Dave McGuire wrote: Yes, most definitely, I agree. The manufacturer, then, needs to keep their definition of "obsolete" to themselves. If I hear "You fool, why are you using that old thing, it's obsolete!" from its manufacturer, it almost definitely translates to "You know, I work on commission, and I'd really like to make a sale today." [snip] No, you misunderstand my position, or I have misrepresented it. The point I was trying to make was about the notion of "forced obsolescence". If the manufacturer stops selling something long before demand runs out, and doesn't release something substantially better in its place, then THAT is a problem. [snip] It simply boils down to "who says it's obsolete". If it's the manufacturer, and the user disagrees, I see that as a huge problem...especially if there is pressure involved, which there frequently is. I guarantee you the 20-something vendor rep with the power tie and the slicked-back hair who just showed up in your building is NOT standing there worried about whether or not you're on the cutting edge of technology or whether he makes your job easier. THAT is where "forced obsolescence" comes from. It is fake, a lie, and needs to be recognized and ignored when encountered. That is, unless one actually enjoys being bilked for every last dime and having an equipment turnover interval measured in months. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL Billy responds: You seem to have a very harsh viewpoint of the manufacturers. I have to protest your first statement that the manufacturers should keep their definition to themselves. Why? They have as much right to stating facts as you do. Your definition of obsolete is not the only one, we both agree. So why can't other people express their definition? The other points you make seem to be in the class of the manufacturers are a bunch of crooks out to bilk their customers. (I've never heard an OEM call a customer a "fool".) How about the benefit of the doubt here - that they are business men trying to make a profit for their employees and stock holders. If a product, no matter how good, can no longer be made profitably, they do not have an obligation to continue to produce it. And if the market has shrunk, there may be no follow on product even though a few users still need it or a similar product. Forced obsolescence is NOT always a fake and a lie. There are usually very valid reasons for it that have nothing to do with bilking customers. It costs a lot of money to develop and roll out new products. But the reality is that consumers are fickle. They demand change, they demand the new. If a company sticks with its mature established products and foregoes development, it usually dies. In my field, disk drives, we would absolutely love to keep making 9GB or better yet, 100MB drives. They would be easy to build, not cost any R&D, overhead would be zip. Problem is no one would buy them. The model turnover measured in months is hell to keep up with; we would love to go slower. But all our competitors who slowed down went out of business. Most recently Maxtor and Cornice; Hitachi is bleeding money right now and may be next. We don't have the luxury of waiting until demand runs out. If demand falls below the profit level, forced obsolescence is the only way to survive. I think you are missing something unique to the electronics industry: the customers expect constant price cuts. Demand may still be strong, but at a price level where the product is not profitable. Most electronic products have a very low profit level, usually 2-5%. It's rough to stay alive. Think about it - in actual dollar amounts, TV sets sell for about the same as they did in the '50s. But cars, houses, clothes, energy, food have all been victims of inflation. Compare the current prices of computers to 5, 10, 15 years ago. People demand electronics to constantly get cheaper. So if a manufacturer wants to meet this demand, he has to find ways to cut costs. A legitimate tool often used is to come out with new models (lower cost) and make obsolete the current product that can no longer be sold profitably. You expect the lower costs - a current 320GB drive costs a fraction of the cost of the 8" floppies when they were new. And the dollar has inflated and lost buying power since then. If the consumer won't pay a profitable price for a mature product, why should a manufacturer be expected to continue to build it? demands of the consumer. This is the only marketplace I know where the buyers absolutely demand products get cheaper while having more capabilities. If you applied the price/value curve of electronics to cars, a new car would be in the $5-10 range. And everyone on this list would still be able to buy nickel glasses of beer. Billy