5 ms·

> No, a business usually exists to provide some useful good or service to its customers. FedEx delivers packages. Apple makes phones and computers. Etc. What?

> No, a business usually exists to provide some useful good or service to its customers. FedEx delivers packages. Apple makes phones and computers. Etc. What? If Apple or FedEx could get customers to (sustainably) pay them without actually providing a product in return, do you think they would have kept making phones and delivering packages just for the hell of it?

musicale 3y ago
> What? If Apple or FedEx could get customers to (sustainably) pay them without actually providing a product in return, do you think they would have kept making phones and delivering packages just for the hell of it? That's a strange counterfactual. Why would customers keep paying a company that doesn't provide any goods or services to anyone? They're not really "customers" anymore if all that is happening is money transfer to the company.
- dpig_ 3y ago
  It's not really strange at all. It's a clear illustration of why your perspective is incomplete.
  - musicale 3y ago
    How are they "customers" if the company is no longer providing any goods or services to anyone and is just taking their money? > incomplete see "usually"
- Izkata 3y ago
  I think they were confused why you included the word "usually".
  - musicale 3y ago
    I was considering that there could potentially be exceptions, perhaps some non-public facing investment or trading firms without traditional "customers". So "usually".
Qwertious 3y ago
Hah, "if" - as if every company isn't actively pursuing recurring revenue models right now.
- musicale 3y ago
  In theory you can cancel a subscription if you don't think it's providing any value.
  - lmm 3y ago
    But companies put a lot of effort into making sure you don't.
Applejinx 3y ago
Apple began as people making home computers in their garages, so they could have computers. How on earth can you, on Hacker News, not understand the compelling allure of having a computer in your home in an era where that was just about unthinkable? There's a lot of homo economicus in this Hacker News comments section. It's genuinely weird and unsettling, though I guess it stands to reason that here's where you'd see 'em. We're talking human paperclip maximizers, just generalized to 'profit'. Open source and free software are kind of kryptonite to this mindset, an active danger, therefore you're seeing a lot of pushback. Wealth is for DOING STUFF. Open Source maximizes DOING STUFF, not 'profit'. It can actually reduce the amount of profit in the world, through decentralizing power and undermining the ability to engage in profit-taking and the cornering of markets. It is frequently engaged in by people who have reasonable amounts of wealth in their own right and have turned their attention to doing stuff rather than amassing more wealth the most efficient way they can. Sometimes, open source amounts to doing stuff in the most efficient way you can, directly competing with anybody who's stuck having to also make profit while doing stuff. This is just reality.

musicale 3y ago

> What? If Apple or FedEx could get customers to (sustainably) pay them without actually providing a product in return, do you think they would have kept making phones and delivering packages just for the hell of it? That's a strange counterfactual. Why would customers keep paying a company that doesn't provide any goods or services to anyone? They're not really "customers" anymore if all that is happening is money transfer to the company.

dpig_ 3y ago
It's not really strange at all. It's a clear illustration of why your perspective is incomplete.
- musicale 3y ago
  How are they "customers" if the company is no longer providing any goods or services to anyone and is just taking their money? > incomplete see "usually"
Izkata 3y ago
I think they were confused why you included the word "usually".
- musicale 3y ago
  I was considering that there could potentially be exceptions, perhaps some non-public facing investment or trading firms without traditional "customers". So "usually".

Qwertious 3y ago

Hah, "if" - as if every company isn't actively pursuing recurring revenue models right now.

musicale 3y ago
In theory you can cancel a subscription if you don't think it's providing any value.
- lmm 3y ago
  But companies put a lot of effort into making sure you don't.

Applejinx 3y ago

Apple began as people making home computers in their garages, so they could have computers. How on earth can you, on Hacker News, not understand the compelling allure of having a computer in your home in an era where that was just about unthinkable? There's a lot of homo economicus in this Hacker News comments section. It's genuinely weird and unsettling, though I guess it stands to reason that here's where you'd see 'em. We're talking human paperclip maximizers, just generalized to 'profit'. Open source and free software are kind of kryptonite to this mindset, an active danger, therefore you're seeing a lot of pushback. Wealth is for DOING STUFF. Open Source maximizes DOING STUFF, not 'profit'. It can actually reduce the amount of profit in the world, through decentralizing power and undermining the ability to engage in profit-taking and the cornering of markets. It is frequently engaged in by people who have reasonable amounts of wealth in their own right and have turned their attention to doing stuff rather than amassing more wealth the most efficient way they can. Sometimes, open source amounts to doing stuff in the most efficient way you can, directly competing with anybody who's stuck having to also make profit while doing stuff. This is just reality.