5 ms·

> ...it was well understood that people were still visiting stores so that they can inspect items before purchase. You have all the pieces but you're not putti

> ...it was well understood that people were still visiting stores so that they can inspect items before purchase. You have all the pieces but you're not putting them together. Bricks and mortar stores cost money just to exist - rent, rates, staffing, etc. - and that's why they can't compete on price with online stores, which can just be giant warehouses with shipping. The online arms of some physical stores can benefit from the same economies as totally online businesses, leading to cheaper prices online even for companies with a physical presence. How can a physical shop make any money if they are just treated as a gallery for browsing before the buyer heads to Amazon to get the item 10% cheaper? It's not bean counting, it's basic economics. How the fuck are you supposed to know what you're buying, indeed - patronise physical businesses because you recognise the value in their existence, and understand that that's worth paying an additional premium for.

godelski 1y ago
> Bricks and mortar stores cost money just to exist I understand this. I'm not sure why you think I don't. I thought it was a pretty obvious thing...
- danparsonson 1y ago
  Because you said this: > I've constantly wondered why this doesn't really exist. and if you understand that real stores are more expensive to run than online stores, then the rest seems obvious? Places like that did exist in the past - they were the places we had to go to buy things. Online prices are lower so people bought online instead and drove most of them out of business. Perhaps I'm missing something?
  - godelski 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      > You are missing that I've talked about how there's more business value than direct sales. Could you please provide enough detail here in your example, that we can discuss and quantify what that value is, so we can compare it with the cost of running the store? Let's say we have an "all the XR glasses" store that lets visitors try on different XR glasses and see what fits, and the visitors then later buy them from Amazon because the glasses are cheaper there. p.s.: on multiple posts, you've taken non-personal comments extremely personally (e.g. stuff like 'how dare you say something I already know [because I am smart], thus assuming I don't know it and am dumb'), and attacking others as well, almost as if the topic is you, and not your comment. Just to head that off at the pass: I'm interested in discussing what you said, not in discussing myself or you. You're a smart person. Let's focus on substance.
      - godelski 1y ago
        I believe I have provided an explanation that is easy to understand. Here is the original statement >>>>>> Malls offered a lot more business value than just facilitating direct purchases. They do a lot to build brands, loyalty, and advertise to customers. I am not sure what you are expecting or what you are taking contention with. If you wish for a thorough analysis then my answer is "This is Hacker News". Such an expectation is excessive and out of scope of the platform. I am happy to have my statements rebutted and critiqued but not by accusation of failing to account for widely understood and basic conditions. If you believe I am improperly evaluating the costs of these, then that is another matter and I am happy to have those discussions. Even if these are the conjecture of two rational and reasonably informed people without direct and detailed analysis. If you wish to seek out research and do detailed analysis I not only will not stop you, I'd encourage you. This would be a great way to counter my comment and have a high likelihood of changing my belief/understanding of the environment. > p.s.: on multiple posts, Yes, there is part of me in this. Part of me that wishes to uphold a degrading standard in conversation quality. Forgive me if I wish to push back when critiques are derailing a conversation or are not operating in good faith. I do in fact believe that we should not treat other uses as children and part of that is operating under the assumption that other users are reasonably informed (unless otherwise explicitly indicated). Frankly, because not operating under this belief generates fighting, degrades conversations, and derails conversations. As others might more succinctly say "this isn't Reddit." I am only trying to be explicit in stating why such retorts are low quality. It appears that frequently people do not realize the assumptions that their responses makes. > I already know [because I am smart] You misunderstand. The push-back is not "because I am smart" but rather "because I am not incredibly ignorant." I do not want to conflate the two. They are significantly different. The reason "I already know" is conditioned on my intelligence being above that of a child. This is what generates the insult and the more aggressive follow-up after they doubled down. It is not conditioned on being above average, nor being in the "smart" category. Let's look at the original response >>>>> Bricks and mortar stores cost money just to exist Do you understand how this makes the claim that I do not understand that physical stores have operating expenses? Do you understand why I believe why such an accusation necessitates the belief that I am incredibly naive? Would you not agree that such information is common knowledge? Mind you, my original comment also demonstrates awareness that these physical stores have operational costs. My critique makes no sense otherwise, as there would be no reason to even close these stores if they were free to operate. So this contributes to the reason danparsonson's response is inappropriate and insulting. It is in bad faith (the faith being I'm not malicious nor unreasonable). I think you should also look back to how I responded much differently to 20after4. I did equally push back at their first point which is equally egregious. But I move on and engage with the rest. Their comment has additional substance and isn't entirely contingent upon excessive naivety, whereas that is all there is to danparsonson's (their third line completely ignores my entire thesis of physical locations providing value other than direct sales and is itself making the same error I am criticizing: hyper-fixation on measuring operational value through direct sales). So they get different responses. > Let's focus on substance. This is my explicit intention. I hope that is now clear.

godelski 1y ago

> Bricks and mortar stores cost money just to exist I understand this. I'm not sure why you think I don't. I thought it was a pretty obvious thing...

danparsonson 1y ago
Because you said this: > I've constantly wondered why this doesn't really exist. and if you understand that real stores are more expensive to run than online stores, then the rest seems obvious? Places like that did exist in the past - they were the places we had to go to buy things. Online prices are lower so people bought online instead and drove most of them out of business. Perhaps I'm missing something?
- godelski 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > You are missing that I've talked about how there's more business value than direct sales. Could you please provide enough detail here in your example, that we can discuss and quantify what that value is, so we can compare it with the cost of running the store? Let's say we have an "all the XR glasses" store that lets visitors try on different XR glasses and see what fits, and the visitors then later buy them from Amazon because the glasses are cheaper there. p.s.: on multiple posts, you've taken non-personal comments extremely personally (e.g. stuff like 'how dare you say something I already know [because I am smart], thus assuming I don't know it and am dumb'), and attacking others as well, almost as if the topic is you, and not your comment. Just to head that off at the pass: I'm interested in discussing what you said, not in discussing myself or you. You're a smart person. Let's focus on substance.
    - godelski 1y ago
      I believe I have provided an explanation that is easy to understand. Here is the original statement >>>>>> Malls offered a lot more business value than just facilitating direct purchases. They do a lot to build brands, loyalty, and advertise to customers. I am not sure what you are expecting or what you are taking contention with. If you wish for a thorough analysis then my answer is "This is Hacker News". Such an expectation is excessive and out of scope of the platform. I am happy to have my statements rebutted and critiqued but not by accusation of failing to account for widely understood and basic conditions. If you believe I am improperly evaluating the costs of these, then that is another matter and I am happy to have those discussions. Even if these are the conjecture of two rational and reasonably informed people without direct and detailed analysis. If you wish to seek out research and do detailed analysis I not only will not stop you, I'd encourage you. This would be a great way to counter my comment and have a high likelihood of changing my belief/understanding of the environment. > p.s.: on multiple posts, Yes, there is part of me in this. Part of me that wishes to uphold a degrading standard in conversation quality. Forgive me if I wish to push back when critiques are derailing a conversation or are not operating in good faith. I do in fact believe that we should not treat other uses as children and part of that is operating under the assumption that other users are reasonably informed (unless otherwise explicitly indicated). Frankly, because not operating under this belief generates fighting, degrades conversations, and derails conversations. As others might more succinctly say "this isn't Reddit." I am only trying to be explicit in stating why such retorts are low quality. It appears that frequently people do not realize the assumptions that their responses makes. > I already know [because I am smart] You misunderstand. The push-back is not "because I am smart" but rather "because I am not incredibly ignorant." I do not want to conflate the two. They are significantly different. The reason "I already know" is conditioned on my intelligence being above that of a child. This is what generates the insult and the more aggressive follow-up after they doubled down. It is not conditioned on being above average, nor being in the "smart" category. Let's look at the original response >>>>> Bricks and mortar stores cost money just to exist Do you understand how this makes the claim that I do not understand that physical stores have operating expenses? Do you understand why I believe why such an accusation necessitates the belief that I am incredibly naive? Would you not agree that such information is common knowledge? Mind you, my original comment also demonstrates awareness that these physical stores have operational costs. My critique makes no sense otherwise, as there would be no reason to even close these stores if they were free to operate. So this contributes to the reason danparsonson's response is inappropriate and insulting. It is in bad faith (the faith being I'm not malicious nor unreasonable). I think you should also look back to how I responded much differently to 20after4. I did equally push back at their first point which is equally egregious. But I move on and engage with the rest. Their comment has additional substance and isn't entirely contingent upon excessive naivety, whereas that is all there is to danparsonson's (their third line completely ignores my entire thesis of physical locations providing value other than direct sales and is itself making the same error I am criticizing: hyper-fixation on measuring operational value through direct sales). So they get different responses. > Let's focus on substance. This is my explicit intention. I hope that is now clear.