5 ms·

I think the mixed incentives problem is becoming more and more glaring with each passing day. Want to write an app that people use on their phone? Awesome. Bec

I think the mixed incentives problem is becoming more and more glaring with each passing day. Want to write an app that people use on their phone? Awesome. Become an Apple Dev or a Droid Dev. It's the lottery: the providers love you playing, but only about 1-in-100 make it, and "making it" is not about quality. The garden is too big to be manually cultivated, so the winners are the ones that can play the algorithm. Have a site online you'd like people to visit? If you're advertising it, you're going through Google or Facebook. Just be sure you don't accidentally flip any yellow flags with them. If you do, they can yank your advertising and you're talking to a robot trying to get it back. Unless you're big, of course. Or you can play the algorithm. How about if you sell a physical product? What if you've been selling it for years? Well, you gotta go to Amazon. They own internet product sales. But guess what? If you switch to a provider, you don't have an email list, you don't have a unique internet address, you don't provide a unique experience, and whatever you do has just become a commodity. And we're back to the algorithm thing again, because if you can source, package, and sell it on Amazon? Somebody else can too. Probably cheaper. Maybe it has high quality parts. Maybe not. There's far too many products for Amazon to manually curate, so you're back to worshiping the algorithm. The algorithm provides traffic, it provides recommendations, it provides an indication of quality text content -- it provides sales. Make a mistake in the old brick and mortar days? Go change your sign. Deal with complaints through the BBB. Make a mistake now? Sure, there's recourse. Sometimes. It's all about the algorithm. And we can't tell you what's in the algorithm, because if we did? Everybody would be gaming it. Like they are now. The algorithm rules all. Cross it and die.

mooreds 11y ago
> The algorithm rules all. > Cross it and die. Or, differentiate, use these awesome platforms as a traffic source or branding help, focus on direct to the consumer sales and loyalty, and/or build a better product and keep doing so. Middle men have been around for millennia, these new ones are just that much more efficient. But small fry have more resources now too.
brianwawok 11y ago
So what was this like 30 years ago? No algo with no internet. You make a business, you try to sell it around your town. If you do really awesome you can get 75% of X business in your town. If you do really really really awesome maybe you can franchise it across the country. But most people topped out at ruling a town. Now we are competing on a world market. Gains are much bigger, but everyone has 500 competitors. You tend to get nothing or $billions. Good for the consumer I think, as they can get the best version of X. Not so good for the 499 other businesses that close.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  >Good for the consumer I think, as they can get the best version of X. // I look around and I don't see consumers getting the best version of things I see consumers getting what they're told they should want whilst seemingly ignoring major improvements. Engineered obsolescence seems like a major thing, how does it benefit consumers (except the rich ones who're probably involved in profiting from it themselves - even then they get the downsides of environmental damage and wastage of resources, eventually). I want a kettle that has the lid catches made in a resilient and repairable way - instead all the kettles I can find (up to about £80) have plastic that is seemingly designed to perish in a year or two at most. My first washing machine lasted about 15 years; now washing machine repair people are telling me that a machine 3 years old is past it and should be replaced. Progress? Wealthy companies can see off poor companies and bury better designs. Consumers don't tend to look beyond the end of their wallet, or can't afford to. We're not working together to create better products we're fighting each other to get consumers money.
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    I think a solution to planned obsolescence would be to require prominent labelling of guaranteed product lifetimes. (Including "0 Months" if they aren't willing to offer a warranty.) That way consumers can judge products based on lifetime value instead of just the immediate price.
    - krapht 11y ago
golergka 11y ago
It all seems pretty bleak, until you think about customer perspective.
soared 11y ago
I completely disagree on most of these points. 1. Apps - Yes sandboxed and owned by apple or google. 2. Online site - No, not at all. There are a million other platforms for paid traffic. There is literally billions of places to get referral traffic, millions of which are social. Organic relies on Google, but they are much much better than any reasonable alternative. Following their rules is incredibly simple - don't cheat and produce good content. Horror stories exist but they are tiny tiny minorities. 3. Physical Product - No, you don't have to go to amazon at all. Why would you even think that? Make an ecommerce store just like millions of other brands and millions of individuals. 4. Make a mistake back then - Change your sign. Now just buy a new domain. What about the internet prevents you from changing branding? Yeah you need to rebuild your organic, but thats the penalty for being a shit brand. Algorithm only rules what you let it, and in some cases (organic) its the best thing you could hope for (if your brand is quality). Everybody games the algorithm, but if you cross it you die? ...okay.

mooreds 11y ago

> The algorithm rules all. > Cross it and die. Or, differentiate, use these awesome platforms as a traffic source or branding help, focus on direct to the consumer sales and loyalty, and/or build a better product and keep doing so. Middle men have been around for millennia, these new ones are just that much more efficient. But small fry have more resources now too.

brianwawok 11y ago

So what was this like 30 years ago? No algo with no internet. You make a business, you try to sell it around your town. If you do really awesome you can get 75% of X business in your town. If you do really really really awesome maybe you can franchise it across the country. But most people topped out at ruling a town. Now we are competing on a world market. Gains are much bigger, but everyone has 500 competitors. You tend to get nothing or $billions. Good for the consumer I think, as they can get the best version of X. Not so good for the 499 other businesses that close.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>Good for the consumer I think, as they can get the best version of X. // I look around and I don't see consumers getting the best version of things I see consumers getting what they're told they should want whilst seemingly ignoring major improvements. Engineered obsolescence seems like a major thing, how does it benefit consumers (except the rich ones who're probably involved in profiting from it themselves - even then they get the downsides of environmental damage and wastage of resources, eventually). I want a kettle that has the lid catches made in a resilient and repairable way - instead all the kettles I can find (up to about £80) have plastic that is seemingly designed to perish in a year or two at most. My first washing machine lasted about 15 years; now washing machine repair people are telling me that a machine 3 years old is past it and should be replaced. Progress? Wealthy companies can see off poor companies and bury better designs. Consumers don't tend to look beyond the end of their wallet, or can't afford to. We're not working together to create better products we're fighting each other to get consumers money.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  I think a solution to planned obsolescence would be to require prominent labelling of guaranteed product lifetimes. (Including "0 Months" if they aren't willing to offer a warranty.) That way consumers can judge products based on lifetime value instead of just the immediate price.
  - krapht 11y ago

golergka 11y ago

It all seems pretty bleak, until you think about customer perspective.

soared 11y ago

I completely disagree on most of these points. 1. Apps - Yes sandboxed and owned by apple or google. 2. Online site - No, not at all. There are a million other platforms for paid traffic. There is literally billions of places to get referral traffic, millions of which are social. Organic relies on Google, but they are much much better than any reasonable alternative. Following their rules is incredibly simple - don't cheat and produce good content. Horror stories exist but they are tiny tiny minorities. 3. Physical Product - No, you don't have to go to amazon at all. Why would you even think that? Make an ecommerce store just like millions of other brands and millions of individuals. 4. Make a mistake back then - Change your sign. Now just buy a new domain. What about the internet prevents you from changing branding? Yeah you need to rebuild your organic, but thats the penalty for being a shit brand. Algorithm only rules what you let it, and in some cases (organic) its the best thing you could hope for (if your brand is quality). Everybody games the algorithm, but if you cross it you die? ...okay.