Editing Price–performance ratio (section)

==Examples==

===Consumer and medical products===
According to futurist [[Raymond Kurzweil]], products start out as highly ineffective and highly expensive.<ref name="raykurzweil"/>

Gradually, products become more effective and cheaper until they are highly effective and almost free to buy.<ref name="raykurzweil"/> Some of the products that have followed this example include [[HIV/AIDS|AIDS]] medications (which are now affordable compared to initial pricing{{which|date=September 2014}}), [[Speech synthesis|text-to-speech]] programs, and [[digital camera]]s.<ref name="raykurzweil">{{cite book
  |last = Kurzweil
  |first = Raymond
  |authorlink = Raymond Kurzweil
  |title = The Singularity is Near
  |publisher = [[Penguin Books]]
  |year = 2005
  |isbn = 0-14-303788-9}}
</ref> However, products that rely primarily on paper (e.g., newspapers and toilet paper) and/or fossil fuels (e.g., electricity in most countries and petroleum gasoline for automobiles) have only increased in price.  

This directly contradicts the trend of electronic gadgets like [[netbook]]s, [[desktop computer]]s, and [[laptop]] computers that also have been decreasing in price. However, the prevailing [[inflation rate]] of a country or province/state may negate the plummeting costs of software, AIDS medications, and/or digital cameras in certain regions along with certain governmental policies. This has the effect of keeping costs high in certain areas while they are dramatically reduced in others. 

In theory, this means that the rich people have earlier access to highly inefficient technologies, medical treatments, and [[Therapy|therapies]] (that are prototypical in nature) while the poor get access to these same products when they become more efficient and easier to manufacture several years down the road.<ref name="raykurzweil"/>

===Business world===
During the latter 1990s, the cost–performance ratios of the larger [[Mainframe computer|mainframe]] systems fell tremendously in comparison to a number of smaller [[microcomputer]]s handling the same load. As a result, many of the older computer companies were shut down and people were [[unemployment|put out of work]]. However, most of them were able to be re-hired at the newer corporations after undergoing a series of re-training involving the newer technologies.

In the business world, there is usually a value associated with a typical cost–performance ratio analysis. This value can either be positive, neutral, or negative depending on the amount of money spent versus the results achieved by the spending of the available [[Financial capital|capital]]. A cost-performance ratio with a positive value (i.e. greater than 1) indicates that costs are running under budget.<ref name="wideman">{{cite web | url = http://www.maxwideman.com/pmglossary/PMG_C11.htm#Cost%20Performance%20Indicator | title = Cost–performance ratio indicator | publisher = Max Wideman| date = | access-date = 2010-08-26}}</ref> A negative value (i.e. less than 1) indicates that costs are running over budget.<ref name="wideman"/> However, a neutral cost-performance ratio (between 1.0 and 1.9) could suggest a certain degree of stagnation in the budget. [[Business trip]]s can also be factored into the cost–performance ratio because spending $50 to do a journey spanning {{convert|100|mi|km}} in two hours is a better cost–performance ratio than spending $105 to do the journey in one hour.

===Computer technology===
The term tends to be used quite a bit when comparing computer hardware. During the latter 1990s, the price–performance ratios of midrange and large [[Mainframe computer|mainframe]] systems fell tremendously in comparison to a number of smaller [[microcomputer]]s handling the same load. Many companies were forced out of the industry as this happened, including [[Digital Equipment Corporation|DEC]], [[Data General]] and many [[multiprocessor]] vendors such as [[Sequent Computer Systems]] and [[Pyramid Technology]].