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
That is a point so many people fail to grasp. In a voluntary exchange overall wealth is increased. People exchange something they want less for something they want more. A purchase is not an even exchange of wealth.
Explicit threats aren't always necessary. Plenty of people have to put up with whatever their employers demand because they don't dare lose their jobs. A hundred hours of work for forty hours of pay doesn't help anybody.
Nice theory you have there. In practice, lots of people need their job, and often have responsibilities towards children and others. They have effectively no choice other than to put up with what the employer demands. What's the difference between the threat of firing, under these conditions, or the threat of getting beaten?
I don't think many people actually fail to grasp the basic tenets of 18th-century economics, it's just that it's so obviously a massive oversimplification that maybe people don't quite believe that it's generally true in practice. You do say "voluntary" exchange, but it's not clear how "voluntary" many real-world purchases are. An example is vendor lock-in, where an exchange that was optional in the beginning is structured through technological and legal barriers such that re-purchases are not viably opti
Just because you regret a decision doesn't mean that at the time it wasn't voluntary. Lock in is not force. If you buy something that requires a certain expendable item to function you know you are dependent on it being available. I'd like to be able to buy parts for my 20 year old lawn mower but the manufacturer refuses to support it anymore.
Food, lodging, and medicine are certainly voluntary. You can. Jose to be homeless or live in the wilderness and live off the land. It just so happens that voluntary ex
Just to piggy back on the point of the AC above in that the praxis often doesn't follow the theory. A good example is "selling" labor. Yes, I "voluntarily" sell my labor, but resources, politics, and capital are set up in such a way that the "seller" of the labor, i.e. the employee, often gains less value, or wealth, than the person buying the labor, i.e. the employer. Sometimes it can get so bad that the wage isn't enough for people to actually live.
Of course, this is all voluntary.
All employers pay less than what the employee produces otherwise you would be out of business. What the employee gets is an assurance they are getting paid at the end of the pay period regardless of sales, they get all of the capital (building, equipment, etc). The owners carry the majority of the risk since it's their capital at stake.
it's just that it's so obviously a massive oversimplification that maybe people don't quite believe that it's generally true in practice.
This is 100% my stance. I engage in transactions every day that leave me poorer in one way or another and that I would prefer not to engage in, but have no real choice about.
Case in point: my broadband. I have a choice of exactly one provider, who is drastically overpriced and I despise. Buying broadband from them is not a statement that I think they're doing a good job or that I approve. It's a statement that I would suffer an even greater loss by going without broadband entirely.
"It's a statement that I would suffer an even greater loss by going without broadband entirely."
So you are better off making this voluntary exchange exactly like I said. The fact you only have one provider is not a function of the market but political.
The fact that he has only one provider is a function of a natural monopoly, and would exist in the absence of government regulation. Except for the rabid attacks on municipal broadband, there are no political barriers to competition. Government-granted monopolies on cable or telephone service do not prevent anybody from moving in with other forms of broadband.
There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom.
-- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923
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:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score:3)
That is a point so many people fail to grasp. In a voluntary exchange overall wealth is increased. People exchange something they want less for something they want more. A purchase is not an even exchange of wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
The use of force or threat of force means it is not voluntary.
Re: (Score:2)
Explicit threats aren't always necessary. Plenty of people have to put up with whatever their employers demand because they don't dare lose their jobs. A hundred hours of work for forty hours of pay doesn't help anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
No. People chose to put up with what their employer asks.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice theory you have there. In practice, lots of people need their job, and often have responsibilities towards children and others. They have effectively no choice other than to put up with what the employer demands. What's the difference between the threat of firing, under these conditions, or the threat of getting beaten?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think many people actually fail to grasp the basic tenets of 18th-century economics, it's just that it's so obviously a massive oversimplification that maybe people don't quite believe that it's generally true in practice. You do say "voluntary" exchange, but it's not clear how "voluntary" many real-world purchases are. An example is vendor lock-in, where an exchange that was optional in the beginning is structured through technological and legal barriers such that re-purchases are not viably opti
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you regret a decision doesn't mean that at the time it wasn't voluntary. Lock in is not force. If you buy something that requires a certain expendable item to function you know you are dependent on it being available. I'd like to be able to buy parts for my 20 year old lawn mower but the manufacturer refuses to support it anymore.
Food, lodging, and medicine are certainly voluntary. You can. Jose to be homeless or live in the wilderness and live off the land. It just so happens that voluntary ex
Re: (Score:2)
live in the wilderness and live off the land. It just so happens that voluntary exchange has made us so wealthy nobody even thinks it's an option.
That's not actually an option. At least, not legally.
Re: (Score:2)
Only because the state claims the monopoly ownership of unused land. Again not a function of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this is all voluntary.
Re: (Score:2)
All employers pay less than what the employee produces otherwise you would be out of business. What the employee gets is an assurance they are getting paid at the end of the pay period regardless of sales, they get all of the capital (building, equipment, etc). The owners carry the majority of the risk since it's their capital at stake.
Re: (Score:2)
it's just that it's so obviously a massive oversimplification that maybe people don't quite believe that it's generally true in practice.
This is 100% my stance. I engage in transactions every day that leave me poorer in one way or another and that I would prefer not to engage in, but have no real choice about.
Case in point: my broadband. I have a choice of exactly one provider, who is drastically overpriced and I despise. Buying broadband from them is not a statement that I think they're doing a good job or that I approve. It's a statement that I would suffer an even greater loss by going without broadband entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's a statement that I would suffer an even greater loss by going without broadband entirely."
So you are better off making this voluntary exchange exactly like I said. The fact you only have one provider is not a function of the market but political.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that he has only one provider is a function of a natural monopoly, and would exist in the absence of government regulation. Except for the rabid attacks on municipal broadband, there are no political barriers to competition. Government-granted monopolies on cable or telephone service do not prevent anybody from moving in with other forms of broadband.