I heard someone say today – and I’ll try to get this as close to the actual statement as I can from memory – that replacing stuff that they currently have that works and does the jobs they need it to do with new stuff on which they need to shell out extra cash is worth the investment as the new product is the best product in the marketplace.
I guess I’ve always know this – it’s very odd, but there is something inherent in a capitalist economy, I guess, that means that if you charge more for a particular something then it is generally viewed as being of greater value – “better” – than something with a lower price.
It doesn’t seem to matter whether a value judgment has been passed on the relative usefulness of the product for the task or whether the more expensive product has a raft of stuff that you don’t actually need. It’s all about an “investment” – if we make this “investment” in this product then we will get greater returns.
It’s apparent within the snide snorts of the Microsoft fraternity – that the value of their software is greater than that “open source nonsense” – just because they charge money for it. It’s the same in many things – the perceived value is often greater than the value itself.
Just thought it was odd, that’s all. If you’ve got something that does everything you need it to do – and your business plan does not contain anything new in it that you need new stuff for – why do you need to spend money to replace it?
Filed under: random
