4 ms·

I for one would be delighted if someone were to start a business making the razors-and-razorblades business model untenable. It's anticompetitive, distortionar

by frankus 16y ago

I for one would be delighted if someone were to start a business making the razors-and-razorblades business model untenable. It's anticompetitive, distortionary, harms interoperability, and tempts businesses into spending endless amounts of money in an arms race that could better be spent making their products better.

rapind 16y ago
That's just branding. There hasn't been consumer noticeable technological advancement in that market in probably 20 years or more. Honestly, is 10 blades going to increase my quality of life?
tptacek 16y ago
I'm an entrepreneur. I work in a field notorious for generating a feeling of entitlement among laypeople. So, I have a hard time sympathizing with arguments that boil down to "if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability.
- orangecat 16y ago
  "if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". Er, yes? Claiming the opposite eviscerates property rights even more than the DMCA already does. My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability. Barring antitrust issues I have no legal or moral issues with that.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    You see the right to do whatever you want with any physical object you exchange money to possess. I see the right to design, build, and offer a product to the market under whatever terms I'd like. These rights are in conflict, and I see that, but let's not pretend that there's no other side to this.
    - 1337p337 16y ago
      Sure, there's another side to this, but it's not a valid side. Your side merely capitalizes on the present legal murkiness of the software/copyright issue. Console manufacturers, phone manufacturers, and a legion of other device manufacturers have spent three decades capitalizing on abuses of patent and copyright law. Patents exist not to lock out competition or allow total control over an invention, but as a method for making sure your work isn't stolen (for a limited time) and thus give you a commercial incentive to innovate. It is outright abuse to say that it gives anyone the right to dictate how devices are used, but is sadly an abuse that has become the status quo.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        You write as if Microsoft discovered the Kinect, maybe deep inside some ancient system of caves, and now is hoarding them for their own nefarious purposes.
- frankus 16y ago
  There are certainly markets where it basically isn't possible to make a living pricing things at marginal cost, which is why we have copyright law. There are also markets with large sunk research costs (i.e. the Kinect) where there needs to be a mechanism to recoup them, which is why we have patent law. So I'm not particularly sympathetic to people feel like they shouldn't have to pay for a copy of something just because the marginal cost is zero. Leaving aside details like perpetual copyrights on the installment plan, we have a decent legal framework that only works if everyone contributes (cf. taxes). But game consoles, to borrow your phrasing, are a field notorious for generating a feeling of entitlement among corporations. Same with printer cartridges, mobile phones, and, yes, razorblades. There is no societal need for these pricing schemes when we have an efficient consumer credit market, and they're frankly anticompetitive. Society benefits from competitive markets, and competitive markets work best when things are forced to be priced at what they're worth. So I would argue that society benefits when loss-leader schemes are rendered infeasible.

by frankus 16y ago

rapind 16y ago

That's just branding. There hasn't been consumer noticeable technological advancement in that market in probably 20 years or more. Honestly, is 10 blades going to increase my quality of life?

tptacek 16y ago

I'm an entrepreneur. I work in a field notorious for generating a feeling of entitlement among laypeople. So, I have a hard time sympathizing with arguments that boil down to "if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability.

orangecat 16y ago
"if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". Er, yes? Claiming the opposite eviscerates property rights even more than the DMCA already does. My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability. Barring antitrust issues I have no legal or moral issues with that.
- tptacek 16y ago
  You see the right to do whatever you want with any physical object you exchange money to possess. I see the right to design, build, and offer a product to the market under whatever terms I'd like. These rights are in conflict, and I see that, but let's not pretend that there's no other side to this.
  - 1337p337 16y ago
    Sure, there's another side to this, but it's not a valid side. Your side merely capitalizes on the present legal murkiness of the software/copyright issue. Console manufacturers, phone manufacturers, and a legion of other device manufacturers have spent three decades capitalizing on abuses of patent and copyright law. Patents exist not to lock out competition or allow total control over an invention, but as a method for making sure your work isn't stolen (for a limited time) and thus give you a commercial incentive to innovate. It is outright abuse to say that it gives anyone the right to dictate how devices are used, but is sadly an abuse that has become the status quo.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      You write as if Microsoft discovered the Kinect, maybe deep inside some ancient system of caves, and now is hoarding them for their own nefarious purposes.
frankus 16y ago
There are certainly markets where it basically isn't possible to make a living pricing things at marginal cost, which is why we have copyright law. There are also markets with large sunk research costs (i.e. the Kinect) where there needs to be a mechanism to recoup them, which is why we have patent law. So I'm not particularly sympathetic to people feel like they shouldn't have to pay for a copy of something just because the marginal cost is zero. Leaving aside details like perpetual copyrights on the installment plan, we have a decent legal framework that only works if everyone contributes (cf. taxes). But game consoles, to borrow your phrasing, are a field notorious for generating a feeling of entitlement among corporations. Same with printer cartridges, mobile phones, and, yes, razorblades. There is no societal need for these pricing schemes when we have an efficient consumer credit market, and they're frankly anticompetitive. Society benefits from competitive markets, and competitive markets work best when things are forced to be priced at what they're worth. So I would argue that society benefits when loss-leader schemes are rendered infeasible.