[NewJazz]

They should produce boards from multiple vendors' SoCs.

[foobiekr]

This doesn’t work in practice since your costs scale with vendor count and theirs don’t.

In reality being a single big customer for one vendor is far more influential than being a small one with other options.

[NewJazz]

In reality being a single big customer for one vendor is far more influential than being a small one with other options.

In what world? the one where firms don't compete?

If other firms are explicitly on the table for the currently negotiated and next generation RPi, Broadcom will have more incentive to meet the RPi Foundation's specific needs. If Broadcom knows that RPi is not talking to other vendors, then their negotiating position is stronger.

[foobiekr]

In the real world. I’ve been working for large vendors for literal decades and I can tell you outright that you own us if you’re a big customer, even if we are the only vendor in sight, and no one gives a shit if you’re spreading out your business.

This is 100% a natural consequence of the need to make your quarter. A bigger deal is much more influential than a small one, consistently. Sales incentives also do this.

People who have not actually worked in the industry with a solid eye for how this works often think that having multiple vendors is a good answer, but it’s not. Having optionality helps, but in the end it’s all about deal size.

[cogman10]

You generally get bulk discounts. The more vendors you have, the more expensive each is.

[bmicraft]

Also think of the added development expenses, which might even overshadow forgone bulk discounts

[NewJazz]

For different SoCs? You would just choose one vendor per device generation (but always evaluating multiple). It is a new order anyways.