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

We Need a Warby Parker for Mattresses

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 173 posts

Re: We Need a Warby Parker for Mattresses

#141

Post by fryguy »

unohoo wrote: post #75
JPKab wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There are all sorts of outlets for reasonably priced, what you see is what you get mattresses: Sam's Club. Costco. Ikea. You can get a decent name brand mainstream mattress for ~$500." I hear you, but who says that $500 is a reasonable price for a mattress? I'm sorry, but looking at the raw materials involved (don't even get me started on the frickin foam ones that don't even have springs: I'm looking at you Tempurp…

moving parts != comfort, which is paramount when it comes to mattresses. For me (and a lot of people I know), having springs is actually an issue. The springs wear off, the mattress begins to sag and not to mention the back aches. So its not as simple as -- simple foam mattresses should cost lower just because they have less raw materials than a spring coil one.

I suppose you wouldn't like a waterbed, then, since it's essentially 1 giant moving part.

Re: We Need a Warby Parker for Mattresses

#142

Post by UnFleshedOne »

muraiki wrote: post #53
niggler wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would also need to change the entire ecosystem: if you use standard mattresses, then you can leverage the existing supply of sheets etc. Which is not to say it's a bad idea, but I imagine there's much more involved.

You could sell the custom sized mattress at cost, but then charge a premium for the sheets. That way you make money off of the sheets, which wear out more quickly than a mattress anyways. Edit: I'm joking...

Patent the square sheet form factor and you can lock out competitors and/or get hefty licensing fees. (as well as method and application of turning a sheet 90 degrees to hide coffee spots under pillows that you will then license at no cost to buyers of your brand of sheets while suing buyers of competitor's sheets)

Re: We Need a Warby Parker for Mattresses

#143

Post by i2pi »

IsaacL wrote: post #139
stcredzero wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When a market is dominated by risk-averse incumbents, it is probably ripe for disruption. Who originally formulated this idea? Was it you? This sentence is fantastic.

As GP said, read Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma". He's the guy who first came up with the term "disruptive innovation", and it's more than just a TechCrunch buzzword -- there's a whole theory behind how disruption actually works.

The concept dates back much further than Christensen. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

Re: We Need a Warby Parker for Mattresses

#144

Post by callmeed »

raldi wrote: post #69

If you attempt this, I suggest you make a deal with a motel chain: When a customer checks into a room, they discover a little sign on the bed. The sign says, "Like this mattress? Get a brand-new copy delivered to your home for $X00 by visiting mattressr.com and entering bed code MEDIUMSOFT-23."

I think you mean mattress.ly

Re: We Need a Warby Parker for Mattresses

#145

Post by rdl »

milesskorpen wrote: post #140
hapless wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Westin and 'W' hotels are the #2 and #1 "tier" hotels in the same company, Starwood. And it seems that the 'W' bed costs about $500 more than the "Westin" version. Fitting.

Le Meridien and St. Regis are both higher-end than W hotels, and are also part of SPG.

St. Regis and Luxury Collection (some of which are branded as Sheratons, strangely...) are the highest, but there isn't a strict ordering of W, Westin, Le Meridien. I'd probably say it goes W, Le Meridien, Westin, but individual properties have a lot of variation. then Sheraton, then Element and Aloft, then Four Points. There are individual Sheratons which are worse than Four Points though.

I prefer the Westin bed to the W bed; I've probably spent >100 nights in each.

Re: We Need a Warby Parker for Mattresses

#146

Post by rdl »

rscale wrote: post #15

I believe that entrepreneurs could do well, generally, by looking for opportunities in industries that are dominated by private-equity players. If an industry is overweight PE, you can bet that the market analysis looks fantastically attractive (competition isn't too fierce, suppliers have little power, buyers have little power, not many substitutes, and little perceived threat from new entrants). If a clever entrepr…

PE is huge into firearms right now (Cerberus set up Freedom Group which owns Remington, Bushmaster, etc.) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/business/how-freedom-group...

If I were not in tech, the firearms industry would be really attractive.

Re: We Need a Warby Parker for Mattresses

#147

Post by zacharycohn »

MartinCron wrote: post #36
niggler wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't you then have to worry about fitted bedsheets and comforters?

Absolutely, you would have to get new bedsheets, comforters, and beds to support the new form factor, but if it means replacing the mattress every n*2 years instead of every n, I'll come out ahead in the long term.

Throw in one pair of sheets for free. Most people have more than one, but by giving away one pair you can avoid the initial friction, then if the mattress company ALSO sells sheets you can play both sides. Create demand for a product you supply.

Re: We Need a Warby Parker for Mattresses

#148

Post by nazgulnarsil »

i2pi wrote: post #143
IsaacL wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As GP said, read Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma". He's the guy who first came up with the term "disruptive innovation", and it's more than just a TechCrunch buzzword -- there's a whole theory behind how disruption actually works.

The concept dates back much further than Christensen. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

Schumpeter should be required reading.

Re: We Need a Warby Parker for Mattresses

#149

Post by nazgulnarsil »

rdl wrote: post #146
rscale wrote: post #15

I believe that entrepreneurs could do well, generally, by looking for opportunities in industries that are dominated by private-equity players. If an industry is overweight PE, you can bet that the market analysis looks fantastically attractive (competition isn't too fierce, suppliers have little power, buyers have little power, not many substitutes, and little perceived threat from new entrants). If a clever entrepr…

PE is huge into firearms right now (Cerberus set up Freedom Group which owns Remington, Bushmaster, etc.) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/business/how-freedom-group... If I were not in tech, the firearms industry would be really attractive.

>Unlike military counterparts like automatic M-16’s, rifles like those from Bushmaster don’t spray bullets with one trigger pull. But, with gas-powered mechanisms, semiautomatics can fire rapid follow-up shots as fast as the trigger can be squeezed. They are often called “black guns” because of their color. The police tied a Bushmaster XM15 rifle to shootings in the Washington sniper case in 2002.

Has nothing to do with the article, but they just can't resist.

Re: We Need a Warby Parker for Mattresses

#150

Post by rdl »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #149
rdl wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PE is huge into firearms right now (Cerberus set up Freedom Group which owns Remington, Bushmaster, etc.) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/business/how-freedom-group... If I were not in tech, the firearms industry would be really attractive.

>Unlike military counterparts like automatic M-16’s, rifles like those from Bushmaster don’t spray bullets with one trigger pull. But, with gas-powered mechanisms, semiautomatics can fire rapid follow-up shots as fast as the trigger can be squeezed. They are often called “black guns” because of their color. The police tied a Bushmaster XM15 rifle to shootings in the Washington sniper case in 2002. Has nothing to do w…

It's the NY Times. Actually the opposition of the "smart" people like NY Times, leftists in general, etc. to firearms makes it an even better investment opportunity; less competition.
Post reply on HN