No you are misunderstanding me , I didn't say the new product had to be better, it just has to equal the old one in every way and be cheaper to produce and sell. When this happens the old ones are obsolete and no longer produced and sold new. For example, a optical mouse vs the old ball mouse. ( not sure if this is a real case because the ball mouses may still be cheaper and still produced). But if an optical mouse was actually cheaper to produce than a ball mouse AND it outperformed the ball mouses in every respect, then the ball mouses are "obsolete". That doesn't mean you might still use one, but you wouldn't buy a new one because it would make no sense to pay same price or more for something inferior.
jco -----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: MY defintion of obsolete - its way different than those suggested.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: MY defintion of obsolete - its way different than those suggested.... > To me, truly obsolete is something that has been replaced > by something else that is equal or superior in EVERY > aspect for same or less money, CURRENT NEW COST. > So you aren't willing to allow for the cost of the R&D required to improve something? William Robb
