The problem is that people will buy the overpriced used TV. Honestly, I sold my 4 year old 720p for $300 last fall and went out and bought a brand new 1080p for $350! I couldn't believe it. But if people will buy, the price isn't going to change.
Same here. I was able to sell a 5 year-old, 42" LCD TV with no table stand (only good for wall mounting) along with its wall bracket for $350 earlier this year. Given that there's no fee for listing on Craigslist, I just put the highest price I could think of on it and kept posting it until I had a buyer (it only took two weeks.) Granted, it was $1500 when I bought it, but 1080 LCD TVs were at a huge premium back in 2007 and this thing was just taking up space in a crate in my apartment, depreciating.
My only explanation for why someone would buy that price was that they 1.) appreciated the quality of that model versus lower-priced generic new units and 2.) they would have to pay another 10% in state sales tax if they went to a store, which increases the effective discount for buying used from a private party.
To me, the first reason sounds more compelling. Honestly, I'd rather use a core2 era macbook pro that was top of the line then than a $350 corei3 dell laptop that is bottom of the line now.
Yeah... it's worth noting that just because you can buy _some_ 42" TV for $400 or less right now, doesn't mean that TV is comparable to a TV that was $1500 and arguably the best on the market when it came out. To get comparable features in a new set you might still have to pay $600 or more.
No that was his point.
A 1080p TV from 2007 was probably a Sony class product, I would rather buy that for $300 than a 'new' no-name 1080p TV for $350.
Similarly I would buy a 2007 Macbook for $500 rather than a new $500 Walmart laptop.
If that was his point, it was poorly made. My point was that Apple products are in a class by themselves and not a useful comparable in this discussion. Not even Sony TVs are in that class (not that they were mentioned).
The peson was trying to compare a tv comparison to an Apple/non-Apple comparison. I stand firmly by my contention that that is not a good comparison because Apple products are in a class essentially by themselves (not even approached by Sony TVs). The illustration is weak at best.
The illustration is even more non-sensical since it specifies a top-of-the-line Mac with a bottom of the line no-name.
Wow. You're either being intentionally obtuse or you have no hope of understanding this. But we'll go through it one more time.
A second-hand Sony television is often higher quality than a brand-new generic manufacturer's TV. In the same vein, a second-hand Macintosh is often higher quality than a brand-new generic manufacturer's computer.
Nobody cares how highly you rank Apple. Their specific quality is irrelevant to the comparison.
Chicago's sales tax rate is the worst (literally). For big ticket items like Tvs, computers, etc... it actually pays to drive into Indiana or Wisconsin and bring it back. On a $1100 TV you save $107
