7 ms·

Is it perhaps possible that your priorities might not find a reflection in all hearts? Many people do not regard the time, energy, and resources that go into t

by Kalium 8y ago

Is it perhaps possible that your priorities might not find a reflection in all hearts? Many people do not regard the time, energy, and resources that go into the logistics of managing many vendors to be good investments for them. This can be compared to distributed computing, somewhat distributed manufacturing, distributed government, and diversified financial portfolios. Each of the items you so correctly, wisely, and rightly point to comes with significant cost efficiencies and significant energy in reducing any inefficiencies introduced. I know a great many people who appreciate very high-quality meat of the sort you describe. The number who are willing to invest significantly into the personal logistics required to obtain it could potentially be a somewhat smaller number. To say nothing of the price premium generally demanded by such a specialist, or the impact this might have on household budgets with limited flexibility. It's worth thinking about why department stores might have became popular, long ago, displacing a series of highly specialized expert vendors. It's perhaps even possible that an analogy of a distributed computer system might lead a lesser intellect than yours astray.

reaperducer 8y ago
Many people do not regard the time, energy, and resources that go into the logistics of managing many vendors to be good investments for them I don't disagree with this at all. I was one of those people for many years. But more and more I'm not that person anymore. I don't think it's a good thing that one method (the all-centralized Amazon/Wal-Mart/Costco/Meijer hypermarket) be elevated to the status that it has, where it's seen as the epitome of retail evolution. It has been allowed to destroy other forms of retail because it uses euphemisms like "disrupt" instead of "destroy" and "value added" instead of "predatory." It pretends to be a tech company and not a retailer that's really really good and developing and implementing technology. Just because the Amazon monster is wanted by a certain group of people doesn't mean that the other methods don't have value. That's why there's such a movement among hipsters (are they still a thing?) and others to shun the mass market in favor of more thoughtful methonds, online or otherwise. I think Amazon is great, and I still use it on occasion, but we shouldn't deify a business model. As you noted, department stores were once the fashionable thing. One day Amazon's methods will also seem passé.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Kalium 8y ago
  Is it perhaps possible that Amazon has been so very successful because they have indeed added value by reducing the personal logistics required of a great many people? Coupling that with equivalent or better prices is a substantial addition of value, rather than predatory, in the eyes of many. From personal experiences, I do not view taking the time out of my day to go to the household goods store for toilet paper, paying 10% more than Amazon charges, and transporting it home to be of greater value than Amazon's offering. Of course, there are exceptional scenarios where this might shift (e.g., out of toilet paper), but I expect a great many people would agree with my approach. I understand you and some others may prefer to pay extra in both money and time with your local generic housewares vendor. You're absolutely right that other approaches have value to some people. It may be worth considering that not all people are likely to agree with the status-seeking behavior patterns of the hipsters, even when they take the form of favoring things purportedly thoughtful. And obviously - so obviously I thought it never needed to be said by anyone - no business model should ever be deified. We do seem to be at a local maximum in some ways, that's all. Incidentally, where would you draw the line between "tech company" and "company that's really, really good at developing, deploying, and gaining economic efficiencies from technology"?

by Kalium 8y ago

reaperducer 8y ago

Many people do not regard the time, energy, and resources that go into the logistics of managing many vendors to be good investments for them I don't disagree with this at all. I was one of those people for many years. But more and more I'm not that person anymore. I don't think it's a good thing that one method (the all-centralized Amazon/Wal-Mart/Costco/Meijer hypermarket) be elevated to the status that it has, where it's seen as the epitome of retail evolution. It has been allowed to destroy other forms of retail because it uses euphemisms like "disrupt" instead of "destroy" and "value added" instead of "predatory." It pretends to be a tech company and not a retailer that's really really good and developing and implementing technology. Just because the Amazon monster is wanted by a certain group of people doesn't mean that the other methods don't have value. That's why there's such a movement among hipsters (are they still a thing?) and others to shun the mass market in favor of more thoughtful methonds, online or otherwise. I think Amazon is great, and I still use it on occasion, but we shouldn't deify a business model. As you noted, department stores were once the fashionable thing. One day Amazon's methods will also seem passé.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Kalium 8y ago
Is it perhaps possible that Amazon has been so very successful because they have indeed added value by reducing the personal logistics required of a great many people? Coupling that with equivalent or better prices is a substantial addition of value, rather than predatory, in the eyes of many. From personal experiences, I do not view taking the time out of my day to go to the household goods store for toilet paper, paying 10% more than Amazon charges, and transporting it home to be of greater value than Amazon's offering. Of course, there are exceptional scenarios where this might shift (e.g., out of toilet paper), but I expect a great many people would agree with my approach. I understand you and some others may prefer to pay extra in both money and time with your local generic housewares vendor. You're absolutely right that other approaches have value to some people. It may be worth considering that not all people are likely to agree with the status-seeking behavior patterns of the hipsters, even when they take the form of favoring things purportedly thoughtful. And obviously - so obviously I thought it never needed to be said by anyone - no business model should ever be deified. We do seem to be at a local maximum in some ways, that's all. Incidentally, where would you draw the line between "tech company" and "company that's really, really good at developing, deploying, and gaining economic efficiencies from technology"?