3 ms·
> 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 p
by 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.