Like, pretty much every other product that wasn't an entirely new concept in the last few years? Looking around me, I think the thing with the highest R&D price component is probably the chips in computers (desktop, laptop, smartphones), everything else is just mass production and low markup with hardly any research recuperation in the price (keyboard, lamp, paper, desk, floor, beanbag, fridge, IR thermometer, picture frames, a spoon, a computer display...). Unless you meant "when is that not the case for astro trackers", I don't get what you meant because it's rather exceptional to still be paying off R&D if you're buying regular mass-produced consumer products.
> This is something that has been thought about,
Obviously, but if it's open source (with a free, commercial-use license and no big call for donations other than a coffee) then apparently recuperation that design time is not a goal, they're actively giving it away for free and encouraging people to make it themselves. That suggested to me that the price must be for an expensive component or two. Or perhaps the printing time, but since it's mostly unattended and filament is cheap, I didn't expect it to be that. And the tracking calculations have been long done by people decades ago, so it's just buying parts and putting them together, where the "putting together" part is done by the customer since it's a kit. So yeah I expected the price to be mostly an expensive precise motor or something.
R&D is everything in making of something. Just because someone else made it doesn't mean you get to start exactly where they left off (except in cases of open source where you get their literal plans). Even in wood working or any shop type of work, you often spend more time setting up things like jigs or other custom tooling than it takes to do the actual work. Is that supposed to be a sunk cost to the builder? No, it is part of how the builder arrives at the price of the final thing being built.
We could have given someone a warm welcome to the hobby by clarifying that politely.
I know when I was getting started, I didn't know what made some things more expensive than others. I didn't know about doublet or triplet refractors, Strehl ratios, Chroma vs ZWO filters, why a MACH2 is such a grail mount over a Optron CEM120. Luckily I had nice, friendly, helpful people to talk to, instead of a wall of arrogance.
Their questions are sincere. Your comparison to the M1 is not appropriate, and you're not actually paying attention to what they wrote.
They wrote that they are surprised that R&D makes up the majority of the cost, since this is an open source project. This is a fairly non-obvious feature of open source company business models. They give away the product, and its designs, for free, and solicit community collaboration. But it's usually complex or cumbersome to operationalize or build, so they then sell a set of services or pre-builds around it. Datastax and Confluent are two examples of this in the OSS domain.
Woodworkers don't market their plans as open source, put them on Github, and accept pull requests.
Don't create arrogant, sarcastic responses to sincere questions. It devalues this forum, and it's a bad look.
R&D cost is built in to everything you buy, otherwise the companies that make this stuff wouldn’t be profitable. The amount of per unit R&D markup for, say, a thermometer just isn’t as high due to its relatively low complexity and huge number of units sold. This thing is niche and not going to sell that many units.
