• DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Goodness me.

    Of course you’re going to buy the one where “you’re sol after it’s service life” because that’s the one who’s manufacturer has been able to afford to invest in any R & D.

    All things being equal, if there’s a company who’s model is some kind of eternal service life and another with a limited service life obviously the latter will be a better product.

    Most commenters here are talking about a lab budget in the same way you’d manage household finance in some kind of “buy it for life” philosophy which is just not how org budgets work. Managers don’t work on a life long time scale, they want the best results from projects with limited scope. You buy the best microscope that you can afford, not the one which is going to have continued support 20 years after you’ve left the org.

    • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lots of labs don’t need the highest end equipment, and the ones that do could sell the old ones.
      That would work if we didn’t have everything set up to throw out, which is a different problem all together. I’ve worked in IT procurement for a fairly big corporation, and I’ve seen dumpsters filled with slightly old iPhones because it made more sense to accounting.