5 ms·

Yes, there are more people willing to pay $10 than people willing to pay $50. But, how many people willing to pay $50 would prefer to pay $10 and will switch on

by lrem 8y ago

Yes, there are more people willing to pay $10 than people willing to pay $50. But, how many people willing to pay $50 would prefer to pay $10 and will switch once the option arises?

kakarot 8y ago
Doesn't matter. The economy should ultimately favor the buyer, not the seller.
- jfim 8y ago
  I disagree. The whole point of IP laws is that they provide a monetary incentive to innovate. If someone decides to take some time off to invent a new device and incur a financial risk to bring it to market, they should have the opportunity to profit from it. If new inventions are cloned within weeks in Asia and undercut the original inventor, where's the incentive to take risks on novel inventions? If the invention was trivial, why didn't the Chinese manufacturers come up with it in the first place?
  - thatcat 8y ago
    Why are you assuming that kickstarter projects would have any IP? It seems that a very low percentage of kickstarter projects would own IP on their devices considering the amount of time and cost involved in just applying for a patent. If no one owns a patent that covers the design then manufacturing a bunch of "copies" for a much lower price isn't illegal. It makes sense that kickstarter would be targeted as a source of not patented ideas to use.
  - loceng 8y ago
    "The whole point of IP laws is that they provide a monetary incentive to innovate." Likewise, then the innovator has more money/resources to continue. A good example of this leading to exponentially growing success and greater scale innovations of inventors/entrepreneurs re-cycling their profits is Elon Musk's path.
hevi_jos 8y ago
Lots of people, specially Chinese. They can spend 1000$ for the real thing because they know it is real. They go to Europe or US to buy original products, not selfies sticks of course, because if the stick does not work that well is not important. But they buy medicines, they buy iphones, they even buy cars. If someone believe that something as easy to replicate like a stick should make him extremely rich, then he is going to have to face reality.
- squarefoot 8y ago
  "If someone believe that something as easy to replicate like a stick should make him extremely rich, then he is going to have to face reality." Tell that to those who recycled 3rd grade, sometimes even used, ball bearings to build and sell a shitload of fidget spinners just a few years ago. We can't know how much people is willing to spend on a product if it hits the right string in their brains.

by lrem 8y ago

Yes, there are more people willing to pay $10 than people willing to pay $50. But, how many people willing to pay $50 would prefer to pay $10 and will switch once the option arises?

kakarot 8y ago

Doesn't matter. The economy should ultimately favor the buyer, not the seller.

jfim 8y ago
I disagree. The whole point of IP laws is that they provide a monetary incentive to innovate. If someone decides to take some time off to invent a new device and incur a financial risk to bring it to market, they should have the opportunity to profit from it. If new inventions are cloned within weeks in Asia and undercut the original inventor, where's the incentive to take risks on novel inventions? If the invention was trivial, why didn't the Chinese manufacturers come up with it in the first place?
- thatcat 8y ago
  Why are you assuming that kickstarter projects would have any IP? It seems that a very low percentage of kickstarter projects would own IP on their devices considering the amount of time and cost involved in just applying for a patent. If no one owns a patent that covers the design then manufacturing a bunch of "copies" for a much lower price isn't illegal. It makes sense that kickstarter would be targeted as a source of not patented ideas to use.
- loceng 8y ago
  "The whole point of IP laws is that they provide a monetary incentive to innovate." Likewise, then the innovator has more money/resources to continue. A good example of this leading to exponentially growing success and greater scale innovations of inventors/entrepreneurs re-cycling their profits is Elon Musk's path.

hevi_jos 8y ago

Lots of people, specially Chinese. They can spend 1000$ for the real thing because they know it is real. They go to Europe or US to buy original products, not selfies sticks of course, because if the stick does not work that well is not important. But they buy medicines, they buy iphones, they even buy cars. If someone believe that something as easy to replicate like a stick should make him extremely rich, then he is going to have to face reality.

squarefoot 8y ago
"If someone believe that something as easy to replicate like a stick should make him extremely rich, then he is going to have to face reality." Tell that to those who recycled 3rd grade, sometimes even used, ball bearings to build and sell a shitload of fidget spinners just a few years ago. We can't know how much people is willing to spend on a product if it hits the right string in their brains.