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

The Brand Age

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 403 posts

Re: The Brand Age

#181

Post by zahlman »

fragmede wrote: post #16
ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #7

His point of Omega doubling-down on the things that would progressively harder to establish a moat on made me think about what we have been seeing with higher ed. It seems the "smart ones" definitely read the book that making the "education better," in a world where it is mostly free, was a fool's errand, and now the margins that they all compete it stray far, far away from the quality of the schooling. I work in K-1…

The something that happened was ChatGPT. Enough commenters didn't like the idea that everything they write publicly online is fed in as training data for AI that there's been a shift in this site's community. That, and everyone got laid off, either for section 174 or AI reasons, but Twitter employees are no longer collecting that fast paycheck and posting here. I'm sure a data scientist could make a good analysis of…

> Enough commenters didn't like the idea that everything they write publicly online is fed in as training data for AI that there's been a shift in this site's community.

Pardon; your theory is that this attitude was prevalent among people who like discussing pg's writing, and that they have left in favour of a new crowd that doesn't care about pg but is also pro- the AI companies?

... Because that doesn't seem to line up with the general tenor of discussion in threads about AI companies doing things.

Re: The Brand Age

#182

Post by wcfrobert »

elevatortrim wrote: post #165
wcfrobert wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It's worth asking why some people find brand watches beautiful? Where did they get their sense of aesthetic? Were they born with a congenital preference for RM 16-01 Citron? Culture shapes our taste. Companies go on multi-decade billion-dollar campaigns to shape our culture. We like certain things because famous actors or athletes endorse them; because hip hop artists rap about them; because influencers t…

Citron is obviously a weird watch but you can always find weird expensive examples of anything. Most expensive watches look normal and they look really beautiful thanks to the attention that goes into building them.

Yes, what I find beautiful is the craftsmanship, dedication, and the singular, almost monastic focus required to become a master in some human pursuit, whether its software, sushi, or making watches. I find dedication and sacrifice deeply moving and eternally beautiful.

Re: The Brand Age

#183

Post by zahlman »

monster_truck wrote: post #111

Wild timing on this. Been seeing a huge uptick in people "trying to learn opsec" as they fumble around for ways to make money with openclaw and land on "selling fake bags/shoes/watches", seemingly emboldened by those who value these brands trying to use openclaw to secure mispriced items or snipe auctions. Funny thing is, I'm not sure anyone is actually doing either thing successfully. Every time I've looked into an…

Could it be that fake success stories (and, perhaps, associated "training material") are the real product there?

Re: The Brand Age

#184

Post by BeetleB »

next_xibalba wrote: post #178
elevatortrim wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are pointing to an outlier that is not expensive due to its beauty but historical significance. Typical expensive watches look normal and beautiful: https://www.iwc.com/gb-en/watches/pilot-watches/iw388106-pil... https://www.omegawatches.com/en-gb/watch-omega-speedmaster-m... https://www.rolex.com/watches/submariner/m124060-0001

Is this trolling or are you serious? Those are all, imo, hideous! They are blocky and unrefined and like they’re uncomfortable to wear.

While I wouldn't call them ugly, I agree that they look just like, well, watches to me. I wouldn't pay a premium for any of them.

Since I'm not into luxury watches, a common occurrence is:

Me to a stranger: "Wow, cool watch! Which one is it?"

Stranger: "Random cheap brand I found on Amazon."

If you've never heard of Omega, Rolex, etc, chances are you won't be able to distinguish a cheap watch from an expensive watch. It's just the brand.

(OK, OK, chances are the material is a lot better - scratchproof, etc - but probably still costs less than 10% to make than what they sell for).

Re: The Brand Age

#185

Post by CGMthrowaway »

jgrahamc wrote: post #14

" Because at Patek he'd encounter the most extreme brand age phenomenon: artificial scarcity. You can't just buy a Nautilus. You have to spend years proving your loyalty first by buying your way through multiple tiers of other models, and then spend years on a waiting list. " Strange game, the only winning move is not to play. I've heard other brands do this (Ferrari?) and, of course, there are lines outside "luxury"…

>I've heard other brands do this (Ferrari?)

It's called relationship-based allocation or more simply purchase history requirement, and its practiced by both Patek and Rolex but add to the list famously Hermes, Bugatti, high jewelry from VCA/Bulgari etc, getting access to prestigious artists at galleries, etc.

The devil's advocate/ other side of the coin is that it's not just a moneygrab, it protects the brand image by controlling who is seen wearing / using your products. When the value of these goods is so influenced by who else has them, that kind of control is intrinsically important for the seller.

Re: The Brand Age

#186

Post by zahlman »

another_twist wrote: post #176

GPT doing a great job summarizing and providing a counter: what's they key thesis here and the argument ? *Key thesis:* When technology eliminates meaningful performance differences between products, industries shift from competing on *engineering and function* to competing on *brand and status*. The Swiss watch industry after the quartz crisis is a clear example: mechanical watches stopped being valuable tools and b…

Please don't post like this. We could trivially get this take ourselves if we cared for it. It would be obvious that this is ChatGPT even without a disclaimer, and the analysis is exactly as formulaic and facile as you'd expect. (How could it reasonably conclude that pg's just-written essay is "controversial among economists and designers", let alone why? It's not making social media rounds; it was just published today; search engine results are mostly unrelated stuff and certainly aren't pointing to discussion...).

Re: The Brand Age

#187

Post by zahlman »

badc0ffee wrote: post #66
NinjaTrance wrote: post #58

" When our time traveler peered into the windows of these shops, the first thing he'd notice was how large all the watches were ." My only question about this entire essay is... where did this time traveler came from??? "Our" time traveler was never mentioned until this line.

Not true: > The best way to answer that might be to imagine what someone from the golden age would notice if we brought him here in a time machine. [...] The first thing he'd notice, if he walked through a fancy shopping district, is that all the prominent watchmakers of the golden age seem to be doing better than ever.

Clearly, the time traveler went back in time to get inserted into a paragraph that GP overlooked the first time.

Re: The Brand Age

#188

Post by zahlman »

atotic wrote: post #105

I expected this essay to end with a note about software's golden age.

It seems to be trying to make the same point (about AI as a "disruptor" analogous to quartz movements) but more subtly.

Re: The Brand Age

#189

Post by BeetleB »

Traster wrote: post #97

>That's not why brand age watches look strange. Brand age watches look strange because they have no practical function. Their function is to express brand, and while that is certainly a constraint, it's not the clean kind of constraint that generates good things. The constraints imposed by brand ultimately depend on some of the worst features of human psychology. So when you have a world defined only by brand, it's g…

Heh.

Just today I went to a watch repair person because the keeper on my strap broke. He said the only option is to buy the exact strap from the manufacturer.

The strap costs $120.

My watch costs $340 (although I got it on a discount for $220).

This is the most expensive watch I've ever bought. I typically would pay $50 or less (with the exception of one G-Shock that cost $80). I finally decide to buy something "pricey" and the darn thing breaks in less than 2 years - something that never happens with the cheap watches I've bought.

No thanks. I'm not paying $120 for a new strap. I'm getting a cheap watch that will last me over a decade (as most of my watches do).

I had the same experience with fountain pens. Every fountain pen I've paid more than $50 for has been worse than my favorite cheap ones.

If I were to plot quality on the y-axis, and price on the x-axis, I think I'll find a U or V curve, where on the very cheap end things are reliable and last long, and likewise on the very expensive end. But in the middle, you're just paying extra for crap.

Arguably, you could say I'm not paying enough. A $330 watch isn't expensive. I should have paid $3000. A $90 pen isn't expensive. I should have paid $250.

No thanks. When the <$50 products perform as well as the expensive ones, I'm not paying more.

Re: The Brand Age

#190

Post by zahlman »

eykanal wrote: post #54

I'm struck by the utilitarian mindset of this essay. What Paul so disparagingly refers to as "brand" can also be referred to as "art". People _want_ art, and will indeed pay good money for it. Said differently, people _value_ art enough to differentiate it from "optimal design", and indeed a subset of people will pay top dollar for a suboptimal but artistic design. It is possible to view the fact that capitalist mark…

Do you normally associate the acquisition of "art" with spending years proving loyalty to a corporation?
Post reply on HN