5 ms·

> growth at all cost Capitalism. It used to be about making a great product, and people would buy it. Then it became "We can generate a fake demand with vari

> growth at all cost Capitalism. It used to be about making a great product, and people would buy it. Then it became "We can generate a fake demand with various psychological tricks" to get people to buy it. Then it became "Give away the razor and charge $$$$$$ for the blades". Then it became "Buy the thing and subscription and save!" Then it became "Buy this crippled thing so we can sell you the subscription for recurring income" <- This is where we're at. Point being, it's not about making a great product. It's about using emotional tricks to get people to buy a thing AND a subscription, to get what 10y ago would have been a lump-sum you-own-it thing.

jussy 4y ago
When we calculate inflation do we calculate this factor? That a product has become more expensive to buy, more expensive to maintain, more expensive to run and you have to pay for features you used to get as part of the product purchase.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Where's "convince government to build a moat around our industry" fall on your timeline?
- Moissanite 4y ago
  That's the brown smear underlining the whole thing.
- noasaservice 4y ago
  That's not a step - it's whenever you are large enough or have the right connections to do that. I was talking about large trends of how capitalist thought in the USA is going. And at this moment in time, the "best" strategy is to milk customers with recurring purchases. And it turns out the value-add didn't work. So feature-removal-and-sell-back recurring purchase is the current phase. We're seeing that everywhere in IOT, gadgets, kitchen consumer gear, vehicles. Basically, it's the manufacturers exerting control post-purchase with the implicit threat that they can and will brick your stuff. To put bluntly, we need government oversight over these realms. First-sale doctrine needs to cover "functionality sold at bill of sale". "No bundling" (of additional services that "complete" a thing) also needs to be strongly enforced. And if/when companies do stuff later and remove features (PS3 for an easy example), that they need to be dealt with as if a hacker did that - as C-level ordered felonies with prison, direct massive compensation to the wronged parties, and massive fines (company-ending if need be).
  - nickpp 4y ago
    Still the devices I currently own are the best devices I ever had. And the services I subscribe to are incredible services that never even existed before. Free markets are not always providing perfect solutions, but I am absolutely sure government intervention could only worsen the situation, never improve it.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      What would change your mind?
      - nickpp 4y ago
        Same things that would change anybody's mind: logical arguments and real-world examples.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Let me guess, there aren't any logical arguments, and no real-world examples that apply?
        nickpp 4y ago
        There are plenty of both but most are supporting my current beliefs, that is why I still have them.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        I could just as well ask people who disagree with you and they would say the same thing, so that just says people find examples and arguments they already agree with. It's a bias indicator, which isn't really worth much.
    - noasaservice 4y ago
      Considering I'm not talking about you personally, nor do I know what things you personally have, that sort of dismissal is pretty pointless. > Still the devices I currently own are the best devices I ever had. "Own" - that's the key word here where the contention is. If the entity you bought this thing from still retains control over your thing, that's a rental. > And the services I subscribe to are incredible services that never even existed before. Considering you're not naming said "incredible services", it's irrelevant to dispute. > Free markets are not always providing perfect solutions, but I am absolutely sure government intervention could only worsen the situation, never improve it. Absolutely sure? That sounds extremely over-simplistic to reduce every possible legislation and governance down to "always sure government intervention worsens the situation". And part of my recommendations are not needing new laws, but maintaining product truth-in-advertising in the face of remote access. And frankly, if I put in remote control, sold the machine, and then remotely destroyed it, I'd be brought in for felony hacking charges. But really, the level of discourse of "guvernment baaaadddd" is damned distressing, and unfortunately a result of Reagan's very successful campaign to say that, defund public facing gov orgs, and then point at lack of performance for underfunded orgs, thus doing another round of underfunding.
- tcmart14 4y ago
  I don't think it appears on the timeline because it is something every company does when they get an opportunity. When a company had a chance 50 years ago to do it, they did it. When a company today gets a chance to do it, they do it.

jussy 4y ago

When we calculate inflation do we calculate this factor? That a product has become more expensive to buy, more expensive to maintain, more expensive to run and you have to pay for features you used to get as part of the product purchase.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

Where's "convince government to build a moat around our industry" fall on your timeline?

Moissanite 4y ago
That's the brown smear underlining the whole thing.
noasaservice 4y ago
That's not a step - it's whenever you are large enough or have the right connections to do that. I was talking about large trends of how capitalist thought in the USA is going. And at this moment in time, the "best" strategy is to milk customers with recurring purchases. And it turns out the value-add didn't work. So feature-removal-and-sell-back recurring purchase is the current phase. We're seeing that everywhere in IOT, gadgets, kitchen consumer gear, vehicles. Basically, it's the manufacturers exerting control post-purchase with the implicit threat that they can and will brick your stuff. To put bluntly, we need government oversight over these realms. First-sale doctrine needs to cover "functionality sold at bill of sale". "No bundling" (of additional services that "complete" a thing) also needs to be strongly enforced. And if/when companies do stuff later and remove features (PS3 for an easy example), that they need to be dealt with as if a hacker did that - as C-level ordered felonies with prison, direct massive compensation to the wronged parties, and massive fines (company-ending if need be).
- nickpp 4y ago
  Still the devices I currently own are the best devices I ever had. And the services I subscribe to are incredible services that never even existed before. Free markets are not always providing perfect solutions, but I am absolutely sure government intervention could only worsen the situation, never improve it.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    What would change your mind?
    - nickpp 4y ago
      Same things that would change anybody's mind: logical arguments and real-world examples.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Let me guess, there aren't any logical arguments, and no real-world examples that apply?
        nickpp 4y ago
        There are plenty of both but most are supporting my current beliefs, that is why I still have them.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        I could just as well ask people who disagree with you and they would say the same thing, so that just says people find examples and arguments they already agree with. It's a bias indicator, which isn't really worth much.
  - noasaservice 4y ago
    Considering I'm not talking about you personally, nor do I know what things you personally have, that sort of dismissal is pretty pointless. > Still the devices I currently own are the best devices I ever had. "Own" - that's the key word here where the contention is. If the entity you bought this thing from still retains control over your thing, that's a rental. > And the services I subscribe to are incredible services that never even existed before. Considering you're not naming said "incredible services", it's irrelevant to dispute. > Free markets are not always providing perfect solutions, but I am absolutely sure government intervention could only worsen the situation, never improve it. Absolutely sure? That sounds extremely over-simplistic to reduce every possible legislation and governance down to "always sure government intervention worsens the situation". And part of my recommendations are not needing new laws, but maintaining product truth-in-advertising in the face of remote access. And frankly, if I put in remote control, sold the machine, and then remotely destroyed it, I'd be brought in for felony hacking charges. But really, the level of discourse of "guvernment baaaadddd" is damned distressing, and unfortunately a result of Reagan's very successful campaign to say that, defund public facing gov orgs, and then point at lack of performance for underfunded orgs, thus doing another round of underfunding.
tcmart14 4y ago
I don't think it appears on the timeline because it is something every company does when they get an opportunity. When a company had a chance 50 years ago to do it, they did it. When a company today gets a chance to do it, they do it.