Why Google Built the Nexus Q in the USA
Cost wasn't the number one priority.
Since its unveiling last week at Google I/O, Google's Nexus Q media streaming device has attracted quite a bit of attention thanks to the fact that the device is made in America. At a time when the vast majority of our electronics are manufactured in Asia, the Nexus Q's 'Made in the U.S.A.' branding is a very rare thing indeed. So what made Google decide to build its latest device in its own backyard?
For Google, it was all about speed. Speaking to Reuters, the company said they wanted to see how fast the product could go from concept to finished product, and a Chinese manufacturer would have lengthened the process. John Lagerling, Google's senior director of Android global partnerships, told Reuters that cost wasn't the number one priority.
"We wanted to innovate fast. This is the first end-to-end hardware product that Google has ever put out," he said, adding that Google wanted to see if it could do fast design iterations rather than flying engineers across the world. "This is not this big initiative that things had to be made in the USA," he said.
Google's Nexus Q will launch next month priced at $300. However, Google hasn't yet discussed the manufacturing bill of materials (MBOM), so we don't yet know how much of an impact its American assembly has had on the overall price.

Labor costs are actually very insignificant when compared to the total cost of manufacturing operations, overhead (owning the property/machinery, utilities, etc), shipping/logistics, inventory, and other major costs. Labor has almost no effect on the end cost to consumers, which renders corporations' arguments about labor costs moot. Intel's fabs cost multi-billions of dollars, yet I doubt their total employee salary at any individual fab exceeds a few million, which is an order of magnitude difference.
That's why Steve Jobs told Obama that Apple's manufacturing jobs wouldn't return to the US (at least in the near future) - there's no infrastructure to support Apple's (and other tech companies') production operations. It will also take a while for America's manufacturing to catch up to Asia's (if we get it started) - Foxconn and other OEMs have had 100s of plant-years (maybe even 1000s) in which they could work out the kinks, improve their technology and processing, and build up the amenities to support such a large-scale operation.
I look forward to the day that manufacturing operations return to the USA, especially in this field, but people need to start targeting the root cause of these corporations' resistance rather than an easy scapegoat they try to deceive us with.
Labor costs are actually very insignificant when compared to the total cost of manufacturing operations, overhead (owning the property/machinery, utilities, etc), shipping/logistics, inventory, and other major costs. Labor has almost no effect on the end cost to consumers, which renders corporations' arguments about labor costs moot. Intel's fabs cost multi-billions of dollars, yet I doubt their total employee salary at any individual fab exceeds a few million, which is an order of magnitude difference.
That's why Steve Jobs told Obama that Apple's manufacturing jobs wouldn't return to the US (at least in the near future) - there's no infrastructure to support Apple's (and other tech companies') production operations. It will also take a while for America's manufacturing to catch up to Asia's (if we get it started) - Foxconn and other OEMs have had 100s of plant-years (maybe even 1000s) in which they could work out the kinks, improve their technology and processing, and build up the amenities to support such a large-scale operation.
I look forward to the day that manufacturing operations return to the USA, especially in this field, but people need to start targeting the root cause of these corporations' resistance rather than an easy scapegoat they try to deceive us with.
It could be possible to maintain that kind of purchasing power if you where able to automate the manufacturing processes more and didn't have to worry about Unions bringing the costs up. It would be great but it is probably a pipe dream.
Being an engineer and seeing work exported to other countries, I have seen first hand how even though it is more expensive to do things here, in the long run it can still be much more efficient.
I hate to break it to you, but the kindle fire would be much more that $100 extra if made in the USA. And it's not our fault, its all the regulations, excessive taxes, and unions that drive the prices up. The US could certainly make the best products, but we are our own worst enemy when it comes to building our economy.
As some articles state... WTF?!
Yet, all Intel processors are manufactured in the US. And IBM processors. And Texas Instruments. And now, Samsung's Apple's A5 processor. And Harley Davidson's bikes (they do have 1 factory outside the US, in Brazil, but that only produces bikes to serve the Brazilian market). The reason companies manufacture their goods outside the US is because it is cheaper. They get cuts on taxes and the US law allow them to pay taxes offshore (thus, why Google and Apple pay taxes in Ireland, where tech companies are tax free).
Regulations like not dumping toxic waste out the back door?
I'm not going to touch the taxes comment.
And work force represents a fraction of production cost.
Fox News much?
Costa Rica is not the USA.
That, along with one in Ireland, 3 in Malasya, 2 in China and 1 in Vietnam are not manufacturing plants. They are only assembly plants, the chips are all manufactured in the US, according to Intel public documentation. You can read more here: http://download.intel.com/newsroom/kits/22nm/pdfs/Global-Intel-Manufacturing_FactSheet.pdf
Actually, the Irish one is also a manufacturing plant, like the US ones. The ones in Asia and Costa Rica, though, are asembly facilities.