this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
173 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37719 readers
512 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because they get an extra $200 per upgrade to a usable amount, while getting to advertise the lower price. And the low specs force early upgrades for the people who purchase the base model. As always, it's about the money.
Exactly. I forget the term, but companies don't want you to buy the absolute base, budget model. Same with cars. They want it that low to advertise the line, expecting most people to pay a few hundred *more for a vastly better product.
I think that was the tactic they are using. Enterprises and engineers are going to spec out the RAM and/or CPU, and anyone else will get it in the default config and possibly not even notice the difference. If you know, then you know sort of thing?
Aye, but they could lower the starting price, increase specs and ship larger volume for an overall larger profit, right?
If I was running the company, I’d rather more people buy my product for a lower price than far fewer people buy my product for a somewhat higher price. Plus, higher sales figures itself is better, no? I don’t get the strategy. They’re leaving out the whole $2,000 that someone would have otherwise spent if the base model was actually useable.