4 ms·

> It's hurting the people who are forced to pay $600 for a $60 item because they need one (e.g. a must-have gift for someone). LOL at the privilege of this bei

by enneff 10y ago

> It's hurting the people who are forced to pay $600 for a $60 item because they need one (e.g. a must-have gift for someone). LOL at the privilege of this being a real problem for someone. If we were talking about price gouging on food, medicine, or housing then I might agree with you. But luxury gifts? Come on, man. > It's hurting the people who wanted to buy one for $60 but cannot afford to buy one for $600. LOL at the idea that they can't just wait for them to manufacture more of them. I mean, the games have been out for nearly 30 years now, right?

metaphor 10y ago
> LOL at the idea that they can't just wait for them to manufacture more of them. I mean, the games have been out for nearly 30 years now, right? Assuming more are eventually manufactured, which many hope to be the case...in this instance. On a related personal note roughly 5 years ago, HP released a limited edition of their 15c RPN scientific calculator[1], which promptly sold out and found their way on eBay listing for $100s more. Despite popular demand, HP never manufactured more. I was lucky enough to acquire two units direct from HP at original cost and actively use one--along with a 35s--on a daily basis; the second is a spare that I refuse to part with. The moral bankruptcy manifests in a willingness to acknowledge that this behavior is unacceptable were the product "food, medicine, or housing" or any commodity that is generally classified as a necessity. In my eyes, the principle of the matter cannot discriminate. [1] http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/product_pdfs/15c_data_sheet.pdf http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/product_pdfs/1...
- mikeash 10y ago
  Why are you blaming scalpers for people's woes with the 15c, rather than blaming HP? I see no problem with having different standards for necessities than for luxuries. We'd consider it morally reprehensible to deny food to a poor person, but few people have a problem denying yachts to a poor person.
  - metaphor 10y ago
    There's a distinct difference between blaming scalpers for a general shortage of supply and holding them accountable for detestable profiteering behavior. The point of bringing up the 15c instance was to highlight the apparent assumption that manufacturer supply always trend consumer demand. A large portion of the user community knew in advance that the 15c would be limited release...but so did scalpers as hundreds of units were immediately relisted at super-inflated prices on zero-day. In the end, it's the user community for which the product was intending to target who ultimately loses...which inflames the compromise that I've made in my mind between a legit business incentive to make a fair profit and an underlying hacker ethos. Furthermore, scalpers have nothing invested in the creation of the end-product, nor do they ever intend to use it, nor is there any value added to their super-inflated relist price, nor do they share in the business risk of bring the product to market. Profiteering is their strict modus operandi. Although it's certainly delusional to think that these bad apples could ever be done away with completely, I think it's equally asinine to point fingers at an OEM (who has invested in and owns the IP rights) without having first excercised due diligence in holding scalpers who are demonstrably contributing to the supply problem publicly accountable for their actions, if only on a moral note. The problem becomes even more exacerbated when technology enables independent scalpers to gain critical mass on a scale that can nerf an entire production lot. It's unfortunate that the only real action the public can take is inaction against scalper relists...it's even more unfortunate that real consequences are practically nonexistent. What isn't being acknowledged is the very real risk that any company faces with bringing a hardware product to market at scale. Saturate the market with the intent of deterring scalpers and your unsold investment sits in a storage warehouse costing you untold amounts collecting dust. Increase unit cost on the next product lot and suffer consumer outrage. Set the initial cost beyond reasonable profit and you're in price gouging territory. Assuming a sustainable business model, where's the incentive? Again, it's the user community who ultimately loses to the true vectoralist scalper. The food vs. yacht analogy appears to dismiss reality. In a zero-sum game, the unit cost of a yacht commands a ballpark 6-8 orders of magnitude delta over food. As a society, we indirectly deny poor people yachts on the merit of economic sensibility, not because it's a social luxury; simply replace yacht with a scaleable luxury like cell phone or computer. The notion of an alternative "affordable yacht" is an oxymoron and subjectively exclusive to the wealthy.
- kbenson 10y ago
  It seems HP deserves a bit of the blame in this situation as well. Hp could conceivably make more, and at a higher price if needed to cover increased cost, or license production to some other company willing to do so. That they don't/won't speaks to them having a reason to do so. My money would be on not cannibalizing sales from their other calculators (which, let's be honest, are pretty damn expensive). I'm less likely to blame people for taking advantage of a reality than I am HP for making that reality. Let's not forget HP controls supply in this instance. As for the NES system, what we have are people taking advantage of what is likely a short term supply problem. The cost of these systems is really a premium on people who are not willing to wait for more to come, since I think it's likely that Nintendo will make more.
  - metaphor 10y ago
    I wouldn't say blame in the sense that it implies fault wherein consumers had reasonable expectations to not exist. The 15c was clearly limited production targeting a very niche market (professional scientists and engineers of a certain era). The dubiousness of its release was in the sheer number of them being immediately relisted at super-inflated prices on zero-day. History tells us that HP made a very clear investment bringing the original 15c to market; it's their IP and their prerogative. I simply can't find reason to fault HP for their business decision, which was likely driven by overall product relevance than cannibalizing sales; 33s and 35s were the only other RPN scientific alternatives at the time, and they're both quite distinct from the 15c. In today's age of touchscreen smart phone proliferation, affordable licensed emulators[1][2] which scale to screen fill that void elegantly...unless you're a modern 20-something-ish Luddite like myself and still don't own a smartphone. [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hp.hp15c15&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hp.hp15c15... [2] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hewlett-packard-15c-scientific/id503720774?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hewlett-packard-15c-scientif...
- sah2ed 10y ago
  Wow, this brings back memories. I remember stumbling on this HP calculator many years ago and struggling to use it for simple infix arithmetic not knowing it was an RPN calculator.

by enneff 10y ago

metaphor 10y ago

> LOL at the idea that they can't just wait for them to manufacture more of them. I mean, the games have been out for nearly 30 years now, right? Assuming more are eventually manufactured, which many hope to be the case...in this instance. On a related personal note roughly 5 years ago, HP released a limited edition of their 15c RPN scientific calculator[1], which promptly sold out and found their way on eBay listing for $100s more. Despite popular demand, HP never manufactured more. I was lucky enough to acquire two units direct from HP at original cost and actively use one--along with a 35s--on a daily basis; the second is a spare that I refuse to part with. The moral bankruptcy manifests in a willingness to acknowledge that this behavior is unacceptable were the product "food, medicine, or housing" or any commodity that is generally classified as a necessity. In my eyes, the principle of the matter cannot discriminate. [1] http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/product_pdfs/15c_data_sheet.pdf http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/product_pdfs/1...

mikeash 10y ago
Why are you blaming scalpers for people's woes with the 15c, rather than blaming HP? I see no problem with having different standards for necessities than for luxuries. We'd consider it morally reprehensible to deny food to a poor person, but few people have a problem denying yachts to a poor person.
- metaphor 10y ago
  There's a distinct difference between blaming scalpers for a general shortage of supply and holding them accountable for detestable profiteering behavior. The point of bringing up the 15c instance was to highlight the apparent assumption that manufacturer supply always trend consumer demand. A large portion of the user community knew in advance that the 15c would be limited release...but so did scalpers as hundreds of units were immediately relisted at super-inflated prices on zero-day. In the end, it's the user community for which the product was intending to target who ultimately loses...which inflames the compromise that I've made in my mind between a legit business incentive to make a fair profit and an underlying hacker ethos. Furthermore, scalpers have nothing invested in the creation of the end-product, nor do they ever intend to use it, nor is there any value added to their super-inflated relist price, nor do they share in the business risk of bring the product to market. Profiteering is their strict modus operandi. Although it's certainly delusional to think that these bad apples could ever be done away with completely, I think it's equally asinine to point fingers at an OEM (who has invested in and owns the IP rights) without having first excercised due diligence in holding scalpers who are demonstrably contributing to the supply problem publicly accountable for their actions, if only on a moral note. The problem becomes even more exacerbated when technology enables independent scalpers to gain critical mass on a scale that can nerf an entire production lot. It's unfortunate that the only real action the public can take is inaction against scalper relists...it's even more unfortunate that real consequences are practically nonexistent. What isn't being acknowledged is the very real risk that any company faces with bringing a hardware product to market at scale. Saturate the market with the intent of deterring scalpers and your unsold investment sits in a storage warehouse costing you untold amounts collecting dust. Increase unit cost on the next product lot and suffer consumer outrage. Set the initial cost beyond reasonable profit and you're in price gouging territory. Assuming a sustainable business model, where's the incentive? Again, it's the user community who ultimately loses to the true vectoralist scalper. The food vs. yacht analogy appears to dismiss reality. In a zero-sum game, the unit cost of a yacht commands a ballpark 6-8 orders of magnitude delta over food. As a society, we indirectly deny poor people yachts on the merit of economic sensibility, not because it's a social luxury; simply replace yacht with a scaleable luxury like cell phone or computer. The notion of an alternative "affordable yacht" is an oxymoron and subjectively exclusive to the wealthy.
kbenson 10y ago
It seems HP deserves a bit of the blame in this situation as well. Hp could conceivably make more, and at a higher price if needed to cover increased cost, or license production to some other company willing to do so. That they don't/won't speaks to them having a reason to do so. My money would be on not cannibalizing sales from their other calculators (which, let's be honest, are pretty damn expensive). I'm less likely to blame people for taking advantage of a reality than I am HP for making that reality. Let's not forget HP controls supply in this instance. As for the NES system, what we have are people taking advantage of what is likely a short term supply problem. The cost of these systems is really a premium on people who are not willing to wait for more to come, since I think it's likely that Nintendo will make more.
- metaphor 10y ago
  I wouldn't say blame in the sense that it implies fault wherein consumers had reasonable expectations to not exist. The 15c was clearly limited production targeting a very niche market (professional scientists and engineers of a certain era). The dubiousness of its release was in the sheer number of them being immediately relisted at super-inflated prices on zero-day. History tells us that HP made a very clear investment bringing the original 15c to market; it's their IP and their prerogative. I simply can't find reason to fault HP for their business decision, which was likely driven by overall product relevance than cannibalizing sales; 33s and 35s were the only other RPN scientific alternatives at the time, and they're both quite distinct from the 15c. In today's age of touchscreen smart phone proliferation, affordable licensed emulators[1][2] which scale to screen fill that void elegantly...unless you're a modern 20-something-ish Luddite like myself and still don't own a smartphone. [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hp.hp15c15&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hp.hp15c15... [2] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hewlett-packard-15c-scientific/id503720774?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hewlett-packard-15c-scientif...
sah2ed 10y ago
Wow, this brings back memories. I remember stumbling on this HP calculator many years ago and struggling to use it for simple infix arithmetic not knowing it was an RPN calculator.