I'm thinking of the typical car vs the typical computer.
>> New cars typically lose about 20% of their value the moment they’re driven off the lot, and about 65% after five years.
MBPs are one of the few computers that hold their value the best. But after 5 years, you're looking at a depreciation rate of 75%+ (going from $2000+ in 2009 to only $500 in 2014).
But we're looking at the _best_ computer that holds its value the best. No one gives a damn about a refurbished Dell Inspiron from 2010.
You're looking at ~90% depreciation for the more typical laptop, and maybe 70% if you focus only on Macbooks. With Cars, you're looking at 65% typical depreciation, with only ~45% if you focus on Camrys or Corolas.
A 2009 Camry will run you ~12k today, only 45% depreciation.
You were downvoted for saying exactly what I was about to say: for most consumer use, my 2009 MBP does everything I need. It beats me at chess. A/V transcoding could be faster, but that's really an edge use case for me, and probably most people, even on HN.
What I do care about is ergonomics, specifically the keyboard, and I have yet to find a $300 (or $600) Windows or Android machine with a keyboard comparable to a Mac. If it exists, I hope someone will let me know in the comments.
This is a thread about how computers get better over the years. A modern Macbook Pro is leagues better than one 2 years ago (SSD, PCIe, Retina Screen, smaller), and the one 2-years-ago is leagues better than a 4-year-old Macbook Pro (Sandy Bridge vs C2D, GPU upgrades, etc. etc.).
I chose the Dell Venue 8 Pro because it is a cheap $300 machine to emphasize a point. Computers continue to make progress exponentially... to the point where a 4-year-old "premium computer" is specs-for-specs comparable to one of the trashiest, slowest modern computers of this time.
I'm a little pissed that I have to change my argument structure to cater to your fanboy mindset. I'm not taking a dig at Mac, I'm trying to make a point about technology and the rate at which it improves.
Long story short: the computer industry has always been about forward progress at an exponential rate. This will make it difficult for any "leasing" structure to work with computers. Depreciation of laptops happens too quickly.
I'm trying to make a point about technology and the rate at which it improves.
Make whatever point you want, but TFA is about an MBP subscription service. People buy MBPs for usability and reliability, not for hardware specs. Always have.
When you claim that one computer is "leagues better" than some other computer, I say "prove it - according to MY criteria as the purchaser and consumer - not your criteria as a chip overclocker."
Honestly Chrome is the worst. I'll have 10-12 tabs open (including apps like Asana and Gmail, plus a few extensions) and it takes a while to switch tabs, especially when I'm also doing development work, with Atom open, a few iTerm tabs, Activity Monitor, Finder windows, Messenger, Telegram, and Mail. Add a few daemons for servers or databases running in the background it just locks my system up.
Plus I work with data sets, and my HDD is filling up fast...
It's about time. In fact, it's way past time. But don't expect Microsoft to give up without a great deal more fight, a legal challenge or two, and other tactics from their vast playbook.
Your "except" is pretty big to be put in "except".
Apart from that, simply resistance from users, who are not really "computer people" and basically know that clicking the "w" icon launches the application on which letters can be drafted, is not a small matter. I hope the training programmes are well planned to cover that aspect.
Resistance to change from non "computer people", as you put it, has nothing to do with something Microsoft can do.
And concerning the bribery, yes, I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the main reason linux and free software in general didn't get more adoption.
Even if you're not interested in planes or the souls on them, the technology deployed to find this needle in a large haystack is quite Hacker News-worthy.
I was just about to post exactly this. Anyone interested in what Wall Street actually does needs to watch this movie.
I have an MBA. I have nothing against making money. But while it's possible to make money by creating something of value, it's unfortunately possible to make even more money while doing the opposite.
Shitpiles like this always have a "business alibi" that they create liquidity, or improve efficiency/productivity, etc. I suppose it's true that the forest needs fires, but we don't have to like them.
From what I've read, Icahn argues that the companieshe's going up against aren't do a good job of running the company. If that's true, Icahn is doing shareholders a service.
Well, let's look at the TWA story related here. Icahn took the company private just three years after buying it, then started relentlessly selling off assets. At the time it went private, he owned 77% of the company's outstanding shares -- so he was far and away the biggest beneficiary of that move, and he effectively cut the remaining 23% of the shareholders out of the profits he made by dismantling the airline over the next few years.
It's possible that TWA couldn't have been turned around and selling it off was really the best return he could get on his investment -- but I think it's at least debatable whether Icahn did anyone else much of a service. The other shareholders got to exit a company they'd lost faith in and hopefully made some money in the process, but that seems to be it as far as silver linings go.
Whenever I hear a story about someone being "underhanded" and "of low character" I always see what the other side of the story is. Usually, the truth isn't so straightforward.
It appears that TWA owed him money so he negotiated the cheap ticket as a form of payment...[1] How convenient that Marc left that out of his blog post...
In the interim, Icahn negotiated for airline vouchers from the company in lieu of the $190 million that TWA owed him. As the deal included the provision that he could not sell these tickets through travel agents, Icahn founded LowestFare.com, where he both sold the tickets and created a revolution in the travel industry.
One of those creditors, to the tune of $190 million, was Icahn. He resigned as chairman in 1993, and by 1995 he was growing impatient to be repaid. TWA executives, desperate to bring the tragic Icahn chapter to a close, gave away the farm, the cows and the farmer’s wife. They came up with a deal called the Karabu ticket agreement, an eight-year arrangement that allowed Icahn to buy any ticket that connected through St. Louis… for 55 cents on the dollar and resell them at a discount.
Then of course, if you believe that the company is undervalued and can grow (and that is why you would buy it, anyway), you wouldn't try to force them to pay your money back, because they could generate a positive return on the money.
I don't know the details, but maybe it kept the company from filling bankruptcy by a few months? They didn't have the cash to pay the loan, so they offered the tickets.
Selling off the most profitable route, tickets, short ordering replacement aircraft - there is not one thing he did that benefited anyone but himself. Nevermind long term company value.
That doesn't make any sense. Icahn is a shareholder himself and he mainly makes his money through share appreciation. If the share price goes up, all shareholders benefit.
I don't know enough about the TWA business dealings, but sometimes a company is more valuable broken up.
Did you read the article you linked to with the stock buy-back, ticket sales, and then tanking it in Chap 11? That didn't benefit the other shareholders.
Actually an MBP [1] holds its value better than many Detroit products[2].
[1] See eBay. [2] http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/27/cars-resale-value-lifestyle...