Slashdot Mirror
Consumers Buy Less Tech Stuff, Keep It Longer
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The NY Times reports that there are indications that a sea change is taking place in consumer behavior as a result of the great recession: Americans are buying less tech stuff and making it last longer (reg. may be required). Although in many cases the difference is mere months, economists and consumers say the approach may outlast a full recovery and the return of easy credit, because of the strong impression the downturn has made on consumers. For example Patti Hauseman stuck with her five-year-old Apple computer until it started making odd whirring noises and occasionally malfunctioning before she bought a new computer for Christmas — actually, a refurbished one. 'A week later, the old one died. We timed it pretty well,' says Hauseman, adding that it was not so much that she could not afford new things, but that the last few years of economic turmoil had left her feeling that she could be stealing from her future by throwing away goods that still had value. Consumers are holding onto new cars for a record 63.9 months, up 4.5 months from a year ago and 14 percent since the end of 2008, according one research firm. Industry analysts also report that people on average are waiting 18 months to upgrade their cellphones, up from every 16 months just a few years ago. 'We're not going back to a time of our grandmothers' tales of what they kept and how they used things so carefully,' says Nancy F. Koehn, a professor at the Harvard Business School and a historian of consumer behavior. 'But we'll see a consistent inching or trudging towards that.'"
The good news here is that the computer buying public is getting more educated about what they need and what's available, and starting to find better deals.
The bad news is that the tech industry has to compete more with itself which means its scrambling over a smaller total of dollars available.
The bad news is that the tech industry has to compete more with itself which means its scrambling over a smaller total of dollars available.
The good news is that as the installed base of five-year-old PCs and netbooks increases, publishers of commercial software may finally realize that the common practice of increasing published system requirements rather than the efficiency of algorithms, commonly called Wirth's law, is costing them customers.
and keep it for years than have the latest and greatest every year. Sadly, it is getting tougher and tougher to find those quality products,
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
The summary said " Americans are buying less tech stuff and making it last longer"?
No worry, manufacturer are making everything last shorter
When people have less money they keep their items for a longer period. They have functional items and don't have the money and there is less peer pressure to buy the latest since for many the money is tight. They dont waste their money by buying new items they don't need.
This more or less always happen when the economy are bad.
Just saying it like it are.
The environment will be happy.
I think that, at least for the average user in their day-to-day tasks, five or six year old computers still perform adequately, and people really have no reason to upgrade. My uncle has an eight year old IBM ThinkPad which he still uses as his primary computer, and it runs Windows XP, Outlook Express and Office 2003 just fine - and that's all he needs. Given, it's more or less approaching the end of its life, the battery doesn't hold a charge and the HDD is as slow as a dog, but having seen his friends' bad experiences with new hardware and the bloated mess that was Vista, he's reluctant to upgrade.
And that bloat I think is causing a lot of this. New hardware isn't much faster than the old if it's dragged down by a bloated OS. And I think it's fair to say that most of these new 'features' aren't really necessary at all, so people don't see a need to upgrade. Why do you think XP still has such a large market share? Because people already have it, it does what they need it to, and there's no real need for them to upgrade.
I don't see this as a return to frugality - I see this as a warning shot for the industry.
Innovation in the electronics and technology industry is stagnating. What really separates a high-def TV, smart phone, or computer from one of 5 years ago?
Consumers seem to think not much.
As much as I love my new Verizon iPhone - it's not really leaps and bounds better than my old 3GS I gave to my wife. My company switched to Verizon, so I was forced to "upgrade". If I was paying for it, I wouldn't have made the switch.
I think TV manufacturers saw this trend coming a couple of years ago, so they scrambled to put 3D in to every TV they could hoping it would spur another round of upgrades - and most of the world said meh...
The low-hanging fruit is gone - the tech world will need to really think creatively to create the next round of stuff that people find useful.
-ted
"For example Patti Hauseman stuck with her five-year-old Apple computer until it started making odd whirring noises and occasionally malfunctioning before she bought a new computer for Christmas"
Yep. I have a five year-old Mac Mini which I upgraded the CPU in (1.5 CoreSolo->2Ghz Core2Duo), a three-year old MacBook Pro, my wife has a five year-old MacBook (the original one). They are all doing fine for the moment, though ominously it looks like Lion is 64-bit only and so the original 32-bit MacBook will have to go.
This isn't a Mac-only thing either. I'm sure someone would be able to point me at their five year-old PC laptop and say pretty much the same thing - basically unless you're doing really demanding tasks or gaming, anything from the last five years is fine.
I have two applications where I wish I had slightly more modern hardware - Logic 9 (music production) stutters at times when I use a lot of audio effect plug-ins, and I wouldn't mind more than 4Gb so that I could run virtual machines a bit more smoothly. That's it - my day-to-day existence is more than catered for with this hardware, indeed it's pretty much overkill.
Cheers,
Ian
Welcome to the normal way of living America!
I'm just a barista, and I don't make a lot of money, but even I manage to buy a new Apple device almost every month.
Each month, I put all of my first three weeks of earnings toward buying a new iPhone or an iPad or an iBook or an iPod. I already have 14 different types of iPods, and 8 iPhones. Next month I think I will save up for a new Mac mini (it will be my 12th).
It's my duty as an American to buy as many Apple products as I can, even if it means that sometimes I don't have enough money for rent, and sometimes not even enough money for food.
too ...
(emerge is still running)
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Typically I just whip it out one day at a dinner party. It's always a great hit.
"I find it remarkable how they expect people to keep buying and buying."
But that's exactly what people do till they are trillions and trillions and trillions in debt.
Companies owe the banks lots of money, it has to be paid back or the thugs come rounds and break some legs.
You have to keep buying. There must be Growth!
Deleted
I don't know about you guys, but I try not to swap new gadgets all the time not just for economical reasons. It's also a hell of a lot less of a strain on the environment if you can use something longer.
.: Max Romantschuk
http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/more-on-the-future-implications-ibm-watson-technology/#comment-534
http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery/38e2u3s23jer/2
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"Under what conditions does accelerated inequity appeal to the majority of a democratic population?"
Almost never. But if you scare the population with boogie men like gay marriage and Mexican immigration, you can get them to vote for advocates of inequity.
the devices and applications have already matured way past the needs of the everyday user. and even gamers. even in gaming, the leading edge of computing devices with its excessive demand for processing power and memory, the point which a normal person would notice any difference is long past. we are getting great realism with great visuals and in high framerates. most cards and games already offer framerates past a person's visual detection ability already. and the ones who are still pushing for more generally seem to be performance enthusiasts. people who aim for 120 fps and on. so, if even in gaming we have reached a saturation point in regard to devices - imagine how it is like for ordinary internet usage, office usage, and casual usage. we just dont need to replace what we have.
Read radical news here
even with many times in the bank that what he has I refuse to buy a "smart phone" or similar. Too me it seems that the name was a give away. Make the owner feel important, pretentious even, and fleece him behind his back because they know he will justify it to himself!!! I deserve it. We have a running joke at my work, the support people drive better (read : more expensive) cars than the programmers and admins. I do not understand the need to pick up a near 800 dollar lease, that damn car's MSRP is near the person's income who drives it.
Its like wandering into Starbucks and seeing all the expensive hardware on display. People are far to convinced that the items they are seen with define them. I will drive my little TDI and smile. Its a flipping car, just like its a flipping phone, laptop, etc. They are meaningless in a world when anyone can go in debt to have them.
Having expensive toys does not make you rich or special.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.