Minimum viable product, maximum revenue extraction.
If you don't like the product, don't buy it or use it.
Or did you think the evolution of subscriptions and microtransactions was to benefit you, the customer?
Oddly enough, yes. Successful businesses are motivated by maximizing their profit. But they succeed at this only if people actually choose to buy their products because they benefit. The fact that the business is primarily motivated by its own profits is not a problem, because in a free market, the only
You free market people are so blinded by that ideal that you cannot imagine how a corporation could be manipulating and tricking the masses to fritter away their money. Are con artists acceptable to you? Some people may see microtransactions and subscriptions for what they are, but many don't. To say that the consumers only buy things they benefit from is completely wrong. It is in their psychology to not ascribe the same significance to many small payments vice fewer large ones.
I was once having this debate with a free-market-promoting friend, when I managed to actually win it.
1. I asked him if he liked food labeling, and he said yes, but that if people like labels then they could just demand them in the free market. 2. I said yes, but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?
Done. I won. He even admitted it and I think he slightly softened his rhetoric after that.
1. I asked him if he liked food labeling, and he said yes, but that if people like labels then they could just demand them in the free market.
2. I said yes, but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?
Done. I won. He even admitted it and I think he slightly softened his rhetoric after that.
Points to consider:
- Many businesses who produce gluten-free, vegetarian, non-gmo, Halal or Kosher foods, etc. voluntarily label their products as such because it IS in their interest. - Other businesses might see labeling their food as a competitive advantage if everyone else stopped labeling theirs.
- People may buy some non-labeled foods in the short term, but in the long term would seek other alternatives, such as growing their own in a garden or buying from the local farmer's market.
You won your debate with your friend, but you did not win the debate. He gave up too easily.
1. Yes. Some companies put some other labels on food. The kosher thing is a particularly good example of a rare circumstance where consumer pressure was effective. Yay for the Orthodox Jews! If that were the typical case then we wouldn't need other labeling laws.
2. Yes, they might, or they might not, but they didn't. There was zero reliable food labeling before we legislated it, therefore we don't need to wonder whether they might or might not, because we know the answer: NOT. Hence, we addr
I'm unconvinced. You addressed partial instances while ignoring all the others. What's reliable food labeling? Are you sure what we have now is reliable, even with the government continuously changing [wikipedia.org] it's food guidelines? You can say that it's based on science, but the science is always at odds with itself. There was an article on/. not too long ago about what a miserable failure food science has been.
What's ridiculous is comparing growing food to manufacturing automobiles, and you totally ignored the
Seat belts were invented, then hardly used. Car manufacturers didn't want the public to think cars were unsafe. Only because of legislation did the modern seat belt come to all cars. But, then, of course they are there because of the law. We don't pass laws requiring things that are already satisfactory.
Growing your own food would take most of the free time that most people have. That's why most people don't do it, and that makes it similar to building your own car. It's not the same because, tautologically
Why even bother to bring up producers volunteering information that benefits them in an argument on transparency. It's the information withheld by the simplistic topical labels you mention that is relevant here.
The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe.
That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score:4, Insightful)
Minimum viable product, maximum revenue extraction.
Or did you think the evolution of subscriptions and microtransactions was to benefit you, the customer?
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like the product, don't buy it or use it.
Oddly enough, yes. Successful businesses are motivated by maximizing their profit. But they succeed at this only if people actually choose to buy their products because they benefit. The fact that the business is primarily motivated by its own profits is not a problem, because in a free market, the only
Re: (Score:0)
You free market people are so blinded by that ideal that you cannot imagine how a corporation could be manipulating and tricking the masses to fritter away their money. Are con artists acceptable to you? Some people may see microtransactions and subscriptions for what they are, but many don't. To say that the consumers only buy things they benefit from is completely wrong. It is in their psychology to not ascribe the same significance to many small payments vice fewer large ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes! Yes! EVIL CORPORATIONS use the MAGIC 'FLUENCE to force people to BUY THEIR STUFF!
My cat told me, and he would know.
Re: (Score:2)
I was once having this debate with a free-market-promoting friend, when I managed to actually win it.
1. I asked him if he liked food labeling, and he said yes, but that if people like labels then they could just demand them in the free market.
2. I said yes, but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?
Done. I won. He even admitted it and I think he slightly softened his rhetoric after that.
Markets do not respond to the d
Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score:3)
1. I asked him if he liked food labeling, and he said yes, but that if people like labels then they could just demand them in the free market.
2. I said yes, but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?
Done. I won. He even admitted it and I think he slightly softened his rhetoric after that.
Points to consider:
- Many businesses who produce gluten-free, vegetarian, non-gmo, Halal or Kosher foods, etc. voluntarily label their products as such because it IS in their interest.
- Other businesses might see labeling their food as a competitive advantage if everyone else stopped labeling theirs.
- People may buy some non-labeled foods in the short term, but in the long term would seek other alternatives, such as growing their own in a garden or buying from the local farmer's market.
You won your debate with your friend, but you did not win the debate. He gave up too easily.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unconvinced.
1. Yes. Some companies put some other labels on food. The kosher thing is a particularly good example of a rare circumstance where consumer pressure was effective. Yay for the Orthodox Jews! If that were the typical case then we wouldn't need other labeling laws.
2. Yes, they might, or they might not, but they didn't. There was zero reliable food labeling before we legislated it, therefore we don't need to wonder whether they might or might not, because we know the answer: NOT. Hence, we addr
Re: (Score:2)
What's ridiculous is comparing growing food to manufacturing automobiles, and you totally ignored the
Re: (Score:2)
Seat belts were invented, then hardly used. Car manufacturers didn't want the public to think cars were unsafe. Only because of legislation did the modern seat belt come to all cars. But, then, of course they are there because of the law. We don't pass laws requiring things that are already satisfactory.
Growing your own food would take most of the free time that most people have. That's why most people don't do it, and that makes it similar to building your own car. It's not the same because, tautologically
Re: (Score:0)
Why even bother to bring up producers volunteering information that benefits them in an argument on transparency. It's the information withheld by the simplistic topical labels you mention that is relevant here.