De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds • Hacker News Board

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#241

Post by Vektorweg » Wed, May 30, 2018, 5:56 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #183

ISL wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love for synthetic diamond to bring the price down on gemstones. A lot of people are engaged in arduous and risky work to produce natural stones. The environmental costs, too, are real. Modern high-quality synthetic materials, whether in gemstones or other uses, have so much to offer in fashion innovation. Indeed, diamond jewelers claim that silicon carbide (SiC) has "excess fire" as it has greater dispersion tha…

Never mind about jewelry and fashion. Cheap synthetic diamonds would open up a host of industrial applications. Bring on "The Diamond Age".

Industrial synthetic diamond production is around since at least the 80s and from all we know about De Beers, they are certainly not trying to get the price down.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#242

Post by School-Cotton » Wed, May 30, 2018, 5:56 AM UTC

cf498 wrote: post #224

School-Cotton wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so hard to understand? Jewelry exists because it (1) makes people look more attractive, and (2) enables conspicuous consumption. Humans aren't Vulcans who make decisions rationally. We're apes with a facility for reason tacked on as an afterthought.

Diamonds are historically an extremely new phenomenon with the demand outside of industry created by De Beers massive advertisement campaign over almost a century. Diamond Jewelry exists because advertisement works. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...

I'm referring to jewelry in general, which has existed for tens of thousands of years.

Fashions come and go, but whether shell beads or diamonds, the point is the same.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#243

Post by Deestan » Wed, May 30, 2018, 6:00 AM UTC

BjoernKW wrote: post #215

godzillabrennus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart move. Throw enough marketing dollars at misinformation and you can convince hordes of people to doubt facts. Case in point. Despite overwhelming evidence there are people today who still debate climate change.

I don't think that's such a good example. Climate change should be debated. Not if it's happening but to what extent and effect. Science after all is about questioning findings and theories. Discussing climate change shouldn't be about politics first and foremost but about science. As for De Beers, throwing marketing dollars at misinformation pretty much has been their business model since the 1930s. Diamonds are a g…

> Climate change should be debated

Yes, by people who are trained scientists and researchers. We don't need more poorly informed, mathematically weak, statistically challenged, dilletantes yelling into the mix.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#244

Post by carapace » Wed, May 30, 2018, 6:04 AM UTC

sunstone wrote: post #178

Aluminium also went through a transition from precious to a commodity early in the last century. It's cautionary tale for those who expect that "natural" diamonds will continue to have pricing power in the market as time goes by.

One of the things I liked about "Diamond Age" was thinking about cheap diamond as a building material...

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#245

Post by KozmoNau7 » Wed, May 30, 2018, 6:09 AM UTC

propogandist wrote: post #75

fgonzag wrote: post #10

"Lightbox will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now" This is clearly a play to devalue the image of man made diamonds. "May not be forever" my ass, it's the exact same thing. Their goal is probably to try to quickly drive the price of man made dia…

The slogan "a diamond is forever" is one of the most successful marketing campaigns of all time. It encourages people to voluntarily limit circulation of a rock that's mined by the tonnes, whose supply is carefully controlled to keep profits high. The links they've made with the slogan to love also helps keep the money flowing.

It is deviously brilliant. Play on people's emotions, equate a diamond with "till death do us part", make it almost shameful to even consider reselling that stone.

Is there any other product where resale is "voluntarily" limited like that?

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#246

Post by jypepin » Wed, May 30, 2018, 6:11 AM UTC

I'm surprised article like this don't mention how NOT valuable real diamonds actually are and how it's all a marketing stunt from the 50s[1].

It's pretty funny to see De Beers and co trying to defend how precious their "real" stones are while the face value of man-made ones might actually be higher than those real ones they acquire slaving away poor african countries.

[1] https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bulls...

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#247

Post by wyc » Wed, May 30, 2018, 6:14 AM UTC

Synthetic diamonds might be a disruptive innovation. They are often cheaper, lower quality, and lacking in complex features such as authenticity. There is a different and advantageous cost structure compared to that of mining for natural diamonds, and this product fulfills the new job of culling environmental and humanitarian concern.

In this scenario, we may be witnessing an incumbent firm unable to adopt new disruptive technologies because its revenue structures are incompatible, as the current margins and volumes for synthetics are likely far lower than those of mined diamonds.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#248

Post by jypepin » Wed, May 30, 2018, 6:14 AM UTC

artellectual wrote: post #232

My wife and I got married without buying a diamond ring. I simply refused to spend money in things that are overvalued by the market because some marketing scheme was so strong that it made facts look silly. I told her that I refuse to spend money on things that cause other people pain. Especially when there is no guarantee that the diamond we buy are not blood diamond. Instead we invested our money in buying things…

I just got engaged a few months ago and did not buy a ring. My fiancée didn't want one (she prefers more discreet rings) and I was happy not to pay for such a marketing schemes.

I was very surprised at how everyone were pretty shocked, be it our parents or some of our friends (despite being open minded, modern millenials). Gotta give credits to the marketing firm that did this whole thing, it might be the biggest marketing success ever.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#249

Post by KozmoNau7 » Wed, May 30, 2018, 6:19 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #11

Interestingly enough, this starts to bring up questions that have previously only been super active in science fiction circles, particularly, Star Trek: If you can perfectly recreate something down to the molecular level, what actually has value? (Assuming, someday, that synthetic versions are excessively cheap, in Star Trek's case.) If you can replicate cooked food perfectly, will people still claim that "real" food…

>"If you can perfectly recreate something down to the molecular level, what actually has value?"

The raw materials themselves, I think. After all, you have to supply the basic building blocks to replicate objects. That's why there is the feed in The Diamond Age, bringing the raw materials, plus vacuum and power.

Until you can artificially create heavy elements, their rarity will determine their value.

>"If you can replicate cooked food perfectly, will people still claim that "real" food, grown, slaughtered, and cooked, is "better" or tastes "more authentic", despite no technical difference?"

Yes, absolutely. At least certain segments will, witness how people fawn over "artisanal craft" this-and-that. More effort goes into the production, so there is more of an emotional connection. The mass produced item could be superior to the hand crafted item, but the latter will feel more "real" to a lot of people. Even more so if they craft it themselves.

It's just how we're wired, I think.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#250

Post by KozmoNau7 » Wed, May 30, 2018, 6:22 AM UTC

xamuel wrote: post #83

remarkEon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this theme was first explored in depth in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep . Having a "real" animal was a status symbol.

Same author, earlier exploration: The Man in the High Castle (1962) explored it in the context of otherwise-identical objects, one of which was involved in some historic event, the other of which wasn't

Was this what they covered in the TV show with the fake antiques? They didn't dwell too much on it, I really should read the book.