Today's Globe&Mail writes PC: Now It Stands for Price Cuts and that "... consumers are increasingly ignoring higher-end machines." (The article has no details backing the claim, which I presume refers to Linux and Windows-based computers -- not Apples.)
After having spent tens of thousands of my household budget on computers since 1983, I am glad to see them priced at disposable levels. (The last expensive computer I bought was in 2001, a $3,300 Toshiba notebook that ended up costing $4,000 after bumping up the RAM from 256KB and so on.)
After eight years of remarkable deflation, the norm today is paying as little as 1/10th of that price. (And to think I thought it was amazing when notebook prices fell to $1000!) The last six computers I purchased for myself or family members were in the range of $400-$600 each, over the last 1.5 years. Consumers are lovin' it even as the hardware makers are hatin' it.
Here's the point: computer makers and Microsoft are to blame for consumers wanting cheap computers. After all, with each iteration of Windows, consumers are barraged with large colorful ads insisting new hardware is necessary to fully enjoy the experience. (As if computers are enjoyable. Ask one who owns one.)
The lesson has been well taught: don't bother "investing" (code word for "spend a lot of money") today for an expensive computer, because it will be obsolete in three years (2012, when Windows 8 is due).
Three years between Windows releases matches the length of extended warranties. Second lesson: buy the cheapest computer, and let the warranty company pay for the next upgrade. (I don't recommend extended warranties, actually, except for the free ones that come with some credit cards.)
It's actually a two-way dependency, all of it on Microsoft's side. The convicted monopolist keeps baiting hardware makers that the next release of Windows will require new hardware purchases; Microsoft needs them to maintain their interest in order to ensure it can keep flooding the market with OEM Windows licenses. The result is the Timex-ification of personal computers, a good thing for consumers.
Meanwhile, Apple has become a BMW or Patek Philippe, keeping the price high for that niche of the population that likes paying high prices. (I bought my first Apple product last week, an iPod Touch. However, I consider $400 for the 64GB model cheap, considering that's the same price for the still-available Palm TX with 128MB.)
At the other end, Google is promising to make hardware completely disposable. The only thing that's precious about a computer is the data that resides on its hard drive; when the computer is even cheaper than what we pay today (Google claims its reference design costs $100-$300), and when my precious data is no longer stored on it, then the computer is as important as the plastic bag in which we bring home our groceries.
After having spent tens of thousands of my household budget on computers since 1983, I am glad to see them priced at disposable levels. (The last expensive computer I bought was in 2001, a $3,300 Toshiba notebook that ended up costing $4,000 after bumping up the RAM from 256KB and so on.)
After eight years of remarkable deflation, the norm today is paying as little as 1/10th of that price. (And to think I thought it was amazing when notebook prices fell to $1000!) The last six computers I purchased for myself or family members were in the range of $400-$600 each, over the last 1.5 years. Consumers are lovin' it even as the hardware makers are hatin' it.
Here's the point: computer makers and Microsoft are to blame for consumers wanting cheap computers. After all, with each iteration of Windows, consumers are barraged with large colorful ads insisting new hardware is necessary to fully enjoy the experience. (As if computers are enjoyable. Ask one who owns one.)
The lesson has been well taught: don't bother "investing" (code word for "spend a lot of money") today for an expensive computer, because it will be obsolete in three years (2012, when Windows 8 is due).
Three years between Windows releases matches the length of extended warranties. Second lesson: buy the cheapest computer, and let the warranty company pay for the next upgrade. (I don't recommend extended warranties, actually, except for the free ones that come with some credit cards.)
It's actually a two-way dependency, all of it on Microsoft's side. The convicted monopolist keeps baiting hardware makers that the next release of Windows will require new hardware purchases; Microsoft needs them to maintain their interest in order to ensure it can keep flooding the market with OEM Windows licenses. The result is the Timex-ification of personal computers, a good thing for consumers.
Meanwhile, Apple has become a BMW or Patek Philippe, keeping the price high for that niche of the population that likes paying high prices. (I bought my first Apple product last week, an iPod Touch. However, I consider $400 for the 64GB model cheap, considering that's the same price for the still-available Palm TX with 128MB.)
At the other end, Google is promising to make hardware completely disposable. The only thing that's precious about a computer is the data that resides on its hard drive; when the computer is even cheaper than what we pay today (Google claims its reference design costs $100-$300), and when my precious data is no longer stored on it, then the computer is as important as the plastic bag in which we bring home our groceries.
Comments