PC users 'want greener machines'

[engine]

Consumers are willing to pay up to an extra £108 ($197) for a PC containing fewer chemicals, a survey has found.
People also feel manufacturers should take responsibility for the disposal of old machines, the research shows.

So-called e-waste is a growing global problem, with 30 million PCs being dumped each year in the US alone.

[news.bbc.co.uk...]

What premium would you be prepared to pay for a "greener" machine?

[rj87uk]

Not much, it should be down to the manufacturers to take the cost. Yes, I know im cheap. I'm moving to mars - I don't think they have that problem...

[kaled]

I read that article too however, I'd be inclined to take much of it with a pinch of salt. Let's be honest, the Chinese figure is just 100% BS.

people in China were prepared for spend up to £108 ($197) for a more environmentally sound PC

Kaled.

[Automan Empire]

What people say to a survey-taker is not necessarily the way they will behave when they are choosing which of the two prices to actually pay at purchase time.

I've watched people SAY the equivalent of "Yes, I'd pay $197.00 more for a more eco-friendly computer!" yet when it comes down to buying, even $1.97 more is too much with no tangible personal benefit, and they choose the cheaper of the two almost EVERY time, particularly given the ruthless competition in the PC market.

Not advice to stock a warehouse by, in my opinion.

-Automan

[Pete1024]

We've got these new 'green' servers and workstations, ROHS compliant & low energy.

[edited by: DaveN at 10:51 am (utc) on July 3, 2006]
[edit reason] Link drop please see TOS [/edit]

[Lexur]

In Spain we have a well known history about a soap manufacturer that did a market research and detected most consumers willing to pay some extra cents for a more ecological product.
Once the product was in the supermarkets, the sales sunk suddenly because few consumers want to pay more.
If you do a survey regarding what people watch on tv, most people will say news, National Geographic and so on but...