@psikeyhackr:
Computers are already sold at an incredibly low margin decreasing the cost more would not benefit the consumer as much as you think, assuming all of what you say is true. You've got to understand that there is a significant portion of the Thai and Chinese computer hardware manufacturing industry that generates absolutely zero profit and only exists because of a subsidies which are meant to keep the people employed. Decreasing costs would make it so that private entities could not generate a profit and would, therefore, require government entities to provide these things such as with some forms of cheap energy. You do not want that.
Sure, you might be able to make it so that computers are easier to upgrade which is good in and of itself for the consumer (I build my own computers too) but it wouldn't help in the way you think. A better example would have been the automobile industry exemplified by the problems of Tesla motors trying to sell directly to consumers for much, much cheaper but is then blocked by *gasp* Republican *gasp* politicians. I mean in no way to imply that there isn't corruption or anything like that, but if you believe there is some kind of conspiracy across industries then you are wrong. For example, in computers, simply look at the prospectus of any hardware manufacturer or designer and you'll see that they don't make much profit margin at all. The only ones that makes money are the name brands like Samsung and Apple which use other parts from, say, Qualcomm, who operates on a very low profit margin, and don't make much of their own.
CPU and memory and replace them while keeping the case and power supply and all of the other components.
That all being said, I'm not following you here. You can already keep a case and power supply after upgrading CPU and memory. I have a power supply from 2004 that I am still using (probably at risk) and a large computer case that I got with my first personally built computer in 1998. Most times when a computer cannot be upgraded, it is because the motherboard does not support the CPU or the graphics card (even rarer the memory). It could be that Intel and AMD are making it so that they have to buy new motherboards to buy CPUs, but I doubt it, since they make little if any profit off of motherboards, and would benefit from more people buying more CPUs. Also, the back plane itself has its own limitations mentioned on the Wikipedia that may make traditional motherboard architectures necessary.
Either way, I doubt it would make as much difference as you think since the vast majority of the populace is scared to touch the inside of their own computer. The people that can put together a computer, do, and those who can't, go pay outrageous prices for pre-built PCs. Making computers easier to upgrade would only help a small amount. Consoles are a perfect example, its easy to make them upgradeable but the average person still has a problem doing it. Sure, I can say it annoys me that people continue to buy consoles when without exclusive games they basically inferior in every way, but the bottom line is that they are simpler and that appeals to the average person. Nothing else matters and that is the core reason for most inefficiencies like you (assuming you are correct) have picked up on. No conspiracy, just division of labor and human action which makes it so that not everyone has the time to learn everything, even if it would help efficiency greatly. Still, the market has changed since just a few years ago. I can now have certain online PC builders build a computer, give me a warranty, and tech support, for cheaper than I can order the parts from newegg.com and put them together myself. Again, subsidies in Asian economies and lower exchange rates and lower wage rates. Competition sorts it out, is what I am saying.
An even better example would have been razors. It used to be that someone could keep a razor most of their lives because it is fairly easy to care for a razor and to manufacture a razor so that it could last for decades with the kinds of wear and tear of shaving. Now, you buy a pack of razors and they last a couple of shaves and then you throw them out. Part of that is, yes, simply because *gasp* the company must make a profit or there will be no razors, period, but it's also because people stopped wanting to take care of their razors and prefer to simply use and discard. The market reflects that. There was no meeting of evil, greedy Illuminati god-like entities to determine this.
In summation, to an extent, I can agree with you, but, much like in regards to free trade or business practices in general, no one listens to economists anyways, it's all political, so you can't blame us for these problems, if that's what you were trying to say. Either way, these kinds of these are not generally what economists deal with anyways. Economists are deal with the overall system which makes the study much more like, say, history, philosophy, or sociology, than about microeconomic business transactions. This is the last thing I will say on the subject. This is too good of a topic and too interesting of a forum to ruin.
