Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!mart Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware From: mart@csri.toronto.edu (Mart Molle) Subject: Re: Apple Trade-in Offer Message-ID: <1991Apr18.122434.19388@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> References: <3757@ux.acs.umn.edu> Date: 18 Apr 91 16:24:34 GMT Lines: 70 steveh@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Steven Howell) writes: >Apple simply charge TOO MUCH. [cost of parts << price of new machines...] [The new Classic, being cheaper, has killed the resale prices of used Macs. Buyers of $4k Pluses or $7K SEs feel betrayed...] >If they can't upgrade, then they canm either sell at stupid prices or stick >with a SLOW (like 128k,512,+ speed). but if apple was original with its low >prices, and not just cutting some off here and making it up over there, they >would offer there previous, and many loyal users, the option of upgrading >to the SE/30. >i am looking forward to a reasonable price for our useres to upgrade. >Its just a matter of when! I wish people would stop whining about how they are being abused by Apple. First, people said their prices were too high. And when Apple responds by introducing new cheaper models, they say it's killed the resale of their old machines... (Sigh) 1. *Every* computer (Apple or otherwise) depreciates faster than anything this side of a used condom. Why do you think businesses are allowed to depreciate their computer equipment for tax purposes over ~3-4 years, whereas other capital equipment must be done over 10-20 years??? 2. Over the last 3 years, according to SUN's trade-in policy, the SUN 3/60 workstation in my office has lost 90% of its value (closer to 95% if you start from list instead of educational prices....). Furthermore, the SUN 3/280 servers down the hall have *no* trade-in value, and have lost almost 100% of their value according to the prevailing used computer prices in the area (i.e., only the disk drives have any market value -- nobody wants the computer itself at any price). Earlier this decade, we had a DEC VAX 11/780 with all kinds of goodies, total cost: $3/4 million, resale value after 5 years: $5K. In my experience, Apple equipment holds its value *better* than competitive equipment. 3. If you think about it, the reason Apple came out with the Classic, LC, SI, etc., instead of just dropping the price of its existing models (Plus, SE, SE/30, etc.) is that the new designs are SO MUCH CHEAPER TO PRODUCE that it was cheaper for Apple to invest in the DESIGNING the new models, CHANGING their production facilities, and CLEARING OUT the old inventory at a discount than to keep the factory running to turn out an equivalent number of the existing models. Consequently, the COST TO APPLE of producing an "old tech" SE -> SE/30 upgrade is probably greater than the cost of producing an entire "new tech" SI. Why should it be priced substantially below the price of the new machine? Similarly, what do you expect Apple to do with the used machines (boards) you trade in? They cannot reuse the parts in the production of new machines because of technical (since the designs are different) and moral (remember when Chrysler got in trouble with the US government for selling "used" cars as "new"??) issues. They might put the machines into their pool of spare parts they use for component-swap level repairs, but how many spare Pluses do they need sitting in their warehouses? They might offer them for sale (but would have to wholesale them at substantially lower costs than their new models to get any takers), or even give them away to charitable organization -- but how much "good will" do you think they can afford? I wish computer equipment of all kinds did not lose its value as fast as it does. However, this is a fact of life. Plan your equipment purchases accordingly. Mart L. Molle Computer Systems Research Institute University of Toronto Toronto Canada M5S 1A4 (416)978-4928