Hi Gang, I am looking for feed back on this one.
A very common reason so many PC buyers are willing to pay up for the high end machine is from past experience.
Co. buys PC's, then 12-18 months later is forced to buy additional upgrades for each PC in use to aid in handling the ever growing software burden placed on these machines. So when more PCs are needed, the IT guy buys the Fastest, Biggest, Meanest ect PC on the market at the time. Seems like a good move, with a little luch, he won't have to spend $$ on expensive upgrades at a later time to handle the software in 12-18 months.
You could almost say that there is a bit if a backlash towards some companies that sold them the first pc that had to be upgraded and was never really up to par to start with.
I think this is correct and y'all will agree.
Here is my question.
Would it be possible that in the future, there could be a simmilar backlash in the other direction. Customers upset that they were talked into buying high end machines @ high prices to put in places where after awhile, there is clearly excess capacity that they paid for ?
Some IT guy is talked into $2,500 P-II-### and in 12 months, it is clear that he could have bought $1,800 P-###-MMX or non MMX, and the users of those machines would not know the differance, And in the IT guy's mind, the demands of the machines will not really change for a while going forward.
Could there be a backlash, and what would it be like if it did happen? or will it never happen ?
This is not the start of an argument, I am really looking for honest responces on this one.
Jim |
