But unless you spend the effort to personally test those 2 cent more expensive parts, how do you know you are actually getting more for your money until after your or your customer's shit is broken? Even if you do test it, you might need to retest those same parts a year or two down the line as either your suppliers equipment wears down, or the skimp on QC more over time, or if they just outsource it to someone else as a middle man. There is a lot of room in there for people to get fleeced because everybody is playing the same game all the way down the line to the hole they dug the minerals out of.
That's not a 'saving 2 cents problem', that's a failure to recognize the thermal environment and requirements for a component, which is kind of my entire point: engineering isn't easy.
The 6 cent capacitor is more durable and can absorb an error like that without the product failing.
Like they say that anyone can overbuild a bridge but only an engineer can make it barely stand up. A lot of that cost cutting is useful but it tends to go too far.
>Like they say that anyone can overbuild a bridge but only an engineer can make it barely stand up
The majority of biggest suspension bridges if I remember correctly are barely standing up. They use above 80% of the cables carrying capacity for themselves.
Your CEO will be very upset when they find out that their probable bonus is used on "useless" capacitors, 2 cents at a time. Instead, you should use 2 cent capacitors and pay him the rest for the ingenuity. /s
