nightsurge said:
$150 would be a very very generous estimate. But it's still not $200. Where would they be cutting the extra $50-75 from that seems to have no explanation? I'm not saying that the actual quoting of the conversation is wrong, I'm saying the actual quote given IN the conversation could have been wrong/misquoted. He did say he couldn't tell you which figure the 70% cost reduction applied to. He may have meant an individual part or something had been reduced by 70% cost. I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is a possibility given the extreme $200 cost reduction that would have to have been made in the last 9 months. |
I don't understand your math. 420 - 255 = 200 to 225? Really now?







