iPhone Duo Reliability Problems: What Can Hardware Companies Learn?

In episode 354 of China Manufacturing Decoded from the Sofeast Group, host Adrian is joined by reliability expert Andrew Amirnovin to investigate early reports of display and hinge failures on Apple’s new foldable iPhone Duo. Using media teardown reports and reviewer findings as a starting point, Adrian and Andrew unpack what can go wrong when state‑of‑the‑art components: flexible OLEDs, hinges, micro‑cables, adhesives and tiny cameras, are combined into a single, highly complex consumer product. The conversation covers the specific symptoms reported so far (vertical/horizontal display lines, cracks near the hinge, dust ingress and mechanical crunching), how repairability and supplier choice play into both risk and mitigation, and why time‑to‑market pressure for a V1 product can leave reliability issues surfacing in the field. They compare the iPhone Duo situation to other high‑profile product launches and explain why high volumes mean even a low failure rate can produce thousands of visible problems. Andrew explains key engineering and manufacturing failure modes: hinge tolerances, flex‑cable and connector stress, adhesive and polymer behavior under temperature/humidity, and supplier vs design vs user‑abuse causes. He also describes how complex assemblies can mask system‑level reliability issues even when individual components meet specs. The episode then moves to practical investigation and root‑cause techniques you can apply to any hardware product: collect failed units and field data, perform Pareto (80/20) analysis to prioritize causes, execute reproducible tests and teardowns, run FMEA during design, and trace problems back to design, supplier, manufacturing or usage. Andrew stresses the importance of cross‑functional feedback loops between design, suppliers and production and shows how small changes in components or process (e.g., display thickness or solder profile) can ripple into large reliability problems. To help product teams avoid similar pitfalls, Andrew offers concrete recommendations: perform thorough design FMEA, run representative reliability life testing (including environmental and cycle tests), use diverse usability/test panels to catch unexpected uses, and maintain tight supplier quality and change‑control processes. He also highlights the role of fast, systematic field data collection and warranty/repair programs in resolving early V1 issues.   In this episode, you'll learn: Why combining new technologies, moving parts, and flexible electronics increases reliability risks. How mechanical tolerances and component interactions can affect an entire product. Why laboratory testing cannot always predict failures in real-world use. How manufacturing variation and supplier changes can create unexpected problems. Why a component can pass inspection but still cause failures when integrated into a finished product. How Pareto analysis helps engineers prioritize problems during a root cause investigation. Three practical approaches to improving product reliability before launch.   Key Takeaways Complex products introduce more reliability risks. Combining moving mechanisms, flexible electronics, adhesives, and multiple components creates potential failure points that conventional products may not have. Small dimensional differences can cause major problems. Mechanical tolerances and component interactions matter, particularly in compact assemblies where even minor variations may affect performance. Quality and reliability are not the same thing. A product can pass factory inspections and function correctly when shipped, yet develop failures during normal use. Reliability testing cannot predict every failure. Laboratory tests may not fully reproduce real-world conditions, unexpected user behavior, or the variations found across mass-produced products. Successful prototypes do not guarantee successful mass production. Changes in suppliers, components, materials, or assembly processes can introduce problems, even when individual parts meet their specifications. Finding the root cause is essential. Engineers need to investigate actual failures, examine patterns, and identify whether problems originate in the design, components, manufacturing process, or usage conditions. Reliability needs to be considered from the start. Andrew recommends thorough design FMEAs, appropriate reliability testing, and feedback from real users to identify and reduce potential failures before launch.   Related Resources and Further Reading Reliability Engineering & Testing: Learn how Sofeast helps hardware companies identify potential product failures through reliability test planning, laboratory testing, and failure analysis. Design for X (DfX) Review in Asia: Understand how engineering reviews can identify design and manufacturability risks before production begins. New Product Introduction (NPI): Explore the development, validation, and industrialization activities needed to move a product from prototype to reliable mass production. Product Inspection Solutions: Discover how inspections and production monitoring help manufacturers identify defects and maintain quality control. Product Engineering Services: Explore Sofeast's wider engineering support, including prototype development, design reviews, reliability testing, and manufacturing readiness. ***** The following independent reports and technical investigations provide additional background on the iPhone Duo's reported problems and the engineering challenges associated with foldable smartphones. iFixit: iPhone Duo Teardown A detailed examination of the phone's internal construction, flexible display, hinge mechanism, dust ingress, and repairability. iFixit explores possible explanations for the reported display failures, without claiming to have established the definitive root cause. MacRumors: Apple Responds to iPhone Duo Display Cracking Reports Covers Apple's acknowledgement of inner-display problems affecting a small number of devices, its replacement guidance, and the uncertainty surrounding the underlying cause. YouTube: iPhone Duo Teardown A video examination of the device's internal construction, providing a visual reference for the technical challenges discussed in the episode.   Need Help Improving Your Product's Reliability? Even a well-designed product can develop unexpected problems when components, materials, and manufacturing processes come together. Identifying potential failures early and validating the finished product under realistic conditions can help reduce costly problems after launch. Sofeast helps hardware companies improve product reliability through design reviews, reliability engineering, laboratory testing, failure analysis, and New Product Introduction support. Contact our team to discuss your product development, testing, or reliability challenges. ***** Important Disclaimer: This episode discusses publicly reported issues concerning the iPhone Duo, drawing on third-party sources referenced below. Neither Adrian nor Andrew has independently examined the affected devices or verified the nature, extent, or root causes of the reported problems. Any discussion of potential design flaws, manufacturing defects, or reliability issues represents technical opinion, hypothesis, or general engineering analysis rather than established findings about this particular product. No conclusions should be drawn that Apple or its suppliers have been responsible for any specific defect or failure mechanism. The discussion is intended for educational and informational purposes, using the reported issues as a case study to explore broader principles of product engineering, quality assurance, and reliability. If you're developing or manufacturing a new electronic or electromechanical product, this episode offers practical insights into identifying and reducing reliability risks before and after production begins. Get in touch with Sofeast Connect with us on LinkedIn Contact us via Sofeast's contact page Subscribe to our YouTube channel Prefer Facebook? Check us out on FB

Your Chinese factory passed its audit, so why are you still receiving defective products or experiencing inconsistent manufacturing quality? In this episode of China Manufacturing Decoded, Adrian Leighton talks with Sofeast CEO Renaud Anjoran about why a positive factory audit result doesn't guarantee reliable production. Renaud explains what quality management system audits actually reveal, why superficial checklist audits can be misleading, and how problems can emerge even when a supplier initially appears capable. They discuss hidden subcontracting, seasonal production pressures, unauthorized material changes, and the sometimes difficult distinction between design and manufacturing problems. You'll also learn why a new product requires more extensive manufacturing process validation than a familiar, established product, and how targeted follow-up audits and layered process audits can help buyers maintain supplier performance. If you're sourcing products from China or working with an established manufacturer whose quality is deteriorating, this episode will help you understand what might be going wrong and what to investigate next.   Key Takeaways A factory audit isn't a quality guarantee. It helps buyers evaluate and compare supplier risks, but it cannot predict future manufacturing performance. Checklist audits can be misleading. An auditor needs to examine actual practices, not simply confirm that procedures and documentation exist. The audited factory might not be making your products. Some suppliers subcontract production to facilities that the buyer has never inspected or audited. Manufacturing performance can deteriorate under pressure. Seasonal demand, overtime, inexperienced workers, and rushed deliveries may lead to shortcuts. Not every production problem is the manufacturer's fault. Product design, specified materials, and inadequate process validation can all contribute to quality problems. New products require additional safeguards. Process FMEAs, control plans, work instructions, testing, and pilot production help establish reliable manufacturing processes. Follow-up audits should address actual risks. Targeted re-audits and layered process audits can provide more value than repeatedly conducting the same general audit.   Related Sofeast Resources Factory Audits: Learn how Sofeast helps importers evaluate manufacturing capabilities and supplier risks. Layered Process Audits: Explore how focused, recurring process audits can help improve supplier performance. New Product Introduction (NPI): Understand the development, industrialization, testing, and validation activities needed before mass production. Earlier Podcast: Using Real Data to Prove the Link Between Factory Audits and Better Quality Products: Revisit our discussion with Professor Neale O'Connor about the relationship between audit findings and manufacturing quality. Quality Assurance Services: Explore Sofeast's wider support for maintaining manufacturing quality and supply chain control.   Need Help Evaluating or Improving Your Supplier? A positive factory audit is a useful starting point, but consistent manufacturing quality requires appropriate controls, qualified processes, and ongoing oversight. Sofeast helps importers assess suppliers, identify manufacturing risks, and improve quality performance through factory audits, process audits, inspections, and quality engineering support. Contact our team to discuss your supplier or manufacturing quality challenges ***** This episode is brought to you by the Sofeast Group. Visit sofeast.com for inspection, NPI support, contract manufacturing, 3PL, and other services across Asia’s manufacturing hubs. Get in touch with Sofeast Connect with us on LinkedIn Contact us via Sofeast's contact page Subscribe to our YouTube channel Prefer Facebook? Check us out on FB

What happens when your manufacturer quietly replaces an approved component or material with a cheaper alternative, without telling you? In episode 352 of China Manufacturing Decoded, Adrian and Renaud discuss unauthorized component substitutions, why they happen, and the risks they create for importers and product brands. Sometimes factories make changes to reduce costs, respond to pricing pressure, or because product specifications were never clearly agreed upon. Other times, deliberate cost-cutting leads to quality fade, where materials and components are gradually downgraded without the buyer's knowledge. The problem? A product might look identical and work perfectly when first tested, but fail prematurely, become non-compliant, or even create a safety hazard. Topics covered: In this episode, we cover: Why manufacturers substitute components and materials without approval. How price negotiations and unclear specifications can contribute to unauthorized changes. The hidden reliability, compliance, and safety risks. How inspections, laboratory testing, and risk-based checks can uncover substitutions. What to do if thousands of products have already been manufactured using an unapproved component. Why smaller importers need practical controls and, where possible, backup suppliers. The additional risks of relying on an ODM manufacturer. The key takeaway: Not every alternative component is necessarily a problem. The real danger is allowing changes without proper evaluation, testing, and approval. Listen to learn how to protect your products, customers, and business from unauthorized manufacturing changes. Related resources: Sofeast: Quality Fade: Silent AND Deadly! — An earlier podcast exploring how manufacturing quality gradually declines across production batches. Sofeast: 5 Tips for Dealing With an Unexpected Price Rise From Your Chinese Supplier — Particularly relevant to Renaud's discussion of price negotiations and component substitutions. Agilian: How We Focus on Quality & Reliability for You — Practical examples of component supplier qualification, engineering change management, and reliability testing. QualityInspection.org: A Few Tips to Avoid Quality Fade in China — Renaud's guidance on detecting and preventing declining manufacturing quality. What's Wrong with China by Paul Midler — Renaud references Midler's examination of Chinese business practices, including the behaviors and commercial pressures that can contribute to quality problems. ***** This episode is brought to you by the Sofeast Group. Visit sofeast.com for inspection, NPI support, contract manufacturing, 3PL, and other services across Asia’s manufacturing hubs.   Get in touch with Sofeast Connect with us on LinkedIn Contact us via Sofeast's contact page Subscribe to our YouTube channel Prefer Facebook? Check us out on FB

Developing plastic injection mold tooling is a major investment, but many hardware companies make costly mistakes before the first production parts are even manufactured. In this Gold episode of China Manufacturing Decoded, we revisit a conversation between Sofeast's Renaud Anjoran and experienced product designer Andy Bartlett about common pitfalls in plastic injection mold tooling development, approval, and maintenance. From skipping design for manufacturing (DFM) reviews to selecting the cheapest tooling supplier or failing to establish clear mold ownership, these mistakes can lead to quality defects, production delays, unexpected costs, and disputes with manufacturers. In this episode, you'll learn: Why a successful prototype doesn't mean your product is ready for injection mold tooling. How DFM reviews help prevent expensive tooling and production problems. Why tooling trials, modifications, and approval cycles need sufficient time and budget. What to consider when comparing tooling quotations and suppliers. Why mold ownership, tooling agreements, and intellectual property protection matter. The risks of subcontracted tooling production and poor supply chain visibility. How mold maintenance, tool life guarantees, and supplier stability affect long-term production. Renaud and Andy also share practical experiences of working with tooling manufacturers in China, including the importance of building relationships between product designers, toolmakers, and injection molding factories. The key takeaway? Plastic injection mold tooling isn't simply something you purchase before mass production. It's a critical manufacturing investment that needs careful planning, verification, and ongoing management. If you're developing a new plastic product, transferring production, or preparing to invest in injection molding tooling, this episode will help you recognize potential problems before they become expensive. Need help preparing your product for manufacturing? Sofeast supports hardware companies with DFM and DFX reviews, tooling development, supplier management, and production readiness. Visit https://www.sofeast.com/ to learn more. This Gold episode revisits an earlier conversation, with a new introduction and closing commentary from host Adrian. Get in touch with Sofeast Connect with us on LinkedIn Contact us via Sofeast's contact page Subscribe to our YouTube channel Prefer Facebook? Check us out on FB

Episode 350 of China Manufacturing Decoded features host Adrian and NPI lead Paul Adams as they unpack a common but overlooked quality risk: you can’t always trust your factory's measurements. They explain why identical parts can show different readings depending on equipment, operators, methods and environmental conditions, and why a single “it’s within tolerance” result may be misleading. Paul explains how the resolution and calibration limits of measuring tools matter (from steel rules and digital callipers to coordinate measuring machines), why measurement methodology and handling must be standardised, and how temperature, cleanliness, and operator technique influence results. He emphasizes the need for written SOPs, qualified inspectors and daily or periodic calibration checks with traceable records. The episode introduces Gage (Gauge) R&R (repeatability & reproducibility), the structured test that has multiple operators measure the same parts with the same device to quantify variability, and describes a real-case study involving an unreliable air-pressure test rig. That case study shows how flawed measurement systems can create false failures or allow escapes, and how fixing the test equipment and repeating the Gage R&R restored confidence in results. They also cover statistical process control and Cpk: how control charts and capability analysis reveal when a machining process is stable, trending out of spec, or consistently off-target (the bullseye vs. tight-but-offset metaphor). Paul stresses focusing inspection effort on critical-to-quality (CTQ) dimensions rather than every nonessential measurement. Key takeaways for buyers and engineers: don’t blindly accept measurement reports; ask for calibration records, written measurement methods, evidence of Gage R&R and SPC on CTQs, and confirmation that inspectors are trained. The episode ends with practical advice on preventing defects by building reliable measurement systems early in development and production, plus where to seek help from Sofeast for inspections, auditing and manufacturing support in Asia. Topics discussed include: Why a measurement reading should not automatically be treated as fact How the measuring equipment, operator, environment, and technique can all affect results Why tighter tolerances require more capable measurement equipment Why calibration records matter when assessing a supplier’s quality system Why factories should use clearly defined measurement procedures What Gage R&R is and how it helps determine whether measurements are repeatable How unreliable test equipment can make good products appear defective Why poor measurement systems can lead to both false rejects and quality escapes How Cp, Cpk, control charts, and statistical process control help monitor manufacturing processes Why manufacturers should focus these controls on Critical to Quality (CTQ) characteristics rather than attempting to control every dimension equally What buyers should ask suppliers before accepting their measurement reports at face value This episode is brought to you by the Sofeast Group. Visit sofeast.com for inspection, NPI support, contract manufacturing, 3PL, and other services across Asia’s manufacturing hubs.   Get in touch with Sofeast Connect with us on LinkedIn Contact us via Sofeast's contact page Subscribe to our YouTube channel Prefer Facebook? Check us out on FB

Dyson spent six years developing its $500 CameraJet toothbrush, involving hundreds of engineers and some highly sophisticated technology. But within days of its September 2026 launch, users and reviewers were reporting failures. The product was soon temporarily unavailable, and Dyson later confirmed that one production batch of jet tubes had experienced a manufacturing process issue. So how can a product with so much engineering behind it still run into problems almost immediately after launch? In this episode, Adrian and Renaud use the Dyson CameraJet story as a real-world case study in the risks hardware companies face when moving from product development into mass production. They discuss why waterproof products are particularly difficult to manufacture reliably, how a good design can still be undermined by process variation, and why successful prototypes and validation testing do not necessarily prove that a production line is ready. The conversation also looks at the importance of a structured NPI process, production validation builds, end-of-line testing, process control, and involving experienced manufacturers early enough to uncover problems before a major commercial launch. Finally, they discuss what should happen when failures start appearing in the field: gathering failed units quickly, identifying patterns, performing failure analysis, feeding lessons back into design and manufacturing, and using traceability to isolate affected batches. Topics covered include: What happened during the Dyson CameraJet launch Why waterproofing is such a difficult hardware challenge How manufacturing variation can undermine a sound product design Why early mass production is often the highest-risk period The role of EVT, DVT and production validation Why test fixtures and end-of-line testing need to mature before launch Process control during production ramp-up The risks of a high-profile “big bang” product launch How to investigate early field failures Why manufacturing traceability matters when one batch has a problem What SMEs and hardware startups can learn from Dyson’s experience This episode is brought to you by the Sofeast Group. Visit sofeast.com for inspection, NPI support, contract manufacturing, 3PL, and other services across Asia’s manufacturing hubs. Get in touch with Sofeast Connect with us on LinkedIn Contact us via Sofeast's contact page Subscribe to our YouTube channel Prefer Facebook? Check us out on FB

Rushing a new hardware product into mass production can feel like the fastest route to market. But both buyers and suppliers have commercial reasons to skip NPI steps, and those shortcuts can create much more expensive problems later. In episode 348 of China Manufacturing Decoded, Adrian and Renaud look at why manufacturers often prefer to move into mass production, where they make their money, rather than spend months on engineering work, small pilot runs, process development, and repeated validation. They explain when moving quickly can be relatively low-risk for a familiar, established product, and why the same approach becomes dangerous when a product is new, highly customized, or requires new manufacturing and testing processes. The buyer side matters too. Launch deadlines, promises to customers, funding constraints, cash-flow pressure, and the need to start generating revenue can all tempt companies to commit to large production quantities before the design and manufacturing process are truly ready. The result can be custom components, tooling, labor, and thousands of finished products already committed before a serious problem is discovered. Ultimately, the better question isn't simply, “How quickly can we start mass production?” It's: “How quickly can we reach mass production that is predictable and consistent?”   Topics Discussed Why Chinese manufacturers are commercially motivated to reach mass production When moving quickly into production may carry relatively low risk Why new and customized products need their own manufacturing and testing processes How to assess whether a supplier is really capable of supporting NPI The dangerous assumption that a manufacturer of similar products can automatically develop yours Why buyers also knowingly skip NPI steps How deadlines, customer commitments, and funding pressure influence decisions The financial risk of committing components and materials too early What happens when problems appear after thousands of units have already been produced Why progressive pilot runs reduce manufacturing risk The difference between reaching mass production quickly and reaching stable mass production When adapting an existing product can reduce development and industrialization risk   Related content Sofeast – Transitioning to Manufacturing from Product Development | 2 Options Sofeast – The NPI Process: Trouble Awaits If You Skip Its Steps! Sofeast – Planning For Effective Pilot Runs Sofeast – Discussing the NPI Process for Effective Product Development Get in touch with Sofeast Connect with us on LinkedIn Contact us via Sofeast's contact page Subscribe to our YouTube channel Prefer Facebook? Check us out on FB

Poor communication can quietly derail a hardware project long before anyone realizes there is a problem. In episode 347 of China Manufacturing Decoded, Adrian and Paul investigate how information moves from the customer’s Product Requirements Document through design, engineering, purchasing, production, and suppliers, and how misunderstandings or unspoken assumptions at any of those handoffs can eventually turn into expensive hardware problems. Unlike software, where an error can often be corrected relatively quickly, a misunderstanding in a hardware project might not become obvious until a prototype has been built, tooling has been made, components have been ordered, or production is already underway. They'll discuss why communication needs to be a two-way process rather than simply passing instructions downstream. Teams need to question unclear requirements, confirm what they have understood, expose assumptions, and send questions back upstream before work continues. Finally, they also look at the problems caused by changes during development and pre-production. Even seemingly minor changes can affect tooling, components, inventory, cost, lead times, and scrap, making formal change control essential.   Topics Discussed Why hardware projects are particularly vulnerable to communication problems How assumptions creep in as requirements move between teams Why simply acknowledging receipt of a requirement is not enough How a Product Requirements Document should act as the project's single source of truth Why technical terminology, units, and language differences can cause costly misunderstandings How two-way requirements reviews help expose problems earlier Why suppliers should question unclear requirements rather than blindly following them Which internal teams should be involved in regular project communication Why mid-project engineering changes can have major downstream consequences How formal change control protects cost, quality, and delivery schedules   Related content Sofeast - Importing from China? Use this product specifications template. Sofeast - Good and Bad Methods of Communication with your Chinese Supplier [Podcast] Sofeast - Why Hardware Projects Stall: Avoiding ‘Failure to Launch’ [Podcast] QualityInspection.org – Product Requirements Document: Underpinning Hardware Product Development   Get in touch with Sofeast Connect with us on LinkedIn Contact us via Sofeast's contact page Subscribe to our YouTube channel Prefer Facebook? Check us out on FB

What should you really be designing a new product for? In this CMD Gold episode, we revisit episode 99, where Renaud Anjoran and reliability expert Andrew Amirnovin explore Design for X (DfX), the practice of designing a product around specific objectives that go far beyond simply making it function. They examine 12 areas where products can be deliberately optimized, including shorter development times, crowdfunding, manufacturing, assembly, quality, packaging, reliability, maintainability, ergonomics, fewer SKUs, and sustainability. Along the way, they explain why simplifying products, reducing part counts, using proven components, mistake-proofing assembly, considering the real-world use environment, and involving the right specialists early can prevent costly problems later. The key message is that DfX is not about maximizing every possible objective. Different products have different priorities, and some objectives involve trade-offs. What matters is identifying the right ones early enough in development that you still have the freedom to make changes.   Show Sections 00:13 – Introduction: Revisiting Design for X 01:46 – Design for shorter development and time to market 04:26 – Designing for crowdfunding 07:12 – Design for Manufacturing and Design for Assembly 11:43 – What should product designers consider from the start? 15:57 – Fewer parts, standard components, and mistake-proofing 19:23 – Modularization and simplifying assembly 23:35 – Design for quality 30:52 – Why packaging must be considered during product design 34:06 – Design for reliability 42:58 – Design for maintainability 46:48 – Design for ease of use and ergonomics 47:07 – Design for fewer SKUs 47:53 – Design for sustainability 48:41 – Which DfX objectives matter most? 49:24 – How to implement Design for X in practice 50:53 – Using expert design reviews 51:23 – Adrian's present-day takeaways   Related content Agilian - DfX, Industrialization & NPI Support Sofeast - The New Product Introduction Process Guide QualityInspection.org – How Good DFM and DFA Help with Production Cost & Quality QualityInspection.org – The Design for Reliability Process for Launching Reliable Products QualityInspection.org – Don’t Leave Packaging Until the End Agilian – Why Test Components and New Products to Failure During NPI? Get in touch with Sofeast Connect with us on LinkedIn Contact us via Sofeast's contact page Subscribe to our YouTube channel Prefer Facebook? Check us out on FB

When you send a manufacturer your CAD files, drawings, specifications, and requirements, you might expect them to review everything and simply come back with a price and lead time. But an experienced manufacturing team will often respond with something else first: questions. Lots of them. In episode 345 of China Manufacturing Decoded, Adrian is joined by Agilian's Paul Adams to explain why those questions are an important part of preparing a product for manufacturing, not an unnecessary delay. They discuss what manufacturers are trying to understand about your product, including its function, operating environment, mating parts, tolerances, materials, production volumes, surface finishes, and inspection criteria. Paul also explains how seemingly small assumptions can become embedded in a product specification and ultimately lead to higher costs, excessive rejection rates, rework, tooling modifications, delays, or products that do not perform as expected. You'll also learn what information buyers should provide when requesting a quotation, why detailed 2D drawings remain so important, how experienced manufacturers' questions differ from superficial ones, and how the questions you ask can help you assess the capability of a potential manufacturing partner. As Paul puts it: smart questions at the start are cheaper than solving problems at the end.   Show Sections 00:13 - Introduction: Why do experienced manufacturers ask so many questions before quoting? 02:39 - Why manufacturers need to ask questions before giving firm answers 07:37 - What manufacturers need to understand about your product 10:29 - Mating parts, fit, and tolerance stack-ups 12:45 - Why inspection and cosmetic criteria must be specific 16:25 - What happens when important questions are skipped? 20:26 - How assumptions lead to failures, rework, and extra cost 24:51 - What buyers should provide when requesting a quotation 27:10 - Why detailed 2D drawings, finishes, welding, and CTQs matter 30:13 - How experienced manufacturers ask better questions 35:28 - Managing component lead times during development 38:59 - Smart questions at the start are cheaper than problems at the end 41:36 - Why silence from either side is a warning sign 43:01 - Using questions to evaluate a manufacturer’s capability 45:37 - Key takeaway: good questions reduce manufacturing risk   Related content How To Get A Quotation For Manufacturing Your New Product? The New Product Introduction Process Guide DfX, Industrialization & NPI Support from Agilian Plastic Injection Molds: 8 Tips For When Requesting Quotes Questions to Ask Your Tooling and Plastic Supplier to Reduce Risks Get in touch with Sofeast Connect with us on LinkedIn Contact us via Sofeast's contact page Subscribe to our YouTube channel Prefer Facebook? Check us out on FB