5p6kgusok8alc5p2lmq6ke9s26e7v@4ax.com>:
>
>>>Nice, anything above 1GHz or so will probably remain magick to me :-)
>>
>>To me, too. I haven't the nonlinear device models, the EM software
>>tools, or the brute intelligence to predict how some of this stuff
>>will behave. So a mixture of instinct, experience, and experiment will
>>have to do.
>>
>>>I simply do not have the equipment to measure that stuff.
>>
>>I started with flea-market Tek gear, a 547 scope and a 1S2
>>TDR/sampler, about $120 total. Nowadays you can get an 11801 mainframe
>>and a 20 GHz TDR/sampling head for around $1500. 
>>
>>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/1S2.jpg
>
>Nice, at least they had decent knobs beack then :-)
>Knobs have evolved faster then us humans, maybe a few generations onward people
>will have little forked fingers to toggle those tiny levers :-)
>
>
>>The 11801 is a beast, but it works beautifully. This one is displaying
>>a 1 GHz square wave from the successful pin driver circuit on my
>>multiple-circuit board, under the Mantis. The sampling head is on an
>>extender cable so it can snug right up to the DUT.
>>
>>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/DSC01371.JPG
>
>It is a nice big screen, but the edges of the waveform are rounded,
>not a real square wave.
>< 10GHz bandwidth?

The scope is 20 GHz, 17 pS spec'd risetime. It's my pin driver circuit
that's slow. Here it is as a product:

http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T860DS.html

The undershoot is my bad on the pcb layout. I'll fix that some day.

John

On Feb 8, 4:50=A0pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:13:01 -0800 (PST), linnix
>
>
>
> <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
> >On Feb 7, 6:45=A0pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), linnix
>
> >> <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
> >> >Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
> >> >in a board. =A0They don't have to do any extra work or different
> >> >processes than single design. =A0Why do they insist on this extra
> >> >charge? =A0Some of them will waive the fee after negotiation, but thi=
s
> >> >is just unnecessary hassle.
>
> >> >I know this is very common in the industry, but why do they care abou=
t
> >> >number of customer designs? =A0For identical board area and spec, 4
> >> >designs cost 30% more and 8 designs cost 100% more in setup. =A0Are
> >> >different versions of the same board consider as different designs?
>
> >> Might help if you identify which ones have given you this problem, and
> >> to what extent.
>
> >I have encountered this both in US and China, PCBcart included.
>
> >> When I am prototyping I have sent multiple designs on a single file to
> >> one fab which I no longer use, and in production I have sent
> >> two_on_a_board to PCBcart more than once and it was treated as one
> >> job, one startup charge.
>
> >Take PCBcart for example:
> >size of board: 400mmx200mm
> >10 pcs @ $21 each
>
> >Setup cost based on number of designs:
> >1 126
> >2 138
> >3 151
> >4 163
> >5 189
> >6 252
> >7 283
> >8 315
>
> >I am willing to pay $163, but not $315.
>
> I just reviewed one past job. =A0My notes on the PCBcart order form for
> one of the files read "size is two boards same size one slot each see
> Huang". =A0The tooling cost was consistent with the area of the combined
> pair of boards.
>
> This followed an email exchange:
>
> >About to place an order for several designs, and I have some questions
> > about how your system handles certain situations.
>
> > 1. =A0I have one pair of board designs that are only ever used as a pai=
r -
> > they are the front and back of a small case. =A0I have always provided =
my
> > previous supplier with one file incorporating the two designs spaced as=
 per
> > his separation routing clearance of 100 thou (attached), and this has b=
een
> > treated as ONE design for setup purposes.
>
> > (a). =A0Do you treat this as ONE setup charge?
>
> > (b). =A0You normally separate by V-groove and snap. =A0If these were to=
 be
> > ordered as a single design, should I "panelise" them adjacent with no
> > clearance between or just space them on the file and leave it to your
> > people to panelise?
>
> Response:
>
> >Nice to receive you again.
>
> >1. a. It could be treated as one design with one tooling cost.
> > =A0 b. It would be better if you could panelize them such as file 255FB=
NEW.PCB. Do you
> > need us to separate front and back boards into pieces when finished, no=
t on panel?
>
> And even though they V-groove_and_snap rather than rout, they accepted
> the file with 100 thou separation between the two designs.

So, what is their concept/definition of different designs?  Perhaps
they should remove that from their quotation screen.