5 ms·

> Are there really people out there who would replace a Macbook Pro M1 or M2 with a M3 just to get something a bit faster? Are there really people who buy a ne

> Are there really people out there who would replace a Macbook Pro M1 or M2 with a M3 just to get something a bit faster? Are there really people who buy a new car every 2 years? Yes. Yes there are. Some people like to have the newest stuff and don't mind living paycheck to paycheck to do so. Or maybe they're rich.

troupe 3y ago
There are some people who just waste their money, but there are also a wide difference in the value people get from their cars and computers. Someone billing $500 per hour is going to be a lot more willing to upgrade their computer for even a small improvement. They may even keep a spare computer just to make sure they have minimum downtime if something goes wrong. Someone who just uses their computer to watch youtube videos may be fine keeping their computer until it stops working.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  That's totally fair as well. However. I expect that the majority of people who upgrade their computer regularly can't justify it as a business expense. But I could be wrong.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- scarface_74 3y ago
  When I got Amazoned a couple of months ago and didn’t have a personal computer at all, a side contract fell into my lap where I billed $150/hour. (Don’t cry for me. I found a full time job 3 weeks later). I recouped the cost of the M2 MacBook Air 24GB RAM/1TB in less than 15 hours worth of work - taking my after tax rate into account. My work was not compute intensive so the Air was fine. But I would definitely pay for a 30% improvement at that bill rate.
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    Excuse me, but why? If your work takes longer on a slower computer, you can bill more. But if you can complete two projects in the same time on a faster computer, you work harder but can't bill more. This only seems to work if you bill $150/project but if you bill hourly it doesn't work out. Yet you and the parent comment have said this, what am I missing?
    - troupe 3y ago
      If you are billing at $150 per hour, people are probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more because the client would pay for the time I spend waiting for my computer." Imagine you go to see a lawyer who is charging you $750 per hour, but instead of using a computer, they are writing everything out by hand and then personally using a typewriter to type up their notes. You ask why they don't use a computer and they point out that they can make more money by billing you for the time it takes to use slower technologies. Might you consider a different lawyer?
      - jodrellblank 3y ago
        > "probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more because the client would pay for the time I spend waiting for my computer."" And yet, regardless of how moral it is, the calculation seems correct - billing at $150 an hour means things which take longer, get you more money. Two people have claimed that a faster computer will earn them more money, while describing a situation wherein a faster computer will earn them less money. It doesn't make sense. With your lawyer comparison it's easy to see paper and tyepwriter; are you suggesting that customers know whether contractors are using an Apple M1 or an Apple M3, and have an idea of how much time that ought to change the quote by, and would consider a different contractor based on the computer they are using? I doubt clients have that insight or interest. Are you saying they buy Apple M3 because they are more moral contractors and it's the right thing to do? Even if it is more moral, I find that unlikely to be the reason since the argument was explicitly "it makes me more money" not "it saves my customers money". > "people are probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more because the client would pay for the time I spend waiting for my computer."" I think people would see you upgrading your M1 to an M3 and decide you were being extravagant and therefore charging them too much, and leave for a competitor who is more frugal. Far more than they would decide you were a con artist because you didn't have the latest and greatest. Are you saying that the reason to invest in a new top of the line Apple laptop is to compete on a race-to-the-bottom where you can undercut competing quotes? That also feels unlikely - you could likely do that more effectively with a second hand AMD Ryzen desktop than a new Macbook Pro (something the well-informed customer would know) and that people competing in a race to be cheapest tend to aggressively penny-pinch rather than aggressively spend on the best.
cglace 3y ago
You need to be rich to afford a new computer every 3 years?
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  At Apple's prices, yeah. I sit on desktops for 5 years+ with modest opportunistic upgrades, and I consider that extravagant. I think people forget that $4k+ for a computer is Quadro workstation territory.
  - cglace 3y ago
    I guess if you are paying 4k+ for your computer it makes sense to push out your next purchase. I'm usually paying ~2k.
    - brucethemoose2 3y ago
      IDK. My 3090/7800X3D desktop, assembled new, was ~$2K. That's a very premium computer. And that's with the general Nvidia price gouging these days, and paying a premium for ITX as well. $2K is very expensive for a PC.
  - Art9681 3y ago
    $4k is a little or a lot depending on your circumstance. Assume three individuals that make the same income. - One of them supports a family of 3 on one income. - One of them is single and supports only themselves. - One of them is married with dual-income and no kids. This has nothing to do with wealth.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      There are also those who can afford it but don't see the value add. There better be some serious value add for me to spend $4k IMO. Others are a bit loose with their money which is their prerogative. I really only upgrade if my current PC cannot do a thing that I need it to do.
  - 3y ago
petercooper 3y ago
Or maybe they work with computers in a business full time and the price of a new computer is minor compared to the income it's used to produce, especially if it's tax deductible, such that it's a valid business decision if the improvements are barely more than marginal.

troupe 3y ago

There are some people who just waste their money, but there are also a wide difference in the value people get from their cars and computers. Someone billing $500 per hour is going to be a lot more willing to upgrade their computer for even a small improvement. They may even keep a spare computer just to make sure they have minimum downtime if something goes wrong. Someone who just uses their computer to watch youtube videos may be fine keeping their computer until it stops working.

nordsieck 3y ago
That's totally fair as well. However. I expect that the majority of people who upgrade their computer regularly can't justify it as a business expense. But I could be wrong.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
scarface_74 3y ago
When I got Amazoned a couple of months ago and didn’t have a personal computer at all, a side contract fell into my lap where I billed $150/hour. (Don’t cry for me. I found a full time job 3 weeks later). I recouped the cost of the M2 MacBook Air 24GB RAM/1TB in less than 15 hours worth of work - taking my after tax rate into account. My work was not compute intensive so the Air was fine. But I would definitely pay for a 30% improvement at that bill rate.
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  Excuse me, but why? If your work takes longer on a slower computer, you can bill more. But if you can complete two projects in the same time on a faster computer, you work harder but can't bill more. This only seems to work if you bill $150/project but if you bill hourly it doesn't work out. Yet you and the parent comment have said this, what am I missing?
  - troupe 3y ago
    If you are billing at $150 per hour, people are probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more because the client would pay for the time I spend waiting for my computer." Imagine you go to see a lawyer who is charging you $750 per hour, but instead of using a computer, they are writing everything out by hand and then personally using a typewriter to type up their notes. You ask why they don't use a computer and they point out that they can make more money by billing you for the time it takes to use slower technologies. Might you consider a different lawyer?
    - jodrellblank 3y ago
      > "probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more because the client would pay for the time I spend waiting for my computer."" And yet, regardless of how moral it is, the calculation seems correct - billing at $150 an hour means things which take longer, get you more money. Two people have claimed that a faster computer will earn them more money, while describing a situation wherein a faster computer will earn them less money. It doesn't make sense. With your lawyer comparison it's easy to see paper and tyepwriter; are you suggesting that customers know whether contractors are using an Apple M1 or an Apple M3, and have an idea of how much time that ought to change the quote by, and would consider a different contractor based on the computer they are using? I doubt clients have that insight or interest. Are you saying they buy Apple M3 because they are more moral contractors and it's the right thing to do? Even if it is more moral, I find that unlikely to be the reason since the argument was explicitly "it makes me more money" not "it saves my customers money". > "people are probably counting on you to not be someone who would think, "If I keep a slower computer, I could bill for more because the client would pay for the time I spend waiting for my computer."" I think people would see you upgrading your M1 to an M3 and decide you were being extravagant and therefore charging them too much, and leave for a competitor who is more frugal. Far more than they would decide you were a con artist because you didn't have the latest and greatest. Are you saying that the reason to invest in a new top of the line Apple laptop is to compete on a race-to-the-bottom where you can undercut competing quotes? That also feels unlikely - you could likely do that more effectively with a second hand AMD Ryzen desktop than a new Macbook Pro (something the well-informed customer would know) and that people competing in a race to be cheapest tend to aggressively penny-pinch rather than aggressively spend on the best.

cglace 3y ago

You need to be rich to afford a new computer every 3 years?

brucethemoose2 3y ago
At Apple's prices, yeah. I sit on desktops for 5 years+ with modest opportunistic upgrades, and I consider that extravagant. I think people forget that $4k+ for a computer is Quadro workstation territory.
- cglace 3y ago
  I guess if you are paying 4k+ for your computer it makes sense to push out your next purchase. I'm usually paying ~2k.
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    IDK. My 3090/7800X3D desktop, assembled new, was ~$2K. That's a very premium computer. And that's with the general Nvidia price gouging these days, and paying a premium for ITX as well. $2K is very expensive for a PC.
- Art9681 3y ago
  $4k is a little or a lot depending on your circumstance. Assume three individuals that make the same income. - One of them supports a family of 3 on one income. - One of them is single and supports only themselves. - One of them is married with dual-income and no kids. This has nothing to do with wealth.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    There are also those who can afford it but don't see the value add. There better be some serious value add for me to spend $4k IMO. Others are a bit loose with their money which is their prerogative. I really only upgrade if my current PC cannot do a thing that I need it to do.
- 3y ago

petercooper 3y ago

Or maybe they work with computers in a business full time and the price of a new computer is minor compared to the income it's used to produce, especially if it's tax deductible, such that it's a valid business decision if the improvements are barely more than marginal.