On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:47:51 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:43:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
technologies.

I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.

If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
be illuminating.

I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
usual.

FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
car purchase in most cases.

Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.

It adds that $355 to the *COST* of the saw, not the price. There *is* a
difference.

Reread most of my comments, I understand cost and sale. You will
perhaps notice that the early on proposed added cost would be a
percentage of the sale, 8% and some change. Extended to todays prices
the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350
range. I more than once said that I would have no problem with paying
in the $500 range and that amount being a bargain.

Are you saying that the margin, top to bottom, of a table saw is ~40%? I'd
think it would be higher than that. The dealer's end of it, alone, I would
expect to be at least a third of that (that's pretty small).

Well here I am responding again.. ;~)

No, you mentioned 40%.

Your numbers:

"the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350"
"I would have no problem with paying in the $500"

$500/$350 = 1.42 == 42% margin

I expect it to be closer the earlier stated $850 to the $1000 quoted in
Swing's article.

Knowing however how retail items are priced I
believe that if a dealer is making 40% on a big ticket item he would be
living in a dream come true retail world. I suspect that the GP on a
typical high dollar saw is in the 10~15% range.

That's what I said. Your numbers indicate ~40% top-to-bottom margin. That's
not very big, even with only 15% to the dealer (likely pretty close).

It's the small items
that have a large GP margin. Take the Rockler clamps to mount a
sacrificial fence to you rip fence. I was told that the store cost on
those pair of clamps is around 40 cents per pair and they retail in the
$15-$20 range.

Sure, but we're talking the END-TO-END margin; the dealer's and the
manufacturer's (and any middle men). 40% seems low.

That is not say however that the dealer may make a large purchase
deal where he gets a discount from unit cost pricing. In many cases the
dealer/retailer will pass "that" discount on to the consumer as a sale
price, move more units, and still maintain his normal GP margin.

If there were such a discount, it would imply that there is an even bigger
margin somewhere to tap into.