He wrote "can't justify".

I need to call myself also 'rich' (because of values i hold but can't liquify and i earn enough that i could buy more expensive toys without thinking too much about it) but this doesn't mean my mindset changed.

I have to remind myself that i can afford certain things or i'm wasting too much thought about prices of products.

This probably shows a more realistic, less material and proper upbringing of Mr Barra than 'not being able to afford it'

Likewise. I could absolutely afford one, but I can't justify one.

I'm the same with a smartwatch. I'd like one, but if I got one it would need to be cellular so I can leave my phone at home most of the time. But I just can't justify the cost for the utility I would get.

In some way, this is probably one of the reasons I'm in the situation that I can buy these things, because of all the other things I have not bought in the past.

Just an FYI in regards to a smart watch; if you're in the US, check your health insurance. Some of them have an offer of "if you go to the gym N times, you can have an Apple Watch for free or at a discount".

It sort of makes sense; the calorie counting feature on my Garmin has actually been really helpful in me losing weight, and I think the insurance companies feel like nearly anything to help people lose weight is probably going to save them money in the long run.

I'm hardly "rich" but I do alright, but similarly there are plenty of toys that I certainly could "afford", but can't really justify.

For example, I would really like a real pinball machine, but a nice refurbished one or brand new one cost anywhere between $3,000 and $10,000. If I wanted, I could save up for a bit and buy one, but it's really hard for me to tell myself that $5,000 for a toy is "worth it", so I never have.

The most extravagant toy that I've purchased in the last few years with the MiSTer, and even that was a little hard to justify.

He explains earlier in the article that he tries to apply a “consumer” lens to all tech purchases, so he can more honestly evaluate them.

The point being that he’s applying a bunch higher bar than someone with his interests and net worth would otherwise apply.

He's been heading up a small health-care startup since 2020. I'd be surprised if he was swimming in cash and liquidity (like he's used too). Companies can no longer write off R&D for the year that they've spent it. Countries like China have major R&D sectors because they allow softare development to be a tax write-off. The US killed this in 2022. Maybe he -- like many of us -- just can't justify spending money on luxury VR goggles given the circumstances.

it's about not indulging in useless purchases, which is one of the ways you stay wealthy

I balked at this too - more because the idea of returning something I bought that arrived in perfect condition, after I’ve given it a fair amount of use, just because I decide I don’t like it never occurs to me. It feels vaguely entitled and unethical. In my head, you can’t return things you’ve used!

In this situation I’d either keep it and use it infrequently (or maybe it’d grow on me), or perhaps sell it.

It’s a legitimate form of “try before you buy” for online purchases. Even when buying in-store where you can try it before purchase, the demo is rather limited in time and exploration freedom to really make an informed decision. Companies like Apple know that their lenient return policy is worth the extra purchases it generates.

Rich, literally headed Oculus at Meta, extremely relevant to his career and interests, spends many hours writing at least one article about the device. But no, can't justify the purchase. If this guy can't justify the purchase who can??

I think even at $100 the AVP is hard to justify for most people. It’s a solution in search of a problem (which I feel is generally the case for all VR tech).

Overall though I think the issue is common across consumer tech. The space is extremely saturated. People have so little time left it’s crazy. Devices monopolize people’s attention. I wonder if we’ll figure out a way to move past this, as a species, and get back to more meaningful interactions.

I have found that many of the affluent engineers that I know exhibit this sort of... line of thinking. this how should I say, false frugality, that at the end of the day doesn't really move the needle much (since they're making 200-300+K TC minimum) but makes them feel good

people who will, instead of directly using their subsidized subsidized clipper card benefits, will load their clipper card with credit cards for the 2% cash back, and then manually submit an expense, creating an operational burden for their company finance team so that they personally can read the benefits of... $25 a year in cash back

people who will take UberPool/Lyft Line to save 4-5 dollars for their commute home at the expense of an extra 20/30 minutes instead of either a) just taking public transit or b) taking a regular uber

people who will buy take out containers and bring them to work to take company-provided catered food so that they can save $20 a day

people who will use credit cards to buy gift cards at grocery stores for 5% cash back (obviously if you buy a $1000 gift card for $50 cash back, that's great but you run the risk of either losing the card/and thus losing cash/losing the credit card purchase/price matching benefits/etc etc)

all in all I think regardless of income/net worth sometimes it's not about the money. they can afford it. but it just feels good to save a little bit of money relative to your net worth way more than the actual financial impact

Those all pale compared to Buffett taking Gates to McDonald's while they were in Hong Kong. And paying with coupons.

He flew him there on a private jet for the meal, it was a $500,000 trip to mcdonald's.