3 ms·

I agree that a GPS solution would not trigger backlash. I just think that GPS are not cheap enough. Lo/Jack is the perfect example. For around $1000, you cou

I agree that a GPS solution would not trigger backlash. I just think that GPS are not cheap enough. Lo/Jack is the perfect example. For around $1000, you could protect your $30K car. Sounds great doesn't it? Seems like everybody should want one. Actually, I don't know a single person that owns a Lo/Jack. It turns out that Lo/Jack struggled for years. While pulling in revenue of a little over a $100M/Yr, it had seen a string of losses, and was eventually sold to CAMP a few years back. If Lo/Jack couldn't make a market work for a device to protect a $30K investment that is in everybody's driveway and a ready source of electricity to power the unit, I don't know anybody willing to do this for a bee hive. (Or perhaps this will be the next great kick-starter, and I'll eat my words!) The key here is not "if" something like a Lo/Jack can be done, but at what point does it happen at such a low price any cover everything that you owns. Video Surveillance is approaching this point rapidly, and it not restricted, I think it will be another victim of Jevons Paradox.

perl4ever 8y ago
If my deductible is $1000, then I only pay it if my car is stolen. It doesn't make sense to pay $1000 with certainty up front, even if it were to almost always prevent a loss in that case. Say there is a 1% chance of a car being stolen - why pay $1000 instead of $10, on average? It's not like I can avoid paying for comprehensive insurance because I have a Lojack, because there's still risk. I also have the impression that the police will not go and retrieve your car nor encourage you to do it, just because you have a tracking device. The big picture, I think, is that the combination of insurance and law enforcement is cheaper for society than everyone having Lojacks, so we should be happy it's not economically viable even if it might be in a libertarian or anarchistic society.

perl4ever 8y ago

If my deductible is $1000, then I only pay it if my car is stolen. It doesn't make sense to pay $1000 with certainty up front, even if it were to almost always prevent a loss in that case. Say there is a 1% chance of a car being stolen - why pay $1000 instead of $10, on average? It's not like I can avoid paying for comprehensive insurance because I have a Lojack, because there's still risk. I also have the impression that the police will not go and retrieve your car nor encourage you to do it, just because you have a tracking device. The big picture, I think, is that the combination of insurance and law enforcement is cheaper for society than everyone having Lojacks, so we should be happy it's not economically viable even if it might be in a libertarian or anarchistic society.