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
This WOULD be true in a world where the demand side had the same amount of transparency as the supply side. Unfortunately that is not the case. The ideal of Capitalism falls short at this very problem: The information level on the supply side is usually vastly superior to that on the demand side. You also usually have a supply oligopoly and a demand polypoly (unless you're dealing with very, very specific situations in which, surprise, surprise, the whole situation changes completely).
The combination thereof allows the supply side not only to organize far better but also to alter the market to suit its needs.
Maximizing profits may be in the interest of a business, but even this is not without a limit. Henry Ford understood this. He increased his workers' wages with the, correct, assumption that if they get more money, not only will they be far more interested in keeping their job, they will also become his customers. Businesses need customers. Customers need money to buy products. Sadly, contemporary businesses hope that someone else is going to provide this. Since this doesn't happen, we're in the current recession we're in.
The ideal of Capitalism falls short at this very problem: The information level on the supply side is usually vastly superior to that on the demand side.
Irrelevant. Free markets don't assume perfect information or symmetry; they function perfectly fine without it. Any information deficit by any party is priced into transactions.
Maximizing profits may be in the interest of a business, but even this is not without a limit. Henry Ford understood this. He increased his workers' wages with the, correct, assumpt
Altruism was certainly not the motivator for Ford. He knew he needed a demand for his goods, and that demand needed money to back it up. Something that's sorely missing in today's business world.
And the sad fact is that free markets do not work perfectly fine. If left unchecked what we'd end up with would be products that can barely fulfill the desired function with contracts that shift any and all risk to the consumer side, abusing the lack of information on this end. In the end, after enough people died,
Your views are bizarrely out of touch with reality. In fact, it was businesses and corporations that widely adopted new technologies because they made production more efficient and made companies more competitive in the free market. It was the Luddites who demonstrated against that operation of the free market.
Likewise, most risk-shifting is done courtesy of government, government that bails out businesses and limits their liabilities.
Professional wrestling: ballet for the common man.
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:2)
This WOULD be true in a world where the demand side had the same amount of transparency as the supply side. Unfortunately that is not the case. The ideal of Capitalism falls short at this very problem: The information level on the supply side is usually vastly superior to that on the demand side. You also usually have a supply oligopoly and a demand polypoly (unless you're dealing with very, very specific situations in which, surprise, surprise, the whole situation changes completely).
The combination thereof allows the supply side not only to organize far better but also to alter the market to suit its needs.
Maximizing profits may be in the interest of a business, but even this is not without a limit. Henry Ford understood this. He increased his workers' wages with the, correct, assumption that if they get more money, not only will they be far more interested in keeping their job, they will also become his customers. Businesses need customers. Customers need money to buy products. Sadly, contemporary businesses hope that someone else is going to provide this. Since this doesn't happen, we're in the current recession we're in.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. Free markets don't assume perfect information or symmetry; they function perfectly fine without it. Any information deficit by any party is priced into transactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Altruism was certainly not the motivator for Ford. He knew he needed a demand for his goods, and that demand needed money to back it up. Something that's sorely missing in today's business world.
And the sad fact is that free markets do not work perfectly fine. If left unchecked what we'd end up with would be products that can barely fulfill the desired function with contracts that shift any and all risk to the consumer side, abusing the lack of information on this end. In the end, after enough people died,
Re: (Score:2)
Your views are bizarrely out of touch with reality. In fact, it was businesses and corporations that widely adopted new technologies because they made production more efficient and made companies more competitive in the free market. It was the Luddites who demonstrated against that operation of the free market.
Likewise, most risk-shifting is done courtesy of government, government that bails out businesses and limits their liabilities.