The Brand Age • Hacker News Board

Re: The Brand Age

#251

Post by tempestn » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 5:14 AM UTC

I like a lot of the points made here, and I think they likely hold truth in many scenarios.

That said, in the case of watches (no pun intended), Grand Seiko seems like a counterexample to a few of the points made. First, they are very much still sold on the basis of both brand/design and engineering. Spring drive is an engineering marvel, and a lot of people appreciate such works of human ingenuity even if they are not technically the optimal approach to solving the underlying problem. (Though it is nice never having to change batteries.) Even their notably high frequency mechanical movements are desirable on that basis.

More importantly, GS watches have very distinctive design elements that are easily recognized (ie. branding), and I would argue they sacrifice nothing in terms of usability to achieve that. Their dials in particular are works of art, but they make the watch no more difficult to read, just more enjoyable.

Re: The Brand Age

#252

Post by CobrastanJorji » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 5:15 AM UTC

sailfast wrote: post #246

Are we in "A Brand Age" or does The Brand Age occur only in different spaces after a technology becomes ubiquitous and like a utility, so the only way to command a premium is branding? What things are not quite there but will have their Brand Age next? AI? Spaceships? I'm also a bit confused as to whether there's judgment in the article though. He's applauding branding as a survival technique, but also saying it's si…

My crackpot theory: USB chargers and cables. Right now, a quality USB charger is cheap, but it's indistinguishable from a shitty USB charger, and there's a practical difference. And it's frequently on your desk. And it's got a lot of space for branding. A luxury USB cable would be identifiable and also (hopefully) also work well for whatever you might plug it into, until they invent the next new USB standard.

Of course, there are downsides. Nobody's gonna just walk away with your watch, but a cable on your desk that also costs $1000? And also, a lot of us would look at your diamond-encrusted USB adapter and think "this man is a moron."

Re: The Brand Age

#253

Post by saghm » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 5:17 AM UTC

socalgal2 wrote: post #215

I actually dislike most "branding", by which I mean, I dislike when the name/logo of the brand is on the product itself. I get that puts me in the minority. For me, partly because I don't want to be seen as showing off and partly because I feel like if you want me to advertise your brand then you should be paying me, not the me paying you. And, once noticed, it's on so many products I wish it wasn't. The sink in my b…

> One that's most silly to me, the tires have huge branding but the actual useful info, what pressure they need, is nearly impossible to read without perfect lighting and then me taking a photo and zooming in.

Sadly, the writing isn't there for (only) you. Anywhere you go and park your car now has a billboard for the tire company. Far more eyeballs that interest the ones putting the writing on it will be looking at it for reasons other than looking for the pressure than ones who are actually trying to get anything done with them.

Re: The Brand Age

#254

Post by jorisboris » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 5:51 AM UTC

Innovation brings a golden age, then innovation flattens, competition arises and branding becomes more important

Flying was having its golden age around the times of Concorde and 747, coffee bars were great when Starbucks reinvented the 3rd place and social media was cool when it just came out

It very much relates to that Steve Jobs clip about what happens when the marketing people take over the company

Re: The Brand Age

#255

Post by eucyclos » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 5:56 AM UTC

titanomachy wrote: post #148

garethsprice wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are status-seeking creatures, and status is expressed through signaling. If you're rich and so are the people around you, money alone ceases to be a differentiator. Ultra-luxury brands appeal to this by adding hoops that money alone can't clear: time, loyalty, relationships. The signal shifts from "I can afford this" to "I was invited to spend my money here." Lines outside Louis Vuitton are more down-market, a…

He’s probably also too rich for fancy watches to actually be a useful signal of wealth amongst his peers.

I had a coworker who became nouveau riche a while back- he made fuck you money day trading during the roaringkitty debacle - and one interesting thing he said about the experience was that he learned certain luxury goods, such as high end watches, don't depreciate. Like gold jewelry one can usually resell them for cost plus inflation. As such, his logic was that a fancy watch is essentially free while a cheap watch costs whatever it costs.

Not sure if that's the truth or clever marketing by purveyors of luxury goods, but it changes the wealth signaling dynamics of fancy watches if it is.

Re: The Brand Age

#256

Post by tavavex » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:21 AM UTC

stingrae wrote: post #228

socalgal2 wrote: post #215

I actually dislike most "branding", by which I mean, I dislike when the name/logo of the brand is on the product itself. I get that puts me in the minority. For me, partly because I don't want to be seen as showing off and partly because I feel like if you want me to advertise your brand then you should be paying me, not the me paying you. And, once noticed, it's on so many products I wish it wasn't. The sink in my b…

I felt this way until I worked at Essential, the now shut down phone maker. One of the core company design principles was to have minimal branding. The phone design had no logo. When you show it to people they are looking for the identifier and it's completely missing. When you are in a market where most of the products look largely the same, branding is very important. It's unfortunate, but absolutely necessary.

Ironically, because phone designs have converged so much and innovation had plateaued, a phone with no branding whatsoever represents a brand in and of itself. Think about it, even the worst, cheapest no-name phones built from old parts in some small Chinese factory have something written on them. The absence of a logo is so unique that it performs the same function, because no one else is doing that. The catch is that it only works if people know this gimmick in advance, but this also applies to brands with textless logos.

Re: The Brand Age

#257

Post by danielparsons » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:24 AM UTC

widowlark wrote: post #222

hammock wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the cutting edge things are happening in places where brand doesn’t matter. I could think of better examples but moldbot/clawdworld comes to mind. Or ASML, or national lab physics, or cheap attack drones, or.. idk can anyone think of better examples? And “brand age” (as a broad moniker) is another way of saying innovation has stagnated.

innovation has stagnated because businesses have driven us to stagnation. Very few businesses provide any real value - the ones that do are running circles around everyone else - given the lack of ability, businesses turns to other, less useful methods of prying our money away from us and largely succeed because consumers are gullible and malleable.

ah the classic "most people are mere sheep, unlike us Great Minds"

Re: The Brand Age

#258

Post by danielparsons » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:26 AM UTC

userulluipeste wrote: post #205

garethsprice wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are status-seeking creatures, and status is expressed through signaling. If you're rich and so are the people around you, money alone ceases to be a differentiator. Ultra-luxury brands appeal to this by adding hoops that money alone can't clear: time, loyalty, relationships. The signal shifts from "I can afford this" to "I was invited to spend my money here." Lines outside Louis Vuitton are more down-market, a…

"The signal shifts from «I can afford this» to «I was invited to spend my money here.»" "the signal isn't wealth but access" The most shocking aspect here is the mindset of these people that come to value this access, and the fact that they have to have their own self-perceived worth at some lower (i.e. improvable) level in comparison. It has to be, otherwise the value of that access can't make much sense, otherwise…

I think it just sounds like a fun game to be honest. By a goofy little overengineered piece of jewellery. Buy a bunch of them and join the club. Compare to your friends. Reminds me of pokemon cards on the school playground...

Re: The Brand Age

#259

Post by danielparsons » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:31 AM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #226

garethsprice wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are status-seeking creatures, and status is expressed through signaling. If you're rich and so are the people around you, money alone ceases to be a differentiator. Ultra-luxury brands appeal to this by adding hoops that money alone can't clear: time, loyalty, relationships. The signal shifts from "I can afford this" to "I was invited to spend my money here." Lines outside Louis Vuitton are more down-market, a…

> Of course, PG writing an essay about being too smart for fancy watches - while knowing a lot about them - is its own signaling game, just aimed at a different audience So you're saying that everyone seeks status, and even the people who say they don't are seeking status by not seeking status? That argument seems like you are overreaching. What, then, would you consider evidence that falsifies your theory?

status-seeking isn't inherently bad or good, depends who's appreciation you are seeking

Re: The Brand Age

#260

Post by tavavex » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:34 AM UTC

mrexcess wrote: post #17

bogardon wrote: post #9

Is it just me or are an increasing number of (high profile) people in the tech industry into luxury watches these days?

Anecdotally, in the trenches, I'm seeing a proliferation of Casio F-91w and AE-1200s. Maybe a counter response, lol.

I feel like the F-91w is as much of a brand-driven symbol as the luxury watches. The F-91w has come to represent this scrappy, minimal, no-nonsense mentality - but it's not the cheapest watch you can get, and I don't think it's even the cheapest Casio anymore. It's more expensive than it used to be, so you need to go out of your way to pay more to get this specific model. Because customers know that people will recognize it, and that will better project the way they want to be seen.