Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

gstatic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 92 posts

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#71

Post by Helianthus16 »

phlux wrote: post #45
robryan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we sit here thinking about this though much worse waste is going on it the world unseen. My uni gets big dumpsters and throws out 100's of computers each year. Granted they are usually getting old though.

So here we have: New-laptop->blender For your comment we have: New-machine-->user------------------------->trash/other-user/some-other-market WTF don't people understand about how wasteful this is? Also, this machines toxic+precious components are being munger to the point where any hope of recycle is lost. If you aren't already paying attention, countries like China are securing the next 50-100 years worth of natura…

Can't prove it, that's the sort of thing that's dependant on how guided/misguided you are. ;)

Look at it this way. Our society can operate at at a high scale of efficiency, where everything is used to maximum utility and absolutely nothing is wasted, or it can operate extremely inefficiently. It _only_ makes sense to consider the societal-wide efficiency--as you say, the problem and question are macro. So we can posit some ranking, some percentage of total efficiency.

However, 'Will it blend' is hardly large enough to make a huge dent overall in the larger percent. The resources lost from one netbook per time segment are not comparable to the resources lost in even a tenth of a percent decrease in efficiency, if you pardon the approximation.

Furthermore, 'maximum utility' is rather difficult to determine because 'utility' is variable. It turns out that apparently there's enough 'utility' in making "Will It Blend?" videos that we could even argue that this is positive efficiency!

Do you also get upset when cars and pianos are destroyed for movies and tv shows? Would you have us exert _more_ energy to generate the illusion in order to save good tools?

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#72

Post by Andys »

DavidSJ wrote: post #17
phlux wrote: post #2

While funny etc. We have so much waste in the world as it is - the last thing we need is the toxic waste of a perfectly good machine being blended and thrown out. I have never had respect for the 'will it blend' concept, regardless of how funny one may find it. It is simply wasteful.

By what criteria do you distinguish wasteful environmental impact from justified environmental impact?

Heh - indeed. Is blending any less wasteful than someone using this notebook to download a bunch of porn, post a few hundred vacuous tweets, and then toss it on the trash heap after 11 months when a newer slimmer version comes out.

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#73

Post by robryan »

phlux wrote: post #45
robryan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we sit here thinking about this though much worse waste is going on it the world unseen. My uni gets big dumpsters and throws out 100's of computers each year. Granted they are usually getting old though.

So here we have: New-laptop->blender For your comment we have: New-machine-->user------------------------->trash/other-user/some-other-market WTF don't people understand about how wasteful this is? Also, this machines toxic+precious components are being munger to the point where any hope of recycle is lost. If you aren't already paying attention, countries like China are securing the next 50-100 years worth of natura…

Yes it is wasteful, we are on the same page there. I just think we have a tendency to focus on isolated examples when the big picture is bigger than we can all really get our heads around.

Christmas is a perfect example, I'd wager a great deal of netbooks will be brought this Christmas that are never used or only used sparingly. Schools force one on every student even if they already have perfectly good laptops (my sister's school has done this).

Our society has all the basic metrics wrong of what is productive and efficient.

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#74

Post by axod »

phlux wrote: post #2

While funny etc. We have so much waste in the world as it is - the last thing we need is the toxic waste of a perfectly good machine being blended and thrown out. I have never had respect for the 'will it blend' concept, regardless of how funny one may find it. It is simply wasteful.

The average mail shot wastes more in envelopes stamps, CO2 from delivery van etc etc.

Chill out.

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#75

Post by cookiecaper »

hugh3 wrote: post #34
thingie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might still be cheaper than some kind of elaborate ad with a lot of actors, scenes and stuff, and even have lesser environmental impact (one laptop is much less waste than, say, flight to some distant place to take the shots for an ad). So, yes, it can actually make sense. But still, I just don't like the culture which shows that it's perfectly ok to smash and destroy stuff just for pleasure and marketing. Imagine…

It's just a bunch of atoms. It was a bunch of atoms before the manufacturers got to it -- mostly goo, some rocks, a bit of sand. They rearranged the atoms into a different order. Then Blend-Tec guy put it into a blender and rearranged the atoms again, now it's dust instead of goo. What has been lost, apart from a bit of irreplacable time out of the lives of everyone involved (including me writing this comment and you…

It's about how useful those atoms are in a certain arrangement. Everything is composed of basic elements and we all know that. That doesn't mean that everything can be instantly devalued by saying "it's just a bunch of atoms!"

If we take a useful arrangement of element and transform it into a useless arrangement without a good reason, what we've done is a net loss for whoever or whatever found the previous arrangement useful. The atoms can't be destroyed, but their immediate utility can.

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#76

Post by axod »

cma wrote: post #33
riobard wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same weird feeling watching that video. There is something fundamentally wrong there. I'm especially worried about the last part when the little girl destroying the last CR-48: she was so calm to do that without a blink. I was shocked. This is not the way we teach our children. [edit]: there's a tagline said by the demo guy in the video: “good thing I get a new one every time”. This kinda thinking bothers m…

Almost the entire advertising industry is pure waste, whether they are physically destroying laptops or not.

WTF?

I know it's cute to be all anti-advertising here, but really?

Shows a distinct lack of a clue about what service advertising offers people, why it's crucial, and why it makes a ton of money for all involved.

Advertisers don't waste money. They carefully use money by investing it in advertising which (when done properly) nets them a positive ROI.

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#77

Post by code_duck »

guiseppecalzone wrote: post #6

Google did another advertisement where they destroy at least 5 laptops: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-Vnx58UYo&feature I used to think that "Will it blend" was funny. Maybe the novelty of it has warn off. Instead of laughing, watching this video made me wince.

I completely agree. This video is not amusing: it is offensive and I see that man as a complete idiot. I have no idea what this smug destruction is intended to signify.

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#78

Post by ugh »

guyzero wrote: post #21

Does this video series actually sell any blenders?

I’m pretty certain that this marketing campaign stars prominently in the wet dreams of many marketing guys and girls.

The iPhone and the iPad “Will It Blend?” video have ten million views each on YouTube, other videos usually clock in at between a few hundred thousand and a few million views. The videos themselves have shoddy production values, I would be surprised if producing one costs more than a few thousand dollars. All this makes for a ridiculously low CPM. Oh, and those ten million views are high quality contacts, they all actually wanted to watch the video, unlike, say, a pre-roll ad on YouTube that’s forced on them.

A pre-roll ad on YouTube has a CPM between $10 and $15. Blendtec could have spent $100,000 on the production of their iPhone video (I doubt they spent even a tenth of that) and still pay less than a company which tries to get an ad on YouTube the normal way. (Those companies pay for the production of the spot, just like Blendtec, but they also pay Google for running the spot.)

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#79

Post by DanielStraight »

benatkin wrote: post #66
phlux wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...economic impact of this advertising is worth more than the cost for Google to send a CR-48 to be blended. I know what it is called - but it is still clearly waste. I was not referring to the economic impact but rather the environmental. Sure, we can all say "who cares" -- I do, which is why I ask. Have you seen the garbage problems we have? The toxic waste dumps that are china and other places. I am not trying to…

When I saw a BlendTec commercial for the first time, I thought: "that's wasteful!". Then I thought about it some more and realized that it was a tiny fraction of the waste that's being produced by viewers. I realized if viewers would keep their electronics 10% longer it would make many times as big a difference as putting a kibosh on this commercial series. So it actually raised awareness for me.

It's not a tiny fraction, it's an undetectable fraction. Keeping electronics 10% longer wouldn't many many times as big a difference, it would make many orders of magnitude more difference.

Commenting that this is waste is like commenting that all the astronauts coming to the launch site in personal vehicles is a waste of fuel. You're about to burn in 10 minutes more fuel than anyone will likely ever use in their entire life. It doesn't matter at that point.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't mean that since you can't change the big picture, you shouldn't do anything at all. I'm just saying you shouldn't blow things out of proportion.

Post reply on HN