Call them parts, components or subsystems somebody is manufacturing them in a factory or many factories and assembling them in others. Saying we did it all ourselves or that nobody else has our subassemblies seems irrelevant to me. I would rather have a unit made up of proven components that others have found worth basing their business on; with prices reflecting the economies of scale of millions of units made where engineering, tooling, and quality control systems are paid for by small margins on millions of units rather than scrimped on and/or paid for on the markup of a few units.
Look at how performance and reliability rise on any technology while price drops as it goes into mass production. Whether something appears as brand unique is more marketing than substance.
I was a teenager when I first saw this come up as a big issue. GM was "caught" selling Oldsmobiles and Buicks with, Oh No! Chevy engines. People (my mother) thought they were buying something special when they paid more for an Olds and were outraged. My father, an industrial engineer, didn't give it a second thought. Did it really matter whether the same parts were sub-assembled on an Olds or Chevy assembly line? Most of what was different was cosmetic, and labeling. Of course there are differences but most of them are in the user interface and in small refinements that make the products distinct.
So what is the difference today between a Mercedes and a Dodge? More often it depends on the specific unit you buy than on the brand.
I prefer to look at how a particular model performs and is priced than on whether it is made up of proprietary parts. I generally prefer to know the parts have been deemed worthy by many manufacturers who chose among competing systems. This lets companies focus on doing a few things really well and others focus on assembling the parts well. From what I can see much of what makes one product better than another these days is how one “brand” selects and integrates the various components.
My first car was a Saab, one of the most unique small manufacturers in the world at that time. It had many advanced features in 1972: fuel injection(Bosch), dual system diagonal four wheel disc brakes, room for five large adults and a huge trunk in a small car package for $3200. It also had some weaknesses. Saab couldn’t afford to develop a new engine so they bought engines from Triumph and put them in backwards, flywheel in front for their front wheel drive design. The big weakness was the cooling system.
Saab just came out with the new 9-2x model. What is it? A Subaru Imprezza WRX restyled and dressed up to feel like a Saab. How does this happen? GM now owns 100% of Saab and 20% of Subaru. Could a small brand like Saab even exist today on its own? I doubt it, the costs of developing world class proprietary automobiles is far too high today. So is this a good thing or a bad thing. Id’ have to drive one to decide. But at least I know considering a new model that its chassis and engine have a proven history and design and development have received the benefit of far more resources that Saab alone could bring to bear.
I own Axiom and Outlaw Audio products. I understand that Axiom OEM’s for other companies and is very closed mouthed about this. Outlaw’s principle execs work for other companies and some of their products are identical to other OEM’s. They are sharing the design and manufacturing costs among different brands. What does this mean to me? It means I can by from an internet only company with great customer service at ½ the price for virtually identical products with a different label and cosmetics.
This is the global economy and why we can all afford some pretty amazing technology at ridiculous prices.
