4 ms·
It's a mistake to conflate value with "market price" or liquidity. I have plenty of assets like books, kitchen equipment, and even electronics that would fetch
by globular-toast 2y ago
It's a mistake to conflate value with "market price" or liquidity. I have plenty of assets like books, kitchen equipment, and even electronics that would fetch a mighty sum of approximately zero on the market yet still provide me with enormous value (as much value as they did the day I acquired them).
If cars were like software then they wouldn't wear or rust, the only reason they'd "lose value" is if the roads or fuels changed. But the roads haven't changed fundamentally since the invention of the car and newer fuels can usually be used with minor tweaks rather than starting from scratch. It's completely irrelevant if I could buy a "better" car. I wouldn't be on the market for one because my current car continues to deliver value.
The "roads changing" can happen to software too, it's true. If the x86 platform became obsolete then clearly a bunch of software that is too intrinsically tried to that platform would be less valuable (because you can't run it). But that hasn't happened. In fact, we can't even seem to change the "roads" when we want to (see IPv4). Much of the change in software is artificial and created by those profit from it.
- echoangle 2y ago> If cars were like software then they wouldn't wear or rust, the only reason they'd "lose value" is if the roads or fuels changed. No, and that’s exactly my point. A car with technical specs from 1970 wouldn’t be worth as much today as in 1970 because the standards are higher today. I wouldn’t want a perfectly restored house from 1600, just because it was the greatest way to live in 1600. Because I am used to stuff from now.
- globular-toast 2y agoThat sounds like the hedonic treadmill to me. The existence of something "better" does not reduce the value of what you already have. I have a 1080p projector. I enjoy it just as much as I always have done. You might have a 4K projector but that doesn't affect me at all. This is not to say a newer model can't deliver more value than my current one. But that's not the same as saying my current model suddenly delivers less.
- echoangle 2y agoWell it is the hedonic treadmill, but that doesn’t make it wrong. It’s a real thing. Maybe you’re more modest than me but the standard of the time absolutely changes my value of things. Ten years ago the iPhone 5 was the greatest thing ever, today I wouldn’t want one for $100.
- globular-toast 2y agoBut nobody is asking you to pay anything. You already have the old one because you paid for it ten years ago.
- echoangle 2y agoWasn’t the original comment about comparing „buying for a fixed price“ vs „subscription model“? Depending on the expected competition in the future, the subscription can be better because you expect to get a free alternative in a few years. So buying a software for a high price doesn’t make sense even if you get to own it forever, because you aren’t going to use it forever anyways.