If a taxi company did that every year, they'd be losing a lot of money. Of course new cars and cards are cheaper to operate than old ones, but is that difference enough to offset buying a new one every one to three years?
That's where the analogy breaks. There are massive efficiency gains from new process nodes, which new GPUs use. Efficiency improvements for cars are glacial, aside from "breakthroughs" like hybrid/EV cars.
Isn't that precisely how leasing works? Also, don't companies prefer not to own hardware for tax purposes? I've worked for several places where they leased compute equipment with upgrades coming at the end of each lease.
who cares? that's the beauty of the lease. once it's over, the old and busted gets replaced with new and shiny. what the leasing company does is up to them. it becomes one of those YP not an MP situations with deprecated equipment.
You kind of have to.
Replacing cars every 3 years vs a couple % in efficiency is not an obvious trade off. Especially if you can do it in 5 years instead of 3.
It can make sense at a certain scale, but it’s a non trivial amount of cost and effort for potentially marginal returns.
I’m just pointing out changing it out at 5 years is likely cheaper than at 3 years.
Company A has taxis that are 5 percent less efficient and for the reasons you stated doesn't want to upgrade.
Company B just bought new taxis, and they are undercutting company A by 5 percent while paying their drivers the same.
Company A is no longer competitive.
The scenario doesn't add up.
If company A still has debt from that, company B has that much debt plus more debt from buying a new set of taxis.
Refreshing your equipment more often means that you're spending more per year on equipment. If you do it too often, then even if the new equipment is better you lose money overall.
If company B wants to undercut company A, their advantage from better equipment has to overcome the cost of switching.
They both refresh their equipment at the same rate.
I wish you'd said that upfront. Especially because the comment you replied to was talking about replacing at different rates.
So your version, if company A and B are refreshing at the same rate, then that means six months before B's refresh company A had the newer taxis. You implied they were charging similar amounts at that point, so company A was making bigger profits, and had been making bigger profits for a significant time. So when company B is able to cut prices 5%, company A can survive just fine. They don't need to rush into a premature upgrade that costs a ton of money, they can upgrade on their normal schedule.
TL;DR: six months ago company B was "no longer competitive" and they survived. The companies are taking turns having the best tech. It's fine.