4 ms·

It isn’t that Amazon don’t care - it’s that this is what consumers demand and are most happy with. Most people will never realise they’ve em been defrauded - t

It isn’t that Amazon don’t care - it’s that this is what consumers demand and are most happy with. Most people will never realise they’ve em been defrauded - they'll just be happy with the deal they got on their 16TB SSD. Heck, if you opened it up and showed them that they had been defrauded, they would likely be angry with you, not Amazon. I mean, if this isn’t the case, explain politics to me.

TeMPOraL 4y ago
> It isn’t that Amazon don’t care - it’s that this is what consumers demand and are most happy with. No, it's not. Customers don't have a say in this; they choose out of what's available, accepting what they can get, because they're not able to communicate their preferences, and are easily duped by the vendors who understand the space better than them. > I mean, if this isn’t the case, explain politics to me. People don't have a say in this; they choose out of what's available, accepting what they can get, because they're not able to communicate their preferences, and are easily duped by the politicians who understand the space better than them. The general population has very little agency on the mass market and in the political process.
- madaxe_again 4y ago
  It’s minmax - at what point do you hit optimal balance between consumer contentment and cheapness of goods, and thereby maximise your revenue? The answer is by deceiving the consumer. The only variable is by what degree, and in some categories, the degree can be egregious. In others, it’s smaller (“100% juice!”, “full self driving”, “unlimited data!”). This is why I say it’s what consumers want - as the market demonstrates it to be so, otherwise this would not exist. It’s the same in politics. How much can you get away with before they squeak? Turns out, an awful lot.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    You switched from "what consumers want" to "get away with" in the last paragraph. But those two phrases are not synonymous. Consumers "getting what they want" implies their actual preferences are being fulfilled. But they're not. Instead of getting what they want, the consumers get worst possible things the sellers can get away with ("what the market can bear", I guess) - and they can get away with quite a lot, thanks to deception you mention. My objection is with saying consumers "get what they want", because it has opposite connotations to what really happens.
danaris 4y ago
Oh, don't be absurd. Customers obviously don't actually want this. Amazon is a monopoly—not in the sense of "is literally the only vendor", but "is considered the default by at least a plurality of Americans"—and has the money and the clout to just keep doing what they're doing even if it's creating friction, frustration, and money loss to some customers. You seem to be mistaking the theory of an ideal free market with the messy reality of markets with incomplete and asymmetric information, high price sensitivity, and a lack of time and mental energy to shop around and otherwise gain more information and other options.

TeMPOraL 4y ago

> It isn’t that Amazon don’t care - it’s that this is what consumers demand and are most happy with. No, it's not. Customers don't have a say in this; they choose out of what's available, accepting what they can get, because they're not able to communicate their preferences, and are easily duped by the vendors who understand the space better than them. > I mean, if this isn’t the case, explain politics to me. People don't have a say in this; they choose out of what's available, accepting what they can get, because they're not able to communicate their preferences, and are easily duped by the politicians who understand the space better than them. The general population has very little agency on the mass market and in the political process.

madaxe_again 4y ago
It’s minmax - at what point do you hit optimal balance between consumer contentment and cheapness of goods, and thereby maximise your revenue? The answer is by deceiving the consumer. The only variable is by what degree, and in some categories, the degree can be egregious. In others, it’s smaller (“100% juice!”, “full self driving”, “unlimited data!”). This is why I say it’s what consumers want - as the market demonstrates it to be so, otherwise this would not exist. It’s the same in politics. How much can you get away with before they squeak? Turns out, an awful lot.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  You switched from "what consumers want" to "get away with" in the last paragraph. But those two phrases are not synonymous. Consumers "getting what they want" implies their actual preferences are being fulfilled. But they're not. Instead of getting what they want, the consumers get worst possible things the sellers can get away with ("what the market can bear", I guess) - and they can get away with quite a lot, thanks to deception you mention. My objection is with saying consumers "get what they want", because it has opposite connotations to what really happens.

danaris 4y ago

Oh, don't be absurd. Customers obviously don't actually want this. Amazon is a monopoly—not in the sense of "is literally the only vendor", but "is considered the default by at least a plurality of Americans"—and has the money and the clout to just keep doing what they're doing even if it's creating friction, frustration, and money loss to some customers. You seem to be mistaking the theory of an ideal free market with the messy reality of markets with incomplete and asymmetric information, high price sensitivity, and a lack of time and mental energy to shop around and otherwise gain more information and other options.