4 ms·
The problem is that people will buy the overpriced used TV. Honestly, I sold my 4 year old 720p for $300 last fall and went out and bought a brand new 1080p for
by jlongster 14y ago
The problem is that people will buy the overpriced used TV. Honestly, I sold my 4 year old 720p for $300 last fall and went out and bought a brand new 1080p for $350! I couldn't believe it. But if people will buy, the price isn't going to change.
- tomkarlo 14y agoSame here. I was able to sell a 5 year-old, 42" LCD TV with no table stand (only good for wall mounting) along with its wall bracket for $350 earlier this year. Given that there's no fee for listing on Craigslist, I just put the highest price I could think of on it and kept posting it until I had a buyer (it only took two weeks.) Granted, it was $1500 when I bought it, but 1080 LCD TVs were at a huge premium back in 2007 and this thing was just taking up space in a crate in my apartment, depreciating. My only explanation for why someone would buy that price was that they 1.) appreciated the quality of that model versus lower-priced generic new units and 2.) they would have to pay another 10% in state sales tax if they went to a store, which increases the effective discount for buying used from a private party.
- seunosewa 14y agoThe second reason sounds much more compelling.
- its_so_on 14y agoTo me, the first reason sounds more compelling. Honestly, I'd rather use a core2 era macbook pro that was top of the line then than a $350 corei3 dell laptop that is bottom of the line now.
- tomkarlo 14y agoYeah... it's worth noting that just because you can buy _some_ 42" TV for $400 or less right now, doesn't mean that TV is comparable to a TV that was $1500 and arguably the best on the market when it came out. To get comparable features in a new set you might still have to pay $600 or more.
- pbreit 14y agoYou cannot compare Apple products to commodity TVs.
- excuse-me 14y agoNo that was his point. A 1080p TV from 2007 was probably a Sony class product, I would rather buy that for $300 than a 'new' no-name 1080p TV for $350. Similarly I would buy a 2007 Macbook for $500 rather than a new $500 Walmart laptop.
- pbreit 14y agoIf that was his point, it was poorly made. My point was that Apple products are in a class by themselves and not a useful comparable in this discussion. Not even Sony TVs are in that class (not that they were mentioned).
- tomflack 14y agoI think the illustration of the idea is spot on and you're simply wrong.
- pbreit 14y agoThe peson was trying to compare a tv comparison to an Apple/non-Apple comparison. I stand firmly by my contention that that is not a good comparison because Apple products are in a class essentially by themselves (not even approached by Sony TVs). The illustration is weak at best. The illustration is even more non-sensical since it specifies a top-of-the-line Mac with a bottom of the line no-name. Spot-on, huh?
- tomflack 14y agoI still maintain it works perfectly. You're getting too hung-up on where you rank each brand.
- 14y ago
- user3632 14y agoYes. I've just ordered a T60 C2D Thinkpad with 4:3 1400x1050 screen for 300 USD. When it was new it costed 2000-2500 USD. It's not possible to buy a similar laptop today even with 1000-2000 USD. They are all 1360x768 Core i5.
- hammock 14y agoChicago's sales tax rate is the worst (literally). For big ticket items like Tvs, computers, etc... it actually pays to drive into Indiana or Wisconsin and bring it back. On a $1100 TV you save $107