In order to use a physical debounce switch, there are several steep challenges. You can imagine OP presenting to an audience of 14 people at Amazon Devices group with a slide titled "New BOM proposal" entailing 6 million devices x [$0.0273 (switch price at 100k qty) + $0.05 assembly cost] + $50k engineering NRE (650 engineering hours) + $35k tooling NRE + $22k FCC re-cert + 7k ESD cert + another $100k in various certifications from continental EU, JP, Australia, UK and Brazil. At the end, OP has to say "We love our customers, don't we?" followed by an awkward silence. RIP OP.

You'd make this change alongside others that would require recertification and retooling anyway, and presumably a lot of those engineers have a full-time contract so that's not an additional cost. Overall assembly cost may be higher or lower depending on those other changes. It really is just that $0.0273 for the switch, which compared to the very steep marketing and branding challenge of convincing privacy-minded folks that Amazon isn't evil, is nothing.

I love how people on HN can rationalize every imaginable bad thing, and figure out reasons why the good thing is really, truly impossible. Qwerty is superior to any alternative, healthcare in the US is completely rational, we can't build cheap tunnels but at least we build the best tunnels, English spelling is a feature not a bug, as are Imperial units by the way, and college education is optimally priced.

>It really is just that $0.0273 for the switch, which compared to the very steep marketing and branding challenge of convincing privacy-minded folks that Amazon isn't evil, is nothing.

Looking at this thread, there is no amount of money nor action they could take that would convince people here to buy an echo, so honestly why bother?

I agree with you on excluding certification costs if you’re going to respin the device anyway, but part, assembly, and NRE labor are real costs of this change.

Which should remind companies releasing similar products in the future that it's cheaper to design them with built-in privacy features rather than patch them as an afterthought.

You're absolutely right.

That said, I think companies also have to consider the saleability of privacy features. How many Echos would you, personally, buy if they had a mechanical switch? How many people do you think would make the same decision? How does this stack up against the change in failure rates from a physical switch?

Again, you're completely correct. It's cheaper to design in privacy features up front. I can see some wrinkles that make the question more subtle, though.

Engineers, with contracts or not, have about 2200-2500 hours to spend per year. Those hours can presumably be allocated to this task (that doesn't add any new capability) or to a task that adds capabilities (which will bring in new revenue).

Clearly it does add a new capability: it gives people an additional assurance that the mic is muted in a tamper-proof way whenever the switch is toggled, which is something that according to the article many are currently wary of.

2200-2500h? Where did you pull that number from? That's like 6 days per week with no vacation.

OP should also Insist On The Highest Standards and remind them that OP is Right, A Lot.

Then OP sees newsflash on TechCrunch "Amazon Echo Flex v2 is failing in low humidity conditions". Goddamn it, Andrew (at the reliability lab). OP goes home and opens a bottle of Amazon basics wine.

This comment along with your previous one give the impression that in effect any solution that is favorable for the user is not only going to "cost too much to do just for the customers" but is also bound to be less reliable. It's how every privacy invasion or abuse of position of the past decade+ has been justified: "we made the product cheaper and better for you, any change will cost a lot and break it".

Because yes, this can be used to justify close to anything that is in the interest of the company even if it's to the customer's disadvantage. Those features usually bring money to a company so removing them would be a loss. On top of that you can always attach that generic claim that any change will cause the system to implode and will also make your cat feral.

Well, some of that may be true but it doesn't mean we should use it as a justification to keep doing things like that. Products can be built with the consumer's best interest in mind at little additional cost if any. The problem is the consumer's best interest usually brings in less money.

Sometimes it gets absurd. You can hardly buy any modern laptop with a hardware camera switch. It's as if laptop manufacturers were completely blind what number of people uses a hardware solution in order to render their laptop cameras unusable when they want it. The same group of people would love to be able to do the same with their built-in mics (not just in laptops, but also phones). We're not talking about clueless folks but all kinds of people, including tech-aware ones like Zuckerberg. Nevertheless, mobile device manufacturers remain deaf and pretend the problem doesn't exist. And Librem is the exception that proves the rule.

It's $0.11 per device. If the change was merged with another batch of changes, it would be just the $0.07 for switch + assembly.

Isn't that all back of the sofa change for Amazon, though? Less than a cent per device is still a fraction of what it costs overall.

You could use this logic to shun literally any improvement to the device not done in software.

There'd be no point: a suspicious end user would still need to test/dismantle the doodad connected to the power lines to see that it behaves as expected and doesn't contain anything nefarious. So might as well use a relatively standard electronics design.

What’s wrong with their solution / implemention? Why do they have to defend against a tear down?

The design allows the SOC to unmute via software. This is a significant security vulnerability.

Yes the light will turn off, but who constantly monitors the lights on their devices?

So I guess this calls for a led monitor project!