3 ms·

Grandmas have wifi? You are out of touch with ordinary people.

mattmaroon 18y ago
I know lots of senior citizens who have broadband and/or wifi. I guess not any who have grandkids my age, but lots of people who have children my age who have children themselves.
- maxklein 18y ago
  That's the problem, isn't it. You know lots of people, so you have made the assumption that it's all that way. Well, I know lots of people who are my parents age who not only don't have the internet, but are only peripherally aware that it exists, and really have no interest in going on it. Just because you know lots of people who are a certain way does not mean it's that way. Remember, you are living in a world that is filtered - to a certain demographic, to a certain income level, to a certain intelligence level, to a certain ambition level and so on. There are huge other demographics that are also filtered in a certain way, and for them, the total opposite is true. For example, imagine an average high school dropout / labourer. His friends are unlikely to be college professors or other upper class, his friends are unlikely to be rich. His friends are most likely going to be similar to him. And their friends are similar to them. So you have this network of high school dropouts who are all linked to each other in one big demographic pool. And their parents will also fit in a certain profile, etc. So, no matter what you observe, first of all realise that it's filtered. Very few can say they are intimate with all classes of society. When you are born in a certain class, you may get poor or whatever, but your friends tend to stay from roughly the same class. It's like an article I read in a german magazine speaking about how universities are functioning as match-making institutions. The article spoke about how the path that leads to a person attending universities tends to bring people who are very similar to each other together - because each step of the way towards the university filters out people. So when they do arrive, you have a group of guys and a group of girls of similar intelligence, similar income level, similar ambition and so on. Perfect fits for each other. Same with most of us here. We are only on this site because we fullfil some criteria. That I could be here typing this comment on this website means I have matched a set of strict criteria that have filtered out a lot of people. So, the people you know are also people who would be friends with people who would have children that you would come in contact with. So the same filter mechanism that brought you here also acts on them. So, your observation can only be through the lens of your class, status, upbringing, intelligence, and education.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Aren't you doing the exact same thing? How is "Grandmas have wifi? You are out of touch with ordinary people" any more rooted in fact, rather than your small sample, than my original statement? Also my statement was "grandmas have wifi". I know two who do, which makes that statement provably true. I never said that all of them do. More importantly, in the context of the original conversation, before we took this "my sample is more representative of the overall population than yours" detour, is that the product isn't aimed at people who don't know what the internet is. It's a digital picture frame. It's aimed at people who have digital cameras (meaning they almost certainly have a computer) and have family that have digital cameras, and want to be able to share. All products are not aimed at all people, and should not be. While I assume they're aiming for a wider demographic than the average digital picture frame (and, I think, doing it in a good way) the point of my comment was that they shouldn't worry about aiming too wide. Worrying about making your social digital picture frame accessible to people who don't have WiFi is like making an iPod for people who don't have computers. There is no point.
    - maxklein 18y ago
      I still think you're wrong. A digital camera is owned by practically everyone now for the simple reason that it's very difficult and expensive to buy a non-digital camera. But WiFi is really a very optional thing for now. I'm not saying you're wrong, I strongly believe in focusing a consumer as tightly as possible in the beginning, and since he is dealing with a tech crowd here, he can make wifi a requirement. But all the same, I don't think WiFi is as spread as you think. Imagine an iPod where one can transfer the music only by WiFi. Or an iPhone. That's a bad idea, is it not? I'm not saying my sample is more accurate than your, but I am saying I have observed the opposite effect. There is probably some middle ground, the question is where the real statistic lies. And if one is willing to bet a business on that. I really dislike assumptions. I like to treat facts as assumptions that have not been disproven yet, and that's why I argue this point - don't take it personally!
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        Not only are film-based cameras not expensive or hard to find, they actually outsell digital ones in the form of disposables. I read somewhere not too long ago that they outsell non-disposable cameras by over 25%. (I'm assuming those sales figures meant discrete cameras, rather than including cell-phones. I'll try to find it to check.) Interesting anecdote: my wife and I bought 25 of them for our wedding, and it seems unlikely we will buy 25 digital cameras combined in our lifetimes. A lot of the reason for their popularity is cost. Disposables are dirt cheap. There's little upfront investment. Most people who can't afford a computer (and therefore would probably not spend $200+ on a picture frame) like that. So right away, I'd just not worry about lower class families. You aim gadgets at middle class +. I guess my argument is that I don't see much market for a $200+ digital frame amongst people who don't have broadband. There are probably a number of people who have broadband but not wifi who might like the product, hence my suggestion to offer a bundle with a cheap, preconfigured router. (Supposedly only around 40% of broadband homes have WiFi). I know what you mean about assumptions, but startups are all about making them, building toward them, then narrowing down as you collect feedback from customers. There's simply no way to collect the relevant facts, you have to start from assumptions. They could maybe do some market research, which is slow and expensive, and at least narrow down the assumptions. Or they can just aim their product at the people who can afford it and are likely to want it, and work from there. So if I were them, I'd focus on building a kick ass wireless frame. Most people who have digital cameras and have experienced sharing them online will probably get it.

I know lots of senior citizens who have broadband and/or wifi. I guess not any who have grandkids my age, but lots of people who have children my age who have children themselves.

maxklein 18y ago
That's the problem, isn't it. You know lots of people, so you have made the assumption that it's all that way. Well, I know lots of people who are my parents age who not only don't have the internet, but are only peripherally aware that it exists, and really have no interest in going on it. Just because you know lots of people who are a certain way does not mean it's that way. Remember, you are living in a world that is filtered - to a certain demographic, to a certain income level, to a certain intelligence level, to a certain ambition level and so on. There are huge other demographics that are also filtered in a certain way, and for them, the total opposite is true. For example, imagine an average high school dropout / labourer. His friends are unlikely to be college professors or other upper class, his friends are unlikely to be rich. His friends are most likely going to be similar to him. And their friends are similar to them. So you have this network of high school dropouts who are all linked to each other in one big demographic pool. And their parents will also fit in a certain profile, etc. So, no matter what you observe, first of all realise that it's filtered. Very few can say they are intimate with all classes of society. When you are born in a certain class, you may get poor or whatever, but your friends tend to stay from roughly the same class. It's like an article I read in a german magazine speaking about how universities are functioning as match-making institutions. The article spoke about how the path that leads to a person attending universities tends to bring people who are very similar to each other together - because each step of the way towards the university filters out people. So when they do arrive, you have a group of guys and a group of girls of similar intelligence, similar income level, similar ambition and so on. Perfect fits for each other. Same with most of us here. We are only on this site because we fullfil some criteria. That I could be here typing this comment on this website means I have matched a set of strict criteria that have filtered out a lot of people. So, the people you know are also people who would be friends with people who would have children that you would come in contact with. So the same filter mechanism that brought you here also acts on them. So, your observation can only be through the lens of your class, status, upbringing, intelligence, and education.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Aren't you doing the exact same thing? How is "Grandmas have wifi? You are out of touch with ordinary people" any more rooted in fact, rather than your small sample, than my original statement? Also my statement was "grandmas have wifi". I know two who do, which makes that statement provably true. I never said that all of them do. More importantly, in the context of the original conversation, before we took this "my sample is more representative of the overall population than yours" detour, is that the product isn't aimed at people who don't know what the internet is. It's a digital picture frame. It's aimed at people who have digital cameras (meaning they almost certainly have a computer) and have family that have digital cameras, and want to be able to share. All products are not aimed at all people, and should not be. While I assume they're aiming for a wider demographic than the average digital picture frame (and, I think, doing it in a good way) the point of my comment was that they shouldn't worry about aiming too wide. Worrying about making your social digital picture frame accessible to people who don't have WiFi is like making an iPod for people who don't have computers. There is no point.
  - maxklein 18y ago
    I still think you're wrong. A digital camera is owned by practically everyone now for the simple reason that it's very difficult and expensive to buy a non-digital camera. But WiFi is really a very optional thing for now. I'm not saying you're wrong, I strongly believe in focusing a consumer as tightly as possible in the beginning, and since he is dealing with a tech crowd here, he can make wifi a requirement. But all the same, I don't think WiFi is as spread as you think. Imagine an iPod where one can transfer the music only by WiFi. Or an iPhone. That's a bad idea, is it not? I'm not saying my sample is more accurate than your, but I am saying I have observed the opposite effect. There is probably some middle ground, the question is where the real statistic lies. And if one is willing to bet a business on that. I really dislike assumptions. I like to treat facts as assumptions that have not been disproven yet, and that's why I argue this point - don't take it personally!
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Not only are film-based cameras not expensive or hard to find, they actually outsell digital ones in the form of disposables. I read somewhere not too long ago that they outsell non-disposable cameras by over 25%. (I'm assuming those sales figures meant discrete cameras, rather than including cell-phones. I'll try to find it to check.) Interesting anecdote: my wife and I bought 25 of them for our wedding, and it seems unlikely we will buy 25 digital cameras combined in our lifetimes. A lot of the reason for their popularity is cost. Disposables are dirt cheap. There's little upfront investment. Most people who can't afford a computer (and therefore would probably not spend $200+ on a picture frame) like that. So right away, I'd just not worry about lower class families. You aim gadgets at middle class +. I guess my argument is that I don't see much market for a $200+ digital frame amongst people who don't have broadband. There are probably a number of people who have broadband but not wifi who might like the product, hence my suggestion to offer a bundle with a cheap, preconfigured router. (Supposedly only around 40% of broadband homes have WiFi). I know what you mean about assumptions, but startups are all about making them, building toward them, then narrowing down as you collect feedback from customers. There's simply no way to collect the relevant facts, you have to start from assumptions. They could maybe do some market research, which is slow and expensive, and at least narrow down the assumptions. Or they can just aim their product at the people who can afford it and are likely to want it, and work from there. So if I were them, I'd focus on building a kick ass wireless frame. Most people who have digital cameras and have experienced sharing them online will probably get it.