6 ms·

The problem is that after so many years of free coffee almost nobody will want to pay for it again.

by dugmartin 14y ago

digitalsushi 14y ago
you've never had one of those headaches you get on the third day of not getting a cup.
iand 14y ago
So starbucks wouldn't be able to hike the price after giving it away for free? Consumer still wins.
jiggy2011 14y ago
If nobody else can sustain a free model then either the price will rise or people didn't actually want coffee all that much anyway.
- gnaffle 14y ago
  ..or maybe Starbucks successfully pushed the consumers to some other way of consuming coffee (for instance hypothetical store-bought Starbuck espresso capsules)
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    ...and if the consumer is satisfied with his new way of consuming coffee, then what harm was done?
    - gnaffle 14y ago
      Maybe most consumers are satisfied, but the ones that are not don't make up a big enough population to sustain a good coffee bar?
      - DannyBee 14y ago
        So then it turns out that your small group doesn't matter as much as you think it did, and it turned out to be smaller than you thought. That is, as they say, tough. Look, just because you want something to happen doesn't make it viable in the long term, and someone who demonstrated it was not viable in the long term doesn't become evil because they sped that process up. If they actually burned down all the other coffee bars in the process, that's one thing, but they didn't. They convinced folks to be satisied with something else. You have literally just said "What if the remaining users are not enough to support a viable product I liked". Then there aren't enough to support a non-viable product you liked, and that wouldn't be any different no matter how it happened. The only difference is it happened in 5 years instead of 50. If the other way was still something that satisfied people, one would assume others would eventually revert to it. All drugs have some set of side effects, and usually very badly effect some small percentage of the population that won't know until the take them. Does this alone make releasing any drug evil? If not, can we please just move the discussion along into social utility territory, instead of the "well, it hurt someone somewhere, so it's evil" stuff? Contrary the misquoting a few parents up, the statement was "don't be evil" not "do no evil". This is an attempt to be guided by doing the right thing, not an attempt to ever avoid harming anyone. Basically, whether someone is being evil or not is not about you, it's about them.
        gnaffle 14y ago
        I think there's a big difference between demonstrating that something is not viable in the long term, and some company killing off a business because it suits their particular business goals and they have the money to do it. Consumer habits, laws and lots of other things can and are changed by businesses, and it's naive to think that all or even most of these changes are inevitable or for the better just because they happen. I think it's to simplistic to ask whether a certain company is being evil or not. The discussion about what is evil and not isn't very relevant to someone who just lost their business because some algorithm tripped inside Google and nobody inside Google can help. It would be better if Google committed itself to more concrete promises about how to treat their customers and what not to do, and had independent audits to keep them honest. But as long as they are as dominant as they are, they'll never have to.
VMG 14y ago
aren't these people evil then?
gnaffle 14y ago
Not only that, but people would probably be wary of investing too much in a new coffee shop. After all, if Starbucks changed their mind so suddenly, what's to keep them from changing their mind again?
- icebraining 14y ago
  Why do you consider it a sudden change of mind? They announced the "spring cleaning"[1] in 2011 and have been gradually closing services since then. [1]: http://googleblog.blogspot.pt/2011/09/fall-spring-clean.html http://googleblog.blogspot.pt/2011/09/fall-spring-clean.html

The problem is that after so many years of free coffee almost nobody will want to pay for it again.

digitalsushi 14y ago

you've never had one of those headaches you get on the third day of not getting a cup.

iand 14y ago

So starbucks wouldn't be able to hike the price after giving it away for free? Consumer still wins.

jiggy2011 14y ago

If nobody else can sustain a free model then either the price will rise or people didn't actually want coffee all that much anyway.

gnaffle 14y ago
..or maybe Starbucks successfully pushed the consumers to some other way of consuming coffee (for instance hypothetical store-bought Starbuck espresso capsules)
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  ...and if the consumer is satisfied with his new way of consuming coffee, then what harm was done?
  - gnaffle 14y ago
    Maybe most consumers are satisfied, but the ones that are not don't make up a big enough population to sustain a good coffee bar?
    - DannyBee 14y ago
      So then it turns out that your small group doesn't matter as much as you think it did, and it turned out to be smaller than you thought. That is, as they say, tough. Look, just because you want something to happen doesn't make it viable in the long term, and someone who demonstrated it was not viable in the long term doesn't become evil because they sped that process up. If they actually burned down all the other coffee bars in the process, that's one thing, but they didn't. They convinced folks to be satisied with something else. You have literally just said "What if the remaining users are not enough to support a viable product I liked". Then there aren't enough to support a non-viable product you liked, and that wouldn't be any different no matter how it happened. The only difference is it happened in 5 years instead of 50. If the other way was still something that satisfied people, one would assume others would eventually revert to it. All drugs have some set of side effects, and usually very badly effect some small percentage of the population that won't know until the take them. Does this alone make releasing any drug evil? If not, can we please just move the discussion along into social utility territory, instead of the "well, it hurt someone somewhere, so it's evil" stuff? Contrary the misquoting a few parents up, the statement was "don't be evil" not "do no evil". This is an attempt to be guided by doing the right thing, not an attempt to ever avoid harming anyone. Basically, whether someone is being evil or not is not about you, it's about them.
      - gnaffle 14y ago
        I think there's a big difference between demonstrating that something is not viable in the long term, and some company killing off a business because it suits their particular business goals and they have the money to do it. Consumer habits, laws and lots of other things can and are changed by businesses, and it's naive to think that all or even most of these changes are inevitable or for the better just because they happen. I think it's to simplistic to ask whether a certain company is being evil or not. The discussion about what is evil and not isn't very relevant to someone who just lost their business because some algorithm tripped inside Google and nobody inside Google can help. It would be better if Google committed itself to more concrete promises about how to treat their customers and what not to do, and had independent audits to keep them honest. But as long as they are as dominant as they are, they'll never have to.

VMG 14y ago

aren't these people evil then?

gnaffle 14y ago

Not only that, but people would probably be wary of investing too much in a new coffee shop. After all, if Starbucks changed their mind so suddenly, what's to keep them from changing their mind again?

icebraining 14y ago
Why do you consider it a sudden change of mind? They announced the "spring cleaning"[1] in 2011 and have been gradually closing services since then. [1]: http://googleblog.blogspot.pt/2011/09/fall-spring-clean.html http://googleblog.blogspot.pt/2011/09/fall-spring-clean.html