- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
This article simply ignores basic economics - the purchase price of an item is fixed, hence the cost of a computer is "sunk" once the transaction is completed. You can't say that the cost of an item changes based on resale value, but you could say that the overall value or benefit of the computer is better for people who sell their computers after a year.
But who does this? Its not a smart strategy, since you'll have to dish out even more cash for the next computer. New computers won't cost less than what you just sold your old computer for, so you've got a net loss on the transaction (new computer purchase price minus cash received from the sale of the old computer). Its far more relevant to note that computers are not an investment. They don't gain in value or appreciate over time - selling used computers is just a way to salvage some of the original expenditure.
The author didn't even attempt to compare similar computers or bother to discuss peripherals. What about repair costs? What about software? What about all of the other differences between Mac and PC systems? What about the transaction costs associated with scrapping your system after a year and restarting on a new machine? You simply can't say that the costs of ownership are limited to the purchase price of the main unit - any computer owner knows this to be false! A better article would examine true costs over the expected life/use of the machine, not some artificial construct dreamed up by the author in an attempt to prove a point.
