4 ms·

I came across backup appliances recently that work on this principal. They literally have TBs of unused disk space in the box in my datacenter, but require an a

I came across backup appliances recently that work on this principal. They literally have TBs of unused disk space in the box in my datacenter, but require an additional license to activate. It makes me very angry!

naikrovek 7y ago
Why does it make you angry? The price of the appliance would likely be the same if that spare capacity was not pre-installed, and the cost of an upgrade would likely not change if hardware was delivered when the upgrade was purchased instead of being pre-installed. They have calculated that enough customers will upgrade to pay for the hardware installed in the customer appliances that don't. What's wrong with that? You don't have to wait for the hardware if you buy the upgrade.
- misterprime 7y ago
  It's a false scarcity that's annoying to the customer. Unlocking the extra capacity costs the vendor nothing. The consumer has paid enough money to have access to that storage without hurting the vendor, but the vendor refuses to grant access to that storage capacity. If I had purchased such a product it would leave a sour taste in my mouth. The next time I needed such a piece of equipment I would try to find an alternative source. Here's an analogy. If I'd purchased a box lunch of a juice box, sandwich and chips, but surprisingly they also included a cookie that is in a special package which will only unlock if I pay another $1 I would be upset. Of course, I could just throw the cookie away, package and all. I may not want the cookie anyway. But that's so wasteful! The vendor can afford to include the cookie at the price I already paid, but is solely using that cookie as a way to extract more money from me. It's wasteful.
  - zwily 7y ago
    What if the alternative is to not offer the cheaper product at all. Would that be preferable? It does seem like a weird system.
    - romwell 7y ago
      >What if the alternative is to not offer the cheaper product at all. The alternative that's been around for centuries is called "having a sale". Say, you make 1000 units of something. Each unit costs X to make. You need to make Y profit per unit to sustain your business. The bad news is, not everyone wants to pay X+Y. The good news: some are willing to pay more. The supply-demand curve thing. So what you can do is: sell 500 units at X+2Y. Then have limited-time sales throughout <time period> at X+0.1Y. This way, you never lose money on a sale, and you make the money you wanted to make. The customers that want your product here and now* pay for that premium. The customers that need your product will pay up as well, as sales aren't a guaranteed thing. And the rest will wait. With smart hardware, someone had a genius idea: have the same breakdown in prices, but also cripple the products you sell at a lower price. Make your money faster by selling at both price points simultaneously. Nothing* wrong with trying to do that (from the seller's side). Nothing wrong with being disgusted with the wasteful practice it and calling it out (from the customer's side). * aside from the waste aspect, repair aspect, customer hostility, artificially high margins probably being result of a monopoly/lock-in/supplier scarcity, and a plethora of other things.
  - sitkack 7y ago
    The vendor is not only requiring you to pay for the physical goods you already have, but your payment is subsidizing the waste of the other consumers not purchasing the option. I pay for mine, and I pay for their unused resources. Most artificial tiering in unethical.
  - c0vfefe 7y ago
    I think a more apt analogy would be those hand trucks that come on U-Hauls, where it's already physically on the truck, but just sealed up unless you pay a little extra. So if you don't buy the option it's not destroyed forever, but can be utilized by future users once you move on. This allows them to provide customers with instant access to extra value by charging them enough to support putting a sealed hand truck on every U-Haul, or extra terabytes in every account.

naikrovek 7y ago

Why does it make you angry? The price of the appliance would likely be the same if that spare capacity was not pre-installed, and the cost of an upgrade would likely not change if hardware was delivered when the upgrade was purchased instead of being pre-installed. They have calculated that enough customers will upgrade to pay for the hardware installed in the customer appliances that don't. What's wrong with that? You don't have to wait for the hardware if you buy the upgrade.

misterprime 7y ago
It's a false scarcity that's annoying to the customer. Unlocking the extra capacity costs the vendor nothing. The consumer has paid enough money to have access to that storage without hurting the vendor, but the vendor refuses to grant access to that storage capacity. If I had purchased such a product it would leave a sour taste in my mouth. The next time I needed such a piece of equipment I would try to find an alternative source. Here's an analogy. If I'd purchased a box lunch of a juice box, sandwich and chips, but surprisingly they also included a cookie that is in a special package which will only unlock if I pay another $1 I would be upset. Of course, I could just throw the cookie away, package and all. I may not want the cookie anyway. But that's so wasteful! The vendor can afford to include the cookie at the price I already paid, but is solely using that cookie as a way to extract more money from me. It's wasteful.
- zwily 7y ago
  What if the alternative is to not offer the cheaper product at all. Would that be preferable? It does seem like a weird system.
  - romwell 7y ago
    >What if the alternative is to not offer the cheaper product at all. The alternative that's been around for centuries is called "having a sale". Say, you make 1000 units of something. Each unit costs X to make. You need to make Y profit per unit to sustain your business. The bad news is, not everyone wants to pay X+Y. The good news: some are willing to pay more. The supply-demand curve thing. So what you can do is: sell 500 units at X+2Y. Then have limited-time sales throughout <time period> at X+0.1Y. This way, you never lose money on a sale, and you make the money you wanted to make. The customers that want your product here and now* pay for that premium. The customers that need your product will pay up as well, as sales aren't a guaranteed thing. And the rest will wait. With smart hardware, someone had a genius idea: have the same breakdown in prices, but also cripple the products you sell at a lower price. Make your money faster by selling at both price points simultaneously. Nothing* wrong with trying to do that (from the seller's side). Nothing wrong with being disgusted with the wasteful practice it and calling it out (from the customer's side). * aside from the waste aspect, repair aspect, customer hostility, artificially high margins probably being result of a monopoly/lock-in/supplier scarcity, and a plethora of other things.
- sitkack 7y ago
  The vendor is not only requiring you to pay for the physical goods you already have, but your payment is subsidizing the waste of the other consumers not purchasing the option. I pay for mine, and I pay for their unused resources. Most artificial tiering in unethical.
- c0vfefe 7y ago
  I think a more apt analogy would be those hand trucks that come on U-Hauls, where it's already physically on the truck, but just sealed up unless you pay a little extra. So if you don't buy the option it's not destroyed forever, but can be utilized by future users once you move on. This allows them to provide customers with instant access to extra value by charging them enough to support putting a sealed hand truck on every U-Haul, or extra terabytes in every account.