• Jaytreeman@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    I 100% would. It’s short term loss for long term gain.
    Which microscope are you going to buy? The one with the software that’s company supported through it’s amortization period and then community supported afterwards, or the one where you’re sol after it’s paid off?

    • DogMuffins
      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.