Have We Reached Peak Stuff?

I was thinking about all those retailers going into administration and the PM urging people to buy stuff. Apart from a recently published rchased iPhone XS I havnt brought anything and don't feel the urge to buy anything anymore. Got my QC25s, a 2014 MacBook Pro and 13 pair of shoes in my closet that I've never worn. I clear about 1900 a week after tax and can scroll through oz bargain and not feel the urge to buy anything. I'm pretty much satisfied with the stuff I have and feel no inclination to upgrade. I'd love to take more holidays but can't take the time off. I think I'm coming to the point where accumulating more stuff just doesn't work for me. How about you? I know this goes beyond the spirit of ozbargain.

Comments

  • +111 votes

    Cool

  • +33 votes

    Consumption is 60% of our economy. People need to buy things they don't need so we can all live unhappily ever after

    • -13 votes

      And that is why Labor and Liberal's neoliberal economic policies have been so harmful to the economy: internal economic activity has been strangled by wages that have been dropping in real terms for over 30 years, shifting of the tax burden from business to the lowest socio economic individuals, privatisation of everything and free trade agreements that shifted labour to third world countries.

      The largest form of welfare in the country is towards business.

      Both of the major parties are so beholden to failed neoliberal economic theory that the Greens are the only ones making economic sense now let alone social.

      • +6 votes

        I'd rather a Bernie Sanders instead of Greens

      • +20 votes

        Don't forget about the function of debt. Real wages in the US havnt risen since the 1970s so people have replaced those increases with debt. It's different in Australia however there is a unreconcilable conflict between the aims of neoliberalism - to accumulate wealth for a specific class in society and what they need which is a middle class which consumes. Scott Morrison tells us we should consume more but his parties policy is to lower wages and employment conditions. Who does he think will buy more stuff if people are in precarious low paid employment? At some point the party must end.

      • +6 votes

        The Greens - ah "the keep Australia's population growth growing exponentially and keep quiet about the massive environmental damage it does" party. All the alternatives, like running an environmentally friendly "net-zero" immigration rate are racist of course.

        Socialism (and very high taxation regimes that stop short of socialism) do not work, they drive business & investment away, and leaves almost all in society worse off when the chips finally become due.

        If you want to compare the differences between socialism and capitalism compare the growth rates of China 1945-73 (socialism) and post 73 (capitalism), and Venezuela today (socialism) compared to Venezuela of the 80's (capitalism).

        It is all fun and games till people start starving because of mal-investments and the scaring off of capital.
        But of course all the socialist failures in history were doing it wrong and the Greens would do it right (jokes).

        Oh your rebuttal is going to be socialism works in Europe? First account for the fact that the European economies reached their affluent state BEFORE they became socialistic (they are still capitalist NOT socialist today) > but their trajectory since become socialist has been DECREASING standards of living, increasing debt & decreasing freedoms.

        Paris is burning AFTER initiating such socialistic policies as a 75% high income tax…

        Socialism can provide a very minor boost to social wellbeing amongst the poor initially > as the effectively confiscated wealth of the better off is redistributed. Soon though that pot is exhausted and the system begins feeding on itself. THERE IS NOT NATION THAT HAS EVER SUSTAINABLY INCREASED ITS WEALTH FOLLOWING SOCIALISM. Not one example in history.

        Socialists are almost always completely economically ignorant and almost never have business experience. Their only experience is in looking at other people's wealth and wishing it was theirs.

        • +5 votes

          Socialists are almost always completely economically ignorant and almost never have business experience.

          Yes they can… theoretically. They are socialist until they understand actual economics and they stop being socialist.

        • +7 votes

          That feeling when your first argument by rebutted with 2 seconds on Google:

          https://greens.org.au/policies/population

          • +1 vote

            @captaincabinets: What specific rebuttal does it offer?

          • +2 votes

            @captaincabinets: Lol they want open borders, hardly zero growth.

            •  

              @brendanm: Migration doesn't change global population (except in the case of refugees that would otherwise have been killed) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

              •  

                @ely: We were talking about Australia's population.

                Global population can be controlled by teaching the third world how to use contraceptives.

                • -1 vote

                  @brendanm: You may have been, but that misses the point. The claim that migration to Australia somehow has environmental damage because of "population growth" makes no sense because the population has grown.

                  •  

                    @ely: We were talking about an Australian political party, everyone but you is talking about Australia only.

                    Your post doesn't even make any sense. Of course population growth causes environmental damage. More food, more land clearing. Need more housing, more land clearing. More energy needed, more pollution. More cars, buses etc needed, more pollution. There are plenty more.

                    • -1 vote

                      @brendanm: From the OP

                      The Greens - ah "the keep Australia's population growth growing exponentially and keep quiet about the massive environmental damage it does" party.

                      I'm not disagreeing that population growth has environmental effects, just that it's the global population that matters. International migration has no impact on population growth. Australia's population is barely (if at all) growing without migration, and so the OP (and you) are discussing a non-problem.

                      •  

                        @ely: Key words being "without migration". With immigration, it is growing at approx 1.6% per annum. When you compound this, it gets fairly high, fairly quickly.

                        The things I pointed out in my last post were caused by population growth in just our country. You do realise the environment is bigger than just "climate change", right? Loss of bushland for native animals, and burning coal for power are local issues, as well as global ones.

                        Our cities are already clogged, and people are whining about unemployment, why bring even more people in from overseas, when we should be training Australians to do Australian jobs.

                        Edit- you also just proved my point that we were talking about Australian population, and not the world's.

                        •  

                          @brendanm:

                          Key words being "without migration". With immigration, it is growing at approx 1.6% per annum.

                          Of course population growth causes environmental damage. More food, more land clearing. Need more housing, more land clearing. More energy needed, more pollution. More cars, buses etc needed, more pollution. There are plenty more.

                          Not sure if I should facepalm or headdesk here.

                          Migration is not population growth. Do I need to draw you a picture here to explain how inconsistent you are?

                          •  

                            @ely: Are you joking? So if a million people migrate to Australia, our population hasn't grown by a million people? Do I need to teach you grade one maths?

                            •  

                              @brendanm: Sorry, forgot to sign back in :)

                              In answer to your question, the population has grown, but the total amount of economic harm hasn't, part of it has just moved from one place to another. Likewise the total population has not changed; Australia's has increased, but somewhere else has decreased to offset it (as with the environmental impact).

                              The Greens - ah "the keep Australia's population growth growing exponentially and keep quiet about the massive environmental damage it does" party. All the alternatives, like running an environmentally friendly "net-zero" immigration rate are racist of course.

                              No immigration or a million a year has no "environmentally friendly" impact and the OP is either foolish or disingenuous in what they say. Claims that you're "only talking about Australia" are likewise either ignorant or deliberately deceptive - to only talk about Australia is to miss out on half the relevant facts when discussing immigration, it's not something that happens without people leaving where they were.

                              •  

                                @ely: Again, we are talking about Australia, not the world, as you yourself quoted above. That's what the entire discussion is about. The greens, and their open borders policy, and its effects on Australia.

                                Again, as I said above, even this has an effect on the environment, no matter what you claim.

                                •  

                                  @brendanm: Net zero effect, yes. One can choose to ignore the overall effect (as you do), but that doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

                                  I mentioned

                                  the total population has not changed
                                  Australia's has increased, but somewhere else has decreased to offset it
                                  No immigration or a million a year has no "environmentally friendly" impact

                                  and also that

                                  Claims that you're "only talking about Australia" are likewise either ignorant or deliberately deceptive

                                  So, are you ignorant or deliberately deceptive?

                                  •  

                                    @ely: This discussion is about australia only. Don't like it, start another thread or comment and you can discuss it there. In the context of what we are talking about, you are wrong.

                                    Even if we consider the whole world, population is growing rapidly, this affecting the environment overall. Also, if you don't think population can affect the environment locally, look at the smog in Delhi.

                                    Claims that we aren't talking about only Australia in this thread are either ignorant or moronic, which is it?

                                    •  

                                      @brendanm:

                                      Even if we consider the whole world, population is growing rapidly, this affecting the environment overall. Also, if you don't think population can affect the environment locally, look at the smog in Delhi.

                                      And… nobody (that I've noticed) is disagreeing with that.

                                      Claims that we aren't talking about only Australia in this thread are either ignorant or moronic, which is it?

                                      Given your reading comprehension fail, I guess you've probably answered my question.

        • +1 vote

          A voice of reason? Get out of here!

        • +6 votes

          You sound like a Fox News host, you literally just did a whole bunch of right wing talking points.

          Might as well scream VENEZUELA and how there eating rats.

          When people mention Europe mainly Scandinavian countries they do so because they use a mix of democratic sociliasm (health, fire, police etc) and have common sense regulations so that they don’t have boom bust cycles like America does.

          Taxing the mega rich is common sense, instead of shifting the burden on to the middle class and poor and in the process stagnating wages and increasing debt.

          Eventually leading to people not buying shit or being in massive amounts of debt.

          And also Paris is burning because macron is also a neoliberal and they literally have nicknamed him the president of the rich. Due to his obvious and blatant giveaways to cooperations and the rich. You need to do a lot more research as to what is going on in Paris and why people are upset. You are either ignorant on the matter or being obtuse on purpose.

          No one promotes straight up socialism and what you are doing is smearing and obfuscating.

          •  

            @pizzapock3t: Regarding Paris you are aware that they created a 75% income tax level PRIOR TO MACRON, and it raised less tax than the LOWER rates they had previously. A little thing called high net wealth individuals shifting their domicile and investments. The basis of the Laffer curve in economics > lower the gains attributable to an action and you will lessen the amount of the action present.

            So what you get is people like yourself, believing in socialism, get enough fools to vote in socialist policies, the wealth flees, your policies go unfunded, you fill the difference with debt, and eventually your society grinds down with higher unemployment, LOWER NET TAXATION REVENUE, and lower GDP.

            The wealth of the Scandinavian economies was built BEFORE socialistic tax/spend features were added to their economies. Apart from Norway which earns from oil investments the others are not on sustainable trajectories. You might also want to do some research on correlation between IQ & homogeneity and GDP.

            Are Scandinavian countries high performers academically and socially from being homogenous & high IQ or from socialism? Well what has been their trajectory since remaining "socialist" (but they aren't really) and lowering their homogeneity and average IQ?

            There has been no country that has ever sustainably increased its wealth & standard of living, net of debt, in the world in all its history via socialism. That is a fact that I mentioned previously and you still have not refuted. You wish to claim Scandinavian countries as success stories but they neither gained their wealth under socialism, nor have increased it net of debt under socialism, and in fact are not even examples of socialist countries. We can on the other hand name many countries that experienced extreme poverty under socialism that reduced as soon as the tenets of socialism were lifted/relaxed: China, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos.

            Name the nation that built its wealth under socialism. If you cannot name it I suggest you are filled with dogma rather than any deeper understanding.

            • +1 vote

              @DisabledUser142696: I’m not going to get into a back and forth with you, you speak about gdp and net wealth creation as if it is indicative of how the middle class is doing. In realty it is an indicator as to how the top 1% are doing.

              We won’t be able to agree because our views are fundemantaly different. I’m going to go ahead and guess that you believe in trickle down economics. If I’m wrong then I apologize and we can leave it at that.

        •  

          Pity I can only give one upvote

        • +3 votes

          What exactly do you think socialism is? I still see class distinctions in Europe, and I certainly don't see the means of production being transferred to the control of the workers. Inequity has actually had some troublesome rises in Europe recently… Your uncited, bogus claims are rubbish anyway - here's some inconvenient data for your argument.

          socialist has been DECREASING standards of living, increasing debt & decreasing freedoms.

          In your opinion, when did Europe become socialist? I think you might find that tricky to explain - because with a few exceptions (e.g. Greece, and even that is debatable) most of Europe have a much higher standard of living compared to that of a decade ago.

          capitalism compare the growth rates of China 1945-73

          Really? Pesky things like civil war can do that to the growth rate of countries…. How much of an ideological zealot do you have to be to resort to comparisons like that?

          Socialists are almost always completely economically ignorant and almost never have business experience.

          I'm no fan of Socialists either (and I mean ACTUAL socialists) - but it's pretty obvious you have NFI what you're talking about and just consider everything that doesn't include none/low taxes to be "socialist". It's actually pretty funny, because the United States has its own history of state appropriation of company assets an, high taxes and to this day has an incredible amount of corporate welfare…

          • +1 vote

            @Tyrx: Thank you Tyrx you went through a few points and saved me from going over them.

            I find it’s difficult to argue over the internet with people that obviously have extremely different views on a topic.

      • +14 votes

        My god Diji1
        You just spew this nonsensical rubbish in every thread
        It grows tired

      • +4 votes

        Greens are the only ones making economic sense

        Greens and economic sense - part of the series in OzBargain of words you don't expect to see in the same sentence.

      • +3 votes

        The Greens are nothing other than Tree Tories. These hypocrites are just as much pro-capitalism, pro-growth, pro-big business as the ALP and LNP. Greens are the party of open borders and an unlimited refugee intake.

      • -4 votes

        I can’t understand why you have been down voted. Sad to see how uneducated people are on how there government operates.

        Anyway I agree with your statement whole heartedly.

        Kudos

      •  

        There is nothing neo liberal (whatever the hell that pejorative means) in the growth of government spending over the last ten years. It’s pretty well doubled. Both persuasions have practiced Keynesian economics, where they prop up GDP by government spending, borrowing against the next generation of taxpayers in the believe that demand will drive economic recovery.

        Well it seems not. Maybe Hayek was right about Keynes and we are on the road to serfdom.

        And the greens should just keep out of economic discussions. They don’t need to, and it makes them look stupid.

      • +2 votes

        Wrong.

        1987 to 2017 inflation has been 139%. That is to say that a basket of goods worth $1 in 1987 was in 2017 worth $2.39.

        In that same period average full-time adult weekly total earnings have grown by 246%, having risen from $465 to $1608.

        Therefore, during this 30 year period, real wages have grown by 45%.

        You sir, are fake news.

        Source: ABS

      •  

        Not sure why everyone was downvoting Diji1 so much. When the Greens seem to have the most viable economic policy, you know things are messed up.

        • +1 vote

          Destroy big business which employs people, give enormous amounts of money to jobless people for no reason. Less money going in, more money going out, yet magically everything works out fine.

          Yep that's viable economics right there.

          People always refer back to northern EU countries, but what they fail to account for is their gigantic sovereign wealth funds created solely from hydrocarbon sales. They're now rapidly discovering this is not sustainable, especially with increased immigration.

          •  

            @Viper8: You should reread matty comment before replying to it. And among those nothern Europeans countries you're referring to only applicable to Norway, the rest doesn't have much wealth to boast for and with stated exorbitant taxes they still managed to produce world class corporations such as Ikea, Lego's and even now defunct Nokia. What do Australia has to offer to the world when we're the best in adopting American capitalism?

  • +2 votes

    Have We Reached Peak Stuff

    Yes/no, some people just can't stop buying things!

    Others are content with what they have, you fall into the later.

    •  

      My observation was that there are increasing numbers of retailers going into administration and if this represented a trend that people just didn't want to spend anymore. If 90% of retailers went bankrupt what you say is still true but it's hardly explanatory

      • +10 votes

        People are debt loaded up, you can only borrow so much until they say no…….

        I would say we have reached peak debt load, not peak 'stuff'.

      • +3 votes

        Most of the retails that have gone into administration are Australian fashion retails, that can catch up with the trend, or too expensive to compete with the online retailers. More that than people stop buying things.

        • +2 votes

          Do you think these frequent eBay 20% off sales may also mean online is suffering as well. I didn’t even bother to look at the recent one.

          • +3 votes

            @Icecold5000: If you frequent those threads, you will see how in essence, it is only 5% discount at best.

            20% is just ebay imposing on retailers who as a result jack their prices. Immorally, they participate in those sales to get free advertisement, but it is another story.

        •  

          I had the same reaction to OP's comment - but then realised it doesn't matter. If people are still buying, but buying from (overseas) online retailers instead of Australian ones, that has the same effect on the domestic economy as if they weren't buying at all.

  • +10 votes

    When I started filling boxes of random crap I bought here I realised I had enough and didn't need anymore. Impulse purchasing is so dangerous.

  • +1 vote

    I mean, isn't this why we're on ozbargain?

    • +15 votes

      It's gotten to the point where I'm more excited about the woollies half price specials so I can save money on essentials than Sony XM3s

      • +2 votes

        Sounds like you're satisfied with where you are and/or are growing up or have other interests/priorities. Nothing wrong with that. There's still plenty consumers out there looking for stuff as clearly evident from the posts and clicks and that's fine too.

        Amazon's growing and will be a huge gamechanger to the consumer market here soon. It completely changed the UK retail scape.

        • +1 vote

          I'm just wondering if I'm an outlier or are there quite a few others who feel,the same. Given my income I should buying like crazy but I don't feel any inclination. I would really like to own a house without a mortgage so I didn't have to work and could just chill on Centrelink and live a modest life.

      • +2 votes

        Have you tried the XM3s though!? They are great!

      •  

        You're getting old. Everything on the radio will soon sound like shit.

  • +4 votes

    Personally I feel like I’ve reached peak stuff or maybe it’s an age thing? Or maybe now that I can afford stuff, the thrill of buying said stuff doesn’t bring as much joy

  • +7 votes

    I'm drowning in stuff. Practically giving it away now.

  • +10 votes

    I agree with you, but with 13 unused pairs of shoes in your cupboard you certainly have been a conspicuous consumer to this point (at least with regard to shoes!).

    An iPhone these days can easily last 6 years with a battery replacement in the middle. A laptop will last at least 6 years if purchase was of a decent quality model, iPads will last 6+ too. A TV should last 8~10…

    Many of those things would have been purchased near yearly going back a decade or two as technology was advancing so rapidly each edition was a big improvement and worth upgrading to.

    Phones especially have made a lot of other devices obsolete: watches, GPS, cameras, compasses, temperature gauges, alarm clocks, diaries, note pads, landline phones…
    Smart Tv's make a set-top box & DVD player unnecessary.

    A well looked after car will last at least 20 years and for many there will be do need to buy at all thanks to Uber services..

    If I have a phone, computer & some spare clothes I have everything I need for myself. Everything else is for the family.

    I would say we have well and truly reached peak stuff, and many will make do with less purchasing frequency in the future.. there simply will not be the need.

    • +2 votes

      The shoes were getting out of control and they also included RM Williams. Have to admit I'm a bit of a prepper. Have also accumulated 5 years supply of these razors which I highly recommend.

      https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/productdetails/340710/bic...

      A month and a half shaving for $4!!!

    • +3 votes

      Yeah i was thinking along the same lines. i was going through my CC statements the other day, and i realised the majority of my expenses had been Petrol, Groceries, Tolls.

      There's pretty much nothing that i want or need right now. Maybe the available stuff has just kinda plateaued in quality…?

      I have my wardrobe sorted out, so don't need anything more there except to replace things when they need to be replaced.
      The house is nice, don't really need any new furniture or anything.
      My car is decent, it's got another 5yrs or so in it before i even need to consider replacing, and i've never been a Car guy anymore.
      Phone is good enough for what i want it to do, i don't really feel any need for anything better than my Xiaomi Redmi
      Home TV and hifi setup is good, there's no need to upgrade because it's perfectly good for what i want
      Computer is still good, i don't even use it anyway tbh
      I used to be into ornamental stuff but again, that's all essentially the way i like it so doesn't need to change
      Only thing i spend money on is workshop and DIY stuff, which is more of a hobby than

  • +6 votes

    I definitely don't have 13 pairs of shoes, but I've reached the 'buy it for life' phase. Other than semi-regular stuff (eating out, hobbies, games, etc.), I don't make a lot of wasteful purchases, so happy to pay quite a bit more for something that'll last, which = fine leather goods, Italian sunglasses, quality tools, etc.

  • +32 votes

    saturation point.

    as an ozbargainer - it can be quite confusing. the loss of primary focus -i.e. "to score bargains"

    it can be quite liberating - no longer are you tied to the demands of finding bargains per se. Now you have reached a point of enlightenment where where you are looking for the IMPORTANT bargains.

    i.e. the bargains that really are important.

    but have you reached that point through the acquisition of every thing you desire, or through the conscious (or unconscious) cognitive processing? you now know (or unconsciously know) that everything you have is enough and nothing more will sate nor address nor feed a need to purchase.

    I'm mostly at that point.

    travel deals still interest me.

    but I'm at the point where I understand what is a good bargain. and have experienced the good bargains. therefore, unless it is fantastic then it doesn't appeal.

    bargain knowledge can therefore decrease personal bargain satisfaction.

    the higher of one then the lower of the other.

    e.g. recently qantas had a deal for Japan. ~$600 return. it had a lot of pos votes. I could not pos vote the deal as my last 3 trips to Japan cost ~$380.

    before I joined ozbargain I would have celebrated $600 Japan return airfares. I used to live there. The regular retun airfare was $1200+. but now I am more informed.

    The simple pleasure of buying something (ignorant of the price) and believing that you have got a "bargain" has been replaced by the underlying thought of "it is cheap….but can be cheaper?"

    is the bargain truly a "bargain"?

    it starts to undermine our concept of "value"

    so you fall into these philosophical arguments with yourself.

    why buy a new car and lose on depreciation? get a near-new car instead.
    but then why not go for a 8 year old camry with low Kms? it's cheap and reliable! but it is 8 years old!! what's wrong with 8 year old car? nothing but it is not as stylish as a the newer design. but it is the same design under the skin -same engine + gear box, it will perform the same as a newer model , and it is cheaper!!

    bargain ignorance is consumer bliss.

    but then when you have "true bargain knowledge" , that is you are truly "informed" of what constitutes a "bargain" then are you achieving true brain knowledge.

    or are you moving away from Bargain-Zen.

    maybe as we build/increase the realization of the true understanding of the value ($$) of a bargain that we move away from the actual acquirement of physical (or electrical -e.g. e-books) and move in to the realm of understanding of "the bargain" itself rather than the actual purchase.

    maybe we are heading towards a Buddhist perspective. = it's not the destination but the journey which is valuable.

    maybe we will transcend the actual purchasing of bargains but will seek higher enlightenment through the realization of the bargain itself.

    we will be destined to travel the world in robes , with no actual possessions, "purchasing" - ney acquiring free through heightened understanding, our accommodation and food

    • +2 votes

      I'd love to spend more of my time and money on travel…but unfortunately the job which i need to have to acquire the money, doesn't allow me the time! Frustrating Catch 22

    • +11 votes

      The inaugural sermon of the Church of Ozbargain?

    • +2 votes

      @altomic

      … My brain hurts. My eyes bleed.

      You actually use capitals reasonably correctly for proper names (eg, Japan, Zen).

      And you use full stops at the end of sentences correctly - mostly.

      But why, oh why, can you not use capitals at the start (of all those thousands) of sentences? (Actually, you did: in ONE sentence? One? Why that one?)

      I am so confused; my little lizard-brain cannot absorb your actual message.

    •  

      Already have everything I need but the travel stuff interests me too. Seeing good deals always get my travel juices going.

  • +4 votes

    The problem is today the innovation of years ago is long gone, there aren’t any ground breaking changes in technology, processors have kind of limited their ability on a certain wafer nm size, cameras have hit the limits of sensor ability and phones haven’t really changed in recent times, nothing ground breaking anyway

    Take apple for example, sales have slid because people aren’t keen on 2k for a phone, people are holding onto their devices and the XR isn’t a device I see as much of a change over the older X

    People hold onto stuff for longer

    I was one of the lucky ones to get an iPhone 6s from the target deal and I’ll see it lasting 3-4 years before I go to the next last generation x/xs etc

    People are holding onto technology and moving to sim only, no loyalty with existing users for phone plans when you can get a byo sim and save money

    Lots of different things are happening now days, people are savvy, borrowing is harder and people are nickel and diming in spending, from a review done by two banks spending was the largest before Christmas, sales in December backed off dramatically, most likely from Black Friday amazon sales and pre Christmas clearances, lots of data pointed to people tightening up the spending in what used to be a busy period

    Lots of things have hit a point when people don’t want to spend money and now with consumer law we are all expecting longer replacement time frames and exercising our rights to get something repaired / replaced

    But I do see people thinking their entitled for pricing errors too which clearly are going to cause a loss to a business and then people slam them into the ground

    True bargains seem harder and harder to find on here these days

    • +5 votes

      The problem is today the innovation of years ago is long gone

      This is demonstrably false. Innovation has far surpassed the rate at which we can develop and manufacture inventions and improvements. Today we have new ideas being turned into reality so quickly that we had to come up with a solution to this mess.

      That is the reason why we standardised physical components and made software open source. In the past, if we wanted a camera to take a certain kind of shot, that may be a few years of research, a few more for product development, prototyping, tooling and finally manufacturing.

      Today, the hardware is standard, we just install a new app and our existing equipment has a new function.

      Physical hardware OTOH seem to be released slower not because there's nothing to add but the speed in which things may change makes manufacturing physical products much more risky - it is not uncommon for companies to enter manufacturing stage just to find out their product is obsolete before it even makes it to the end of the production line. You will not see these products for obvious reasons.

      True bargains seem harder and harder to find on here these days

      When competition becomes fiercer and prices across the board reduces, it may seem like nothing is cheap because nothing looks cheaper. In actuality, physical goods have become a lot more affordable and pricing appears more uniform but it is uniformly lower.

      • +2 votes

        Did you read what I wrote
        Clearly not it seems

        Innovation today is NOT the same of years ago

        For example - the touch screen has improved over the years but has it been revolutionised, hell no.

        Mobile phones have actually gone backwards, non removable batteries? Why, because it locks you into buying a new phone when the battery depletes and replacement is worth more than the device

        TV technology, what are we up to QLED?, guess what the same backlighting is used no matter what you call it, sure edge lit vs whatever marketing BS they call it today but at the end of the day, there has been little to zero innovation in the technology behind LED and how it fundamentally works

        It’s obvious that innovation today is far from ground breaking

  • Top