3 ms·

On paper that all sounds well and good, but that completely discounts the power imbalance between large corporations and normal people. When somebody wants to

On paper that all sounds well and good, but that completely discounts the power imbalance between large corporations and normal people. When somebody wants to buy a good, if the only way to do that is to accept a one-sided ToS that makes them give up there rights, that's just eroding freedom. The problem is, it's not a choice anymore. John Deere isn't saying "hey, want to sign up for our repair program?" It's saying "If you want a tractor we actually control what you can do with it forever. Too bad you need this tractor to work, tough luck we own you"

bpodgursky 5y ago
That's why I am arguing that this law is good, but the default contract clause (which the OP comment is arguing against) is also good.
salawat 5y ago
This is actuslly the part where other tractor companies should be stepping in and eating Deere's lunch. Why aren't they?
- vkou 5y ago
  Because they would rather have a 20% profit margin on 5% of the market, than a 1% profit margin on 50% of it? Being in the latter position is precarious, being in the former is printing free money.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Maybe if you spend your entire day looking at percents, and never get back down to dollars. That 1% on 50% of the market can be a downright gold mine. Playing it the other way just ensures that bad ideas never get out competed. Honestly, it just takes less work to make something non user hostile. There has to be a perverse incentive somewhere.
    - vkou 5y ago
      > That 1% on 50% of the market can be a downright gold mine. Or a quick death spiral into bankruptcy in response to any disruption in business as usual. This is a manufacturer of heavy industrial machinery, not a software startup, or a grocery store. You can't just turn down your burn rate by 1% in response to a 1% drop in demand, and you don't have a magical firehose of VC money that will smooth over any rough edges in your quest to improve the world by conquering the industrial machinery market, and driving all potential profits to near-zero with zero vendor lock-in. Hell, the VCs will run away screaming when you get the 'zero vendor lock-in' part of your pitch.
      - salawat 5y ago
        >and driving all potential profits to near-zero with zero vendor lock-in. >Hell, the VCs will run away screaming when you get the 'zero vendor lock-in' part of your pitch. Well there's your problem, right there. Stop looking at yourself as a financial frigging instrument. You make effing machinery. Not hold people logistically hostage. This is why there is no trust in industry anymore. This is why the same bloody handful of people are sitting on top of everything. This is why people have about had it. Can't solve a damn problem without making half a dozen more. Make tractors. All standard parts. High quality. But no... Can't do that. Gotta try to exploit the rubes. This is why everyone feels like the damn game is fixed. The same power hungry assholes are the ones all sitting on the damn capital. Anyone wants to try to compete? Lock em out of capital access! Start organizing? Lobby!
- gatlin 5y ago
  Because no market has ever been free in any meaningful sense.

bpodgursky 5y ago

That's why I am arguing that this law is good, but the default contract clause (which the OP comment is arguing against) is also good.

salawat 5y ago

This is actuslly the part where other tractor companies should be stepping in and eating Deere's lunch. Why aren't they?

vkou 5y ago
Because they would rather have a 20% profit margin on 5% of the market, than a 1% profit margin on 50% of it? Being in the latter position is precarious, being in the former is printing free money.
- salawat 5y ago
  Maybe if you spend your entire day looking at percents, and never get back down to dollars. That 1% on 50% of the market can be a downright gold mine. Playing it the other way just ensures that bad ideas never get out competed. Honestly, it just takes less work to make something non user hostile. There has to be a perverse incentive somewhere.
  - vkou 5y ago
    > That 1% on 50% of the market can be a downright gold mine. Or a quick death spiral into bankruptcy in response to any disruption in business as usual. This is a manufacturer of heavy industrial machinery, not a software startup, or a grocery store. You can't just turn down your burn rate by 1% in response to a 1% drop in demand, and you don't have a magical firehose of VC money that will smooth over any rough edges in your quest to improve the world by conquering the industrial machinery market, and driving all potential profits to near-zero with zero vendor lock-in. Hell, the VCs will run away screaming when you get the 'zero vendor lock-in' part of your pitch.
    - salawat 5y ago
      >and driving all potential profits to near-zero with zero vendor lock-in. >Hell, the VCs will run away screaming when you get the 'zero vendor lock-in' part of your pitch. Well there's your problem, right there. Stop looking at yourself as a financial frigging instrument. You make effing machinery. Not hold people logistically hostage. This is why there is no trust in industry anymore. This is why the same bloody handful of people are sitting on top of everything. This is why people have about had it. Can't solve a damn problem without making half a dozen more. Make tractors. All standard parts. High quality. But no... Can't do that. Gotta try to exploit the rubes. This is why everyone feels like the damn game is fixed. The same power hungry assholes are the ones all sitting on the damn capital. Anyone wants to try to compete? Lock em out of capital access! Start organizing? Lobby!
gatlin 5y ago
Because no market has ever been free in any meaningful sense.