Is Al Kaplan going Digital?

Buy a Dell with 3 year onsite next day support cover.

 

After 3 years donate it to a good cause of your choice or the local community centre (or whatever) then buy another one under 3 year cover.

 

They dont cost a lot in comparison to what I spend on cameras/photography in 3 years. PCs are a commodity like tins of beans nowadays. Pile em high, sell em cheap.

 

Dell UK will sell a basic package for 370 GBP (a bit minimal for my needs but OK for most people I expect) with a years cover on it. That is only a pound a day even assuming you get another one every year! In the USA I expect they are twice as cheap to buy.

Yes, as I suspected the current special offer on USA Dell site is $399.

 

There are only a few people I know who would even get out of bed in the morning for that money!

Not to be contentious Jeff, but quoting facts from research has to be kept in context and

become applied knowledge. For example:

 

"People keep cars longer. From 1992 to 2002, the average age of the car owned in the US

increased by 20% (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Department of Transportation, U.S.

Government), by no means insignificant. Here is the exact quote: Because of

improvements in the longevity of passenger cars, the median age of the automobile fleet

in the United States has increased significantly, from 7.0 years in 1992 to 8.4 years in

2002. Note that most of the this time hardly qualifies as "economic crunch," quote the

opposite. "

 

The above is not the same as "Unless it's in times of economic crunch people don't keep

their cars as long as they used to." Which, admittedly is a general statement, but not hard

to get.

 

With the growing advent of leasing, people don't keep a new car as long as they used to...

thus the disposable society reference. The 2 year lease was promoted on a mass scale ( by

Ford Leasing Division) to promote turn-over to keep Detroit pumping out new cars. Those

lease cars are then absorbed by the GROWING body of drivers. There simply are more car

owners in 2002 than in 1992, and both the lower economic strata (also growing) and the

aging population (front end of the Baby Boom "pig in a python" ) tends to hold onto used

cars longer because they both can ... AND have to.

 

But in regards to a disposable society which clearly is in reference to new products, in the

context of the discussion here, it seems to be a reasonable analogy.

Kib, I couldn't remember where I put it so I sent you my limited edition 1992 Aleksander Nevsky M6 commemorating the 750th anniversary of the battle of Novgorod. I hope that's OK;-)

Marc:

 

It seems both Al and I suffer some sort of neurological deficit.. in Al's case it affects his memory and in my case an apparent inability to make myself understood. In fact, this is the second time it has happened to me on this forum this week. You've done such a wonderful job cleaning up for me I was wondering if you would mind writing all of my posts here from now on. I'll put in general terms what I'm trying to say and leave it to you to express it coherently for me. It would really be appreciated. ;>)

 

Thanks,

 

Dennis

Marc, there's not much point in keeping this going, but you seem to also be willing to quote without facts. <p>

 

<i>There simply are more car owners in 2002 than in 1992</i><p>

 

In the same period, individual vehicle registrations increased by about 1.6% (Bureau of Transportation Statistics.) Trivial.

Well you seem to be willing to write without using grammar, so we'll call it even.

Well you seem to be willing to write without using grammar

 

Thousands view this site, and might want to post, who are not of the english speaking special race. Maybe they are not worthy with their bad grammer..what do you think plonker?

 

Being nice tonight, very nice. But i could change.

Sorry about the bad grammer. Sure you got the meaning.

Okay Jeff, once again facts out of context. 1.6% doesn't prove anything in the context of

this discussion. Gross numbers of registrations could mean 100% of the cars were

replaced in that time period but grew at a modest rate of 1.6 total. They could all be new

cars for all you know from that fact ... thus proving the premiss of a throw away society.

 

As far as your fact relating to growth of car owners ... that was also taken out of context. It

was prefaced with this: "...people don't keep a new car as long as they used to." The

context was "new car owners". But I didn't have my lawyer read my post first so I didn't

repeat it in every sentence.

BTW, 1.6% isn't trivial given the massive numbers involved.

...and I get accused of taking a thread off topic? This one sure did wander off in various directions! OK, I've had license for 46 years, owned 2 compact station wagons, a hatchback, a VW bug, 2 VW Microbuses, 2 Toyota Tacoma pick-ups, and one motorcycle. Three vehicles were purchased new, the others used.

what year was the micro bus? 27 window and rolling roof top by any chance?

I bought a 1961 Microbus in 1967, or maybe late '66, and traded that for a new 1972 model in the spring of 1972. Neither one was the super cool model with the rows of little windows over the side windows or the retractable canvas top. We did paint up the '61 kind of wild with flowers all over the front and the obligatory bumper sticker in the rear "Ass or Grass ~ Nobody Rides For Free". Life WAS a Cheech and Chong movie in those days! Gotta find the Kodachromes of that van.

The internet is a wonderful place for research, but you still have to use some common sense...And you have to be willing to admit that your preconceptions may be wrong, Marc.

 

The average age of a private vehicle IS rising, and rising rather unequivocally. No matter whether some people drive vehicles for shorter times; the average age is rising. Find the info here at the DOT website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p3.htm

 

Vehicle registrations have increased faster than the nominal rate quoted by Jeff. I suspect his figure is for passenger cars, which have held about steady or increased slightly. But SUV and truck registrations have grown tremendously over the last couple decades, as can be seen on the above site and also at the Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 1047.

But getting back on topic, if Al accidentally registered one of his trucks as a bus, or one of his buses as a truck, wouldn't that render all these stats meaningless ?

NO NO NO NO NO ! The original topic was a friggin' trade magazine, The Big Picture, and about the February issue being devoted to B&W digital imaging, and also that it talked about the Leica R digital back. From there it wandered enough to make anybody dizzy.

"...and I get accused of taking a thread off topic? "

 

Given the slightest pretext, you get accused of derailing threads into your same-old-topic, an anti-digital rant.

Funny Douglas, I guess that was the point I was trying to make with Jeff. That using

common sense in the context of the point being made, that we do live in a somewhat

throw away society. That's all. I don't necessarily have many preconceptions on the subject

except for the fact that I live in Detroit, and worked for both car companies and Ford

Credit doing their marketing. The numbers are always deceiving because percentages

taken out of context are misleading. Frankly, a consistent 1.6% gain would be welcome

right now in Detroit since 2002. I also know certain segments of the society are keeping

cars and trucks longer, so Jeff's point is also technically correct there. But new cars are

being turned quicker than previous decades due to the growth of leasing.

 

But common sense in other areas of turn-over marketing argues for a throw-away society

compared to the past. Perhaps in context to this argument, a better example would be

disposable cameras, disposable diapers, and the growing land-fill problem.

If anything, Kevin, I started off talking about some positive aspects of digital in this thread before it wandered astray, ending up dicussing the auto industry in Detroit amongst other things. Sorry that you got so upset about my lack of anti digital rant that you felt compelled to get your anti-Al rant in anyway. What the heck, if it makes you feel better go for it. I certainly wouldn't want you feeling bad.

Thanks, Al. That - and this cup of coffee - do have me feeling better!

Marc, if you were trying to support Dennis point ("Things aren't made as durable as they used to be and don't last as long either. Unless it's in times of economic crunch people don't keep their cars as long as they used to."), then you would both be well-advised to steer away from autos as an example. Cars are in use for longer periods, on average, which contradicts Dennis' point. In fact, even without looking up the stats, I think common sense would indicate that the average car lasts longer, and is in use longer, today: after all, when I was a kid, a brand new car came with a 12-month, 12,000 mile warranty; today the warranties run 3-4 times longer, suggesting greater longevity.

 

More fundamentally, I think Dennis' broader point (things are not as well-built, not as durable as they used to be) is unquantifiable (how to measure the durability of "things"?). But I could offer a different interpretation: things are at least as durable as they were in the "good old days," but now people are, on average, more affluent, hence they frequently "trade up" for better technology.

<i>people don't keep their cars as long as they used to</i> -Dennis

<p>

<i>Cars are in use for longer periods, on average, which contradicts Dennis' point.</i> -Douglas

<p>

No, it doesn't contradict Dennis' point at all. If cars are on the road longer now, but they don't stay with their owners as long as they used to, then both statements can be correct.

<p>

Furthermore, Dennis was relating <i>anecdotal</i> evidence, which relies on personal observation and memory rather than statistics. Statistics and anecdote are both necessary tools when attempting to understand the world, and one isn't automatically valued higher than the other.

Here's another snippet from one of Dennis' posts on this subject:

"Things aren't made as durable as they used to be and don't last as long either." This is arguably not true, as indicated by the automobile example.

 

And by the way, Kevin, your statement that "Statistics and anecdote are both necessary tools when attempting to understand the world, and one isn't automatically valued higher than the other," is grossly incorrect -- you should ask some social or physical scientists whether they consider the two types of evidence to be of equal validity. When we only have anecdotal evidence, we'll use it --but reliable statistics are always preferred. Always. In academia, the term "anecdotal evidence" is most often used apologetically by those offering such evidence, and scornfully by those pointing out the inadequacy of such evidence.

Jeez... maybe automobiles are not the best analogy. But it's not an incorrect illustration of the points I was trying to make.

 

The same statistics, in my experience, can be often be used to either support or refute an issue. They must be taken in a broader context. Are cars "made better"... are they "more durable" today? Many componenets which were once made of durable metal have been replaced with plastic which may or may not be as durable. But what does "durable" mean?

 

As I pointed out, automobiles are made in a modular fashion today. Entire parts and systems are replaced rather than repaired. But are those parts and sytems lasting as long today as they did in the past? If the parts and systems break down faster but can be cheaply replaced so the cars remain on the road longer, then both arguments are supported: That cars last longer (kept in service longer), and cars are not made as durable as they once were (because they are easier and cheaper to repair). But the stats cited add nothing to whether original owners are keeping their new cars longer.

 

But the point was about a disbosable goods mentality, on which I passed no judgment, which could be analogized to how people appraoch modern photographic equipment. Let's fight about it... ;>)