Why is a decent benchtop DMM more expensive than a scope?

[Fungus]

They certainly might have big contracts that say they have to manufacture the 87V as-is even though plenty of things could be added without breaking any test procedures.

It's not just test procedures.

By "test procedures" I meant end user procedures/manuals/training.

Now imagine that you have multiple such entities, each of which has their own certification standards, that you're selling your product to.  You change your product and you'll be dealing with the above for several of them.  The expense just isn't worth it, unless the change you're making is for liability reasons.

Fluke can easily do this. It's an ongoing process anyway, you don't just get a certificate and that's it for the next 25 years. They'll be testing parts, submitting samples from every batch they make, etc.

To attract the buyers you're talking about, Fluke would have to price the model competitively with other competitors that are already in the same space, like Brymen.

The Fluke brand could still carry a premium over Brymen - look how many people still come in here and ask if Brymen are any good.

But that means sacrificing one or more of the things I already mentioned, with the associated costs and risks of doing that.

Nope. $100 15B+ quality is fine, all is needs is the missing features. Given that I can buy a $25 meter with those features, it shouldn't cost much to add them. 

Of course, there is one way that Fluke could pull it off.  They could spin off a completely separate division with its own lineup, that would sell into these markets.   Oh, wait, that's already happened!   The division is called "Amprobe".  Imagine that.

Ummm...  Amprobe's "precision multimeter" line is made by Brymen.

[Fungus]

I bet Fluke would have plenty of buyers if they brought back a tweaked 187/189 at a reasonable price.

eg. It'd sell like hot cakes for $350

(and that's still a $175 premium over a Brymen).

Why don't they do it? Corporate mentality would make them pitch it against the 289, not the 87V, and it wouldn't be a success at 289 prices.

[tooki]

You have to get all of those things, and many more, right practically all of the time to do what Apple did.

"Holding it wrong", Bendgate, Apple keyboards... removal of USB ports and headphone sockets, etc. etc.

The quest for thinness has done more harm than good from a functional point of view, thinness is 100% "looks" and "fashion statement".

Predictably, you retort with exactly the sensationalized “issues” that underscore my point: you don’t understand what makes Apple products sell.

Some of those issues were never real issues to begin with (like bendgate, which did not happen except under severe abuse), others are legitimate design decisions (like getting rid of a headphone jack), and others are outright lies (getting rid of USB ports: every Mac introduced since mid 1998 has USB ports; remember, a USB-C port is a USB port).

And while I actually think Apple has gone too far with thinness in some things, it’s not an entirely aesthetic decision as you claim. Thinness also means reduced weight, and that’s a seriously useful feature. My shoulders react very badly to weight, so every pound I can shave off my backpack is literally a huge relief. The fact that the weight of Apple’s mainstream laptops has dropped from 6.1lbs (when I got my first PowerBook in 2000) to 2.8lbs now is hugely helpful to me.

Fashion sells though, no denying that. Why else would people pay $250 for a pair of sneakers? People coveted Apple looks, Apple's packaging, the Apple stores, etc. Apple became a part of high street fashion in a way that nobody else was doing.

Fairly equivalent look/feel laptops, etc., have always been available from other companies (eg. Dell, SONY) - if you were willing to pay Apple prices for them.

Again, you’re literally proving my point: other companies try to copy the aesthetics of Apple products, but they do not achieve Apple’s success. Why? Because of the “secret sauce” I talked about. It’s NOT just aesthetics, it’s functionality, usability, customer support, and more. Apple gets the whole package right, and others don’t. And that’s why Sony (which arguably once had the “secret sauce” but lost its way) and Dell have both shrunk while Apple has exploded.

[bdunham7]

remember, a USB-C port is a USB port).

If the device you want to use (flash drive, etc) isn't Type C, then USB-C port is just a useless hole, not a USB port.

The fact that the weight of Apple’s mainstream laptops has dropped from 6.1lbs (when I got my first PowerBook in 2000) to 2.8lbs now is hugely helpful to me.

Offering a lighter alternative is great.  Other manufacturers have them too.  But Apple insists on moving 'forward' whether its customers want to or not.  The reasons that they do so well (IMO) are that their products almost always at least nominally 'work' and their competitors either suck (Dell, HP) or lack any real imagination (Asus, Microsoft). 

[tooki]

Exhibit A:

Remember what smartphones and their user interfaces looked like before the first iPhone?

And then what did they all look like about a year later?

Huh?

Remember the iPaq? Apple even stole the naming scheme.

No, you doofus*, Compaq copied Apple’s naming scheme. Apple introduced the iMac in mid 1998, upon which everyone went crazy calling their products iThis and iThat. The iPaq came out in 2000, years after the iMac had established the naming scheme. (Not that Apple was the first to use the i prefix, but they were THE ones to popularize it. e had been the much more common prefix for “internet” until then.)

*I’m resorting to name calling you because of the utter, sheer laziness of your response. Two minutes of googling would have shown you that your explanation couldn’t be correct.

[justme1968]

just give it up to discuss with anyone that has such a short sighted view about apple. it is completely and utterly useless. they not even see where they went wrong.

i once had a ceo of a software company tell me 'we are not apple' as an argument how ridiculous something was. instead he just proved how clueless he is about what makes apple tick and how a company that was nearly bankrupt revolutionized more than one area and became the most valuable company in the world. yes. indeed he is not apple and never will be.

apple is not perfect. nobody is. but the combination of design, hardware and software into a unique product is special. in deed sony once had something similar the es series and especially some components that were japan only or some of the first vaio notebooks were also something special that is not available any more today.

even if one is not apple, it can never hurt to try to learn from them.

[justme1968]

we worked with the ipaq when it was still from compaq. but to compare it to an iphone is just ridiculous. they were slow, bulky, heavy and you had to use even bulkier sleves. yes, the iphone has the advantage of beeing a little later and the technology evolved. but i would say the ipaq was just a small step from other pdas like palm or zaurus, the iphone was a huge leap forward instead.

[tooki]

a) By that logic Fluke should still be selling the 27FM and the 87 should never have been developed.

b) One thing is to continue to manufacture a legacy meter for a big $$$ customer, another thing is to keep selling the exact same old meter to the general public forever.

c) The 87 series has already had big changes to operation and features over the years.

a) Why do you think Fluke still makes the 27 II and 83 V?

b) Why not sell it to the market if plenty of other customers want it too?

c) It’s had minor changes (except for the 87 IV, which was such a big change they had to split it off as a new model entirely and bring back a more traditional one).

What is wrong with you, dude? Why can you not accept that you are wrong on this issue and let it go? People have explained the reasons to you, and everyone else with two brain cells to rub together understands (or at least accepts) them. You, meanwhile, seem to think you’re smarter than the people running what is arguably the most successful company in their industry.

[tooki]

just give it up to discuss with anyone that has such a short sighted view about apple. it is completely and utterly useless. they not even see where they went wrong.

i once had a ceo of a software company tell me 'we are not apple' as an argument how ridiculous something was. instead he just proved how clueless he is about what makes apple tick and how a company that was nearly bankrupt revolutionized more than one area and became the most valuable company in the world. yes. indeed he is not apple and never will be.

apple is not perfect. nobody is. but the combination of design, hardware and software into a unique product is special. in deed sony once had something similar the es series and especially some components that were japan only or some of the first vaio notebooks were also something special that is not available any more today.

even if one is not apple, it can never hurt to try to learn from them.

[sotos]

 Ummm...  Amprobe's "precision multimeter" line is made by Brymen.
[/quote]

What? Are you sure about that? Amprobe and Fluke share the same building, look at it in Google maps.

[bdunham7]

What? Are you sure about that? Amprobe and Fluke share the same building, look at it in Google maps.

Amprobe is owned by Fluke, or at least by their parent, Fortive.  I believe that Fluke is the single largest importer of Brymen-manufactured products into the US.   

Thus my previous attempt at humor:

[Fungus]

Ummm...  Amprobe's "precision multimeter" line is made by Brymen.

What? Are you sure about that?

Yes.



I haven't looked if any of Amprobe's other meters are Brymens but the AM140A and AM160A definitely are.

Edit: This looks like a Brymen as well.

PS: The 87V doesn't have a %4-20mA function. Isn't that something every "Industrial Multimeter" should have?

[kcbrown]

It's not just test procedures.

By "test procedures" I meant end user procedures/manuals/training.

I suspected that's what you meant.   

Now imagine that you have multiple such entities, each of which has their own certification standards, that you're selling your product to.  You change your product and you'll be dealing with the above for several of them.  The expense just isn't worth it, unless the change you're making is for liability reasons.

Fluke can easily do this. It's an ongoing process anyway, you don't just get a certificate and that's it for the next 25 years. They'll be testing parts, submitting samples from every batch they make, etc.

There are likely to be some institutional buyers that would require periodic samples and such.  But that's very different from having to go through recertification.  Recertification due to changes you make means you cannot sell to that customer until the customer has completed their certification process.

And recertification incurs costs on the part of the customer, so the customer has lots of reasons to be annoyed with you if you unilaterally change things up, even if the user wouldn't see the changes.

To attract the buyers you're talking about, Fluke would have to price the model competitively with other competitors that are already in the same space, like Brymen.

The Fluke brand could still carry a premium over Brymen - look how many people still come in here and ask if Brymen are any good.

Asking questions isn't anything like plunking down actual money for product.  The buyers we're talking about have shown themselves to be price sensitive enough that they wouldn't consider a Fluke unless it was either price-competitive or offered capabilities the competition lacked.  Those buyers look for value, and quite obviously don't give a flip about reputation.  Why do you think they buy Aneng and Uni-T meters when they don't need the safety features of the likes of Brymen?

So no, Fluke cannot charge a premium in this market and get anything like the kind of sales you think they'd get.

But that means sacrificing one or more of the things I already mentioned, with the associated costs and risks of doing that.

Nope. $100 15B+ quality is fine, all is needs is the missing features. Given that I can buy a $25 meter with those features, it shouldn't cost much to add them. 

Support is one of the things I mentioned, and that is what they would have to sacrifice if they don't sacrifice anything else.

That $25 meter might have the features but it doesn't have the same type of design or quality.  Remember that quality isn't just about toughness and all that, it's about longevity as well.  That $25 meter may have the features but the way those features are implemented might not last the way Fluke meters do.   So Fluke can either sacrifice longevity (particularly in the face of hard use), thus damaging their reputation, or they have to undergo the development and testing expense to ensure proper part selection and proper design around it.   And that adds to the cost.

Ummm...  Amprobe's "precision multimeter" line is made by Brymen.

But that's just Amprobe's "precision multimeter".  Amprobe has many more meters in its line than just that.  And even if Amprobe is sourcing from other manufacturers, so what?  It's the existence of their line that matters here.  The point is solely that Amprobe is the "Fluke" division that offers the meters you pine for.

[Fungus]

Edit: This looks like a Brymen as well.

Yep, it's a BM806s

https://brymen.eu/shop/bm806s/

[Fungus]

Just looking at Amprobe's "Industrial Multimeter" section.

They seem a lot more "industrial" than anything Fluke has to offer, both in their safety ratings and feature set.

[kcbrown]

Just looking at Amprobe's "Industrial Multimeter" section.

They seem a lot more "industrial" than anything Fluke has to offer, both in their safety ratings and feature set.

"Industrial" covers a lot of ground, and Amprobe's industrial line only has two meters, neither of which approach some of the capabilities of many of Fluke's offerings save for their CAT rating (which is better than anything Fluke offers that I can tell).

I don't know what features the HD160C offers over and above what Fluke offers, save for its 1500V upper limit.


In any case, since Fluke and Amprobe are owned by the same company, you probably shouldn't be surprised when a meter from one those divisions has a capability or two not found in one from the other.  I would have expected Fluke to have the upper hand on the maximum safety rating here, admittedly.

Large companies with subsidiaries sometimes do strange things.

[Fungus]

"Industrial" covers a lot of ground, and Amprobe's industrial line only has two meters, neither of which approach some of the capabilities of many of Fluke's offerings save for their CAT rating (which is better than anything Fluke offers that I can tell).

I don't know what features the HD160C offers over and above what Fluke offers, save for its 1500V upper limit.

Not "over and above", "better aligned with". I'm not an industrial electrician, admittedly, but the feature set and dial layout fits well with my mental image of "electrician".

There's also the IP67 rating which most of Fluke's meters don't have (is it only the 28II/87V Max that have IP67?).

I would have expected Fluke to have the upper hand on the maximum safety rating here, admittedly.

Nope. Even Budget-conscious Brymen makes higher-rated meters than Fluke. This is yet another thing I fail to grok when I see the height of the pedestal the Fluke meters are placed on WRT safety - higher standards exist but Fluke doesn't doesn't do them.

[kcbrown]

"Industrial" covers a lot of ground, and Amprobe's industrial line only has two meters, neither of which approach some of the capabilities of many of Fluke's offerings save for their CAT rating (which is better than anything Fluke offers that I can tell).

I don't know what features the HD160C offers over and above what Fluke offers, save for its 1500V upper limit.

Not "over and above", "better aligned with". I'm not an industrial electrician, admittedly, but the feature set and dial layout fits well with my mental image of "electrician".

It's interesting that you say this, seeing how you seem to have a problem with Fluke making AC volts the default on the 87V, and yet that's exactly what we'd expect electricians to use the most, no?

In any case, we can speculate as to which meters tend to be better suited for industrial use, but the plain fact is that neither of us are in that market, so neither of us really knows what that market really needs.  Obviously the Amprobe meters and the Brymen meters have these higher CAT ratings because there's a market for that, but whether or not that market is large enough that Fluke should be pursuing it is a question that only Fluke is likely to know the answer to.

There's also the IP67 rating which most of Fluke's meters don't have (is it only the 28II/87V Max that have IP67?).

Right, most don't seem to have it.  I haven't gone to look at which ones do.  The real question is how necessary it is for the markets Fluke plays in.

Nope. Even Budget-conscious Brymen makes higher-rated meters than Fluke. This is yet another thing I fail to grok when I see the height of the pedestal the Fluke meters are placed on WRT safety - higher standards exist but Fluke doesn't doesn't do them.

It appears that Fluke has been eclipsed with respect to the ratings, but how much that translates to actual safety in the field is a different question.  Fluke's reputation has been built on the experiences of their customers.  Is that reputation overblown?  Maybe.  But doubtful.  Now, whether that means that meters from their competitors are worse is a very different question, and I expect that the answer is "it depends".

Either way, Fluke seems to be doing things well enough to at least keep their reputation intact.  How much that matters depends on the customer.

[Fungus]

It's interesting that you say this, seeing how you seem to have a problem with Fluke making AC volts the default on the 87V, and yet that's exactly what we'd expect electricians to use the most, no?

From a safety point of view it's the worst option because a DC current will show 0.0A on that range and no indication that anything is happening.

If the defaults to DC you'll see 0.0A and a moving bar graph, not ideal, but a bit safer.

The 100% correct answer is to default to displaying DC+AC (or auto-detect AC/DC if you don't have dual display) but guess what the 87V doesn't do...?

Obviously the Amprobe meters and the Brymen meters have these higher CAT ratings because there's a market for that, but whether or not that market is large enough that Fluke should be pursuing it is a question that only Fluke is likely to know the answer to.

Given Flukes target market? They should go for the highest rating possible. You'd think the 87V "Max" would have been a good opportunity to go for maximum CAT rating, but nooooo.

PS: This is from Fluke's web page today.



Also: Audible input alerts only (no visible ones) is not the "highest" standard.

Fluke seems to be doing things well enough to at least keep their reputation intact.  How much that matters depends on the customer.

Fluke is running on inertia right now. Inertia and government/corporate purchasing contracts.

[james_s]

It's interesting that you say this, seeing how you seem to have a problem with Fluke making AC volts the default on the 87V, and yet that's exactly what we'd expect electricians to use the most, no?

Electricians almost never break a circuit and insert the meter to measure current, I can't think of very many situations where that would be the preferred method. They will almost exclusively use a clamp on current probe which uses the AC V range on the meter. Frankly the fact that it defaults to either one every time is one of the only real flaws in the 87, if it just remembered the last setting that would be perfect.

[Fungus]

Electricians almost never break a circuit and insert the meter to measure current, I can't think of very many situations where that would be the preferred method. They will almost exclusively use a clamp on current probe which uses the AC V range on the meter. Frankly the fact that it defaults to either one every time is one of the only real flaws in the 87, if it just remembered the last setting that would be perfect.

There's not many excuses for big currents but sometimes you need uA, eg. Fluke makes a meter that only measures up to 600uA (it's only CAT III 600V though).

I like that the Amprobes only go up to 2A. That will remove a lot of temptation at least.

[Fungus]

It appears that Fluke has been eclipsed with respect to the ratings, but how much that translates to actual safety in the field is a different question.  Fluke's reputation has been built on the experiences of their customers.  Is that reputation overblown?  Maybe.  But doubtful.

Anecdote is not evidence.

Now, whether that means that meters from their competitors are worse is a very different question, and I expect that the answer is "it depends".

On what would it depend?

Fact 1: Amprobe's industrial range of meters has been certified to 12000V by the same people that certified Fluke's safest meters to only 8000V.

Fact 2: Joe killed an 87V with 12000V and a tiny amount of energy, nowhere near the energy of a full CAT rating test. That was after another 87V died in his hands at a much lower voltage.

(lines 40-42 of the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cXzYpIoyVm9QJUju4KXqM22CEQZP3_xwWvDyeVwxTy4/edit#gid=400910915 )

OK, the CAT rating system doesn't say that a meter has to survive a transient intact and I don't know what happened to the Amprobes, it's not looking good for Fluke on paper though.


Edit: I'm told that Fluke and Amprobe are the really same company and make their meters in the same building. High voltage meter testing facilities are expensive so you'd imagine they'll be sharing a single testing facility across all the product lines, ie. the exact same people are doing the CAT testing for both brands.

[Marco]

Going back to the original topic, I don't think the low end market for lab equipment is always completely efficient, look how long it took for a low end power supply with a decent UI to hit the market (shame it lacks a linear post-regulator).

Sure anyone serious about it can hunt around for a second hand big brand or get siglent/rigol, but I think there is still some pent up demand for lower end waiting for the right Chinese company to profit from. Vichy gets to keep the market for itself, not because there are economic reasons for it but just because of good luck.

[bdunham7]

Fact 1: Amprobe's industrial range of meters has been certified to 12000V by the same people that certified Fluke's safest meters to only 8000V.
Fact 2: Joe killed an 87V with 12000V and a tiny amount of energy, nowhere near the energy of a full CAT rating test.

You seem fixated on these issues.  I do see some odd issues in the ratings attached to some products-for example the 114-117 range is CAT III/600V but they do not specify it as CATIV/300V even though it might appear that the second rating would be automatically included.  I don't know why, perhaps there's some technical issue or perhaps they just decided to do that for other reasons.  Fluke doesn't put CATIV/1000V on any meters, not even their TL175 test leads.  Why?  Maybe they are very conservative or maybe their stuff is outdated junk. I don't know.  But since the ratings are more than sufficient for any conceivable use I would run into, I don't worry about it.

joeqsmith has been very clear that his tests do not parallel the CAT safety tests. 

Edit: I'm told that Fluke and Amprobe are the really same company and make their meters in the same building. You'd imagine they'll be using the same testing facilities...

If there are Fluke and Amprobe meters being made in the same building, it is probably in a Brymen factory in Taiwan. 

[Fungus]

You seem fixated on these issues.

Only because I keep getting told that "safety" is one of the reasons that Flukes cost more.

I do see some odd issues in the ratings attached to some products-for example the 114-117 range is CAT III/600V but they do not specify it as CATIV/300V even though it might appear that the second rating would be automatically included.

I'm not sure why there isn't automatic equivalence, there must be something else going on in CAT ratings apart from raw voltages.

The CAT rating spec isn't publicly available to read, it's pay-per-view and quite expensive.

The last page of this document is interesting:

https://content.fluke.com/promotions/promo-dmm/0518-dmm-campaign/dmm/fluke_dmm-chfr/files/safetyguidelines.pdf

In Fluke's world CAT IV 1000V doesn't even exist!