New

Many people have an understandable tendency to want "new" things. New clothes, new car, new house (maybe even new spouse, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion). There are also those who tend to stick with the "old", but I suspect those who favor the "new" are a much larger group.

"New" has different meanings and different contexts. Primarily there is the question of "brand new" or "newly constructed" versus "new to you". With some things, like cars, our society tends to clearly differentiate between "new" -- cars that have had no previous owners -- and "used" -- even if the car was only driven a few miles by the previous owner. With something like a house, the distinction is not quite so absolute. If, for instance, a house was specifically constructed for another family, but they only lived there one day before selling it, it might be referred to as "new". In fact, ANY newly-acquired house might be referred to as "new". The distinction between "new" and "used" is more often applied to things smaller than houses.

A couple of special cases are "antiques" (and the closely related term "vintage") and "factory refurbished". I believe "factory refurbished" has been in common usage for only the last few decades. With "factory refurbished" items, the seller intentionally blurs the distinction between "new" and "used", often suggesting the item might have been previously owned but never used by the previous owner. Much of the appeal of "antiques" and "vintage" items comes from the idea that they ARE old and used, but sometimes unscrupulous people will attempt to pass off "new" or "newer" items as "antiques".

The real merits of "new" versus "used" vary with the specifics of the item. Sadly, there is often a trade-off. "New" items may have improvements upon older versions, but some of the improvements may involve using poorer materials to hold down the price, or short-cuts in the manufacturing process. Changes in materials, such as substituting plastic for metal, may improve a product by reducing weight, while at the same time making the product less durable. It all depends on the situation, and there is no way to accurately state whether "new" is "better" or "worse" in all situations.

This brings us back to the idea of personal bias. If someone already believes that "new" is "better", they may be unlikely to change their opinion even when confronted with ironclad facts, and the same is true of someone who believes that "old" is "better". Both groups may be able to cite factors to support their point of view.

I confess to a personal bias AGAINST things that are "new" -- partly just to oppose what I perceive to be an unfair general bias favoring the "new". Though I acknowledge that I am biased, in many cases I am fairly certain that the "old" possesses definite advantages. As a couple of examples, I cite roll-up non-electric automobile windows (which are more reliable and trouble-free than power windows, and usable even when the vehicle is totally without electrical power) and my Windows98 laptop computer, which automatically saves streaming audio as MP3 files, and makes it much easier to monitor any attempts by malware to alter the system than later versions of Windows. With both of these examples, I realize that the issue is complicated. There ARE advantages to automobile power windows, such as the driver being able to operate a window beyond their own reach. Later versions of Windows make various improvements upon Windows98. As I stated earlier, there is often a trade-off when it comes to "new" items.

The problems with "new" are especially prevalent in the world of technology, where products evolve rapidly. I recently considered replacing my digital camera. To be honest, I was considering this only because I was having mechanical problems with my camera. The new-camera salesman pointed out that I could purchase a technically-superior state-of-the-art camera for much less than I had originally paid for my camera. When I pointed out that none of the cameras I was being shown possessed optical viewfinders, the salesman replied that they were no longer included on cameras in my price range. Though optical viewfinders are still included on some cameras, they all cost hundreds of dollars more than my original camera. Somewhere, someone has decided that optical viewfinders are unimportant, or at least not as important as other features, such as a larger screen. I could write many pages regarding the fact that I consider optical viewfinders to be one of a digital camera's most important features. (By the way, Canon ended up repairing my camera for free.)

Especially with high-tech products, there is also the issue of familiarity -- though this issue is not limited to the world of technology. In addition to the simple comfort that familiarity can provide, there is often a learning curve associated with new products that negates their improvements, at least until the user becomes familiar with the new product. I must admit that the skill of the product developers comes into play here: When I eventually acquire a "new" digital camera, the ease of my transition from old to new will depend to a great extent on the design of the new camera.

Sadly, this is one of those issues where it may be difficult to find common ground between those who favor the "old" and those who favor the "new". If someone truly favors the "old", an attempt to incorporate "old" features into something "new" may seem like nothing more than an attempt to quiet their objections. I recently heard someone arguing in favor of tearing down an old building and replacing it with a brand-new one, and he suggested those who favored keeping the old building might be satisfied by embedding a few stones from the original building into a wall in the new building. At the same time, someone who truly believes "new" is better will not be satisfied by even the most thorough "updating" of the "old".

This brings up the fact that sometimes there are simply issues that divide people, with no clear compromises and no real solutions.

Truth is complicated.