4 ms·

A vendor doesn’t have to offer the socially optimal package. Other vendors can fill in other gaps.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
The GP said: > The hobby intentionally does nothing to try to improve [the drawbacks of the small scale] because the exclusivity drives prices up to an insane point. [...] There is nothing wrong with any of this. If it's still worth it for you, that's fine. Or if you figure that selling a few blinged-out "designer" models at ultra-premium prices helps support the main product, or if you don't care either way because you don't buy the top models, or you admire the designer's business savvy, or any other thoughtful reason that hasn't occurred to me, that's all fine. But describing that situation I quoted above, and saying "there is nothing wrong with this," is pretty debatable! And I'm getting downvote-bombed for politely debating it. Hacker News is weird sometimes.
- balfirevic 7y ago
  > But describing that situation I quoted above, and saying "there is nothing wrong with this," is pretty debatable! "There is nothing wrong with this" in contexts like these usually means "nothing morally wrong".
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Seems there's a pretty obvious argument why artificial scarcity purely for financial gain is wrong, assuming the goods provide a benefit of some kind (and if they don't then there are ready arguments not to sell them at all).
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      It seems pretty obvious why it isn’t wrong in this case and that is that there is no general shortage of keyboards. Someone buying one of these isn’t going to deprive anybody else from buying a keyboard for their computer.
- edoceo 7y ago
  Maybe downvotes cause the MK group thinks it's fine. Then you, with a cursory look at the group, state their happy place is "all bad" - and demonstrate a mis-understanding of the MK market forces - which had already been described.
- buckminster 7y ago
  It's the same thing as limited edition prints. The exclusivity is the point. Though it's not my cup of tea.
- phaus 7y ago
  I upvoted because I did poorly word what I meant by the latter part of that statement, see above.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    Thanks for clarifying!

The GP said: > The hobby intentionally does nothing to try to improve [the drawbacks of the small scale] because the exclusivity drives prices up to an insane point. [...] There is nothing wrong with any of this. If it's still worth it for you, that's fine. Or if you figure that selling a few blinged-out "designer" models at ultra-premium prices helps support the main product, or if you don't care either way because you don't buy the top models, or you admire the designer's business savvy, or any other thoughtful reason that hasn't occurred to me, that's all fine. But describing that situation I quoted above, and saying "there is nothing wrong with this," is pretty debatable! And I'm getting downvote-bombed for politely debating it. Hacker News is weird sometimes.

balfirevic 7y ago
> But describing that situation I quoted above, and saying "there is nothing wrong with this," is pretty debatable! "There is nothing wrong with this" in contexts like these usually means "nothing morally wrong".
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Seems there's a pretty obvious argument why artificial scarcity purely for financial gain is wrong, assuming the goods provide a benefit of some kind (and if they don't then there are ready arguments not to sell them at all).
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    It seems pretty obvious why it isn’t wrong in this case and that is that there is no general shortage of keyboards. Someone buying one of these isn’t going to deprive anybody else from buying a keyboard for their computer.
edoceo 7y ago
Maybe downvotes cause the MK group thinks it's fine. Then you, with a cursory look at the group, state their happy place is "all bad" - and demonstrate a mis-understanding of the MK market forces - which had already been described.
buckminster 7y ago
It's the same thing as limited edition prints. The exclusivity is the point. Though it's not my cup of tea.
phaus 7y ago
I upvoted because I did poorly word what I meant by the latter part of that statement, see above.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  Thanks for clarifying!