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

The Rise of the Fidget Spinner and the Fall of the Well-Managed Fad

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: The Rise of the Fidget Spinner and the Fall of the Well-Managed Fad

#31

Post by samstave »

okreallywtf wrote: post #18
amrrs wrote: post #5

It's rise in India is so fast and deep that it's been sold in local trains for 40-50 Indian rupees (~70 cents). Almost everyone from kids to adults in office and park started spinning it for no reason because they saw someone else spinning and it was just cool. PS: I bought two while in the local train. For me and my wife. A day before that a kid in my flat was showing off his skills and a week after that my 40ish ma…

This reminds me of the great (I think) star trek TNG episode The Game (I had to look up the name, then felt silly). I imagine you and your wife picking them up just to be able to make it home without being accosted.

Is that the one where Wesley gets addicted and they basically have to do an intervention on him?

Re: The Rise of the Fidget Spinner and the Fall of the Well-Managed Fad

#32

Post by smacktoward »

kobeya wrote: post #22
theothermkn wrote: post #13

It's hard to put my finger on what exactly unsettled me about the fidget spinner craze, but it seems related to this article. All the hype seemed ad hoc. For Beanie Babies, in retrospect, it felt like a coordinated center (the manufacturer/importer and its marketing arm) surrounded by a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon. Fidget spinners just felt like every click-baiting view-monger jumping in with their hot t…

Someone, somewhere created the first fidget spinner, named it, and marketed it. The fact that you do t know their name maybe just means they did a better job of staying out of the limelight while still profiting from the craze.

Why do you assume the original inventor profited from it? It seems at least as likely that they got left in the dust when someone else noticed the potential in their idea and grabbed it -- especially if the main driver behind the craze were Chinese manufacturers, who are not exactly known for their scrupulous respect for intellectual property...

Re: The Rise of the Fidget Spinner and the Fall of the Well-Managed Fad

#33

Post by DanBC »

kobeya wrote: post #22
theothermkn wrote: post #13

It's hard to put my finger on what exactly unsettled me about the fidget spinner craze, but it seems related to this article. All the hype seemed ad hoc. For Beanie Babies, in retrospect, it felt like a coordinated center (the manufacturer/importer and its marketing arm) surrounded by a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon. Fidget spinners just felt like every click-baiting view-monger jumping in with their hot t…

Someone, somewhere created the first fidget spinner, named it, and marketed it. The fact that you do t know their name maybe just means they did a better job of staying out of the limelight while still profiting from the craze.

She couldn't afford the patent. I don't think she made much money from it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14271914

Re: The Rise of the Fidget Spinner and the Fall of the Well-Managed Fad

#34

Post by peacetreefrog »

ars wrote: post #2

If you read between the lines this is the broken window fallacy: We need people to make useless junk in order to have jobs. But now there is no one making sure the useless junk stays popular, so less jobs. Except that's exactly the broken window fallacy: We could instead spend that money on other things.

Yeah there's a strong "jobs for jobs sake" vibe in this article.

Re: The Rise of the Fidget Spinner and the Fall of the Well-Managed Fad

#35

Post by [deleted] »

kobeya wrote: post #22
theothermkn wrote: post #13

It's hard to put my finger on what exactly unsettled me about the fidget spinner craze, but it seems related to this article. All the hype seemed ad hoc. For Beanie Babies, in retrospect, it felt like a coordinated center (the manufacturer/importer and its marketing arm) surrounded by a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon. Fidget spinners just felt like every click-baiting view-monger jumping in with their hot t…

Someone, somewhere created the first fidget spinner, named it, and marketed it. The fact that you do t know their name maybe just means they did a better job of staying out of the limelight while still profiting from the craze.

[deleted]

Re: The Rise of the Fidget Spinner and the Fall of the Well-Managed Fad

#36

Post by emodendroket »

monocasa wrote: post #30
vosper wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I guess we just move on to different junk. Rather than one company (Ty, from the example) presiding over and managing the popularity of the product for years, the fads come and go. Which is of course what's always happened. Remember Pokemon? There's a craze that's not a craze at all - it's been going on since the 90s. It doesn't seem to be getting killed by fidget spinners. In the meantime hundreds of smaller fa…

Seriously. Furbies, tamogatchis, pogs. There was that season where suburban moms were practically dueling to the death over Tickle Me Elmos.

Can't you see the difference here? Nobody is lining up outside stores to get a fidget spinner because you can't go two feet without seeing one for sale.

Re: The Rise of the Fidget Spinner and the Fall of the Well-Managed Fad

#37

Post by emodendroket »

kobeya wrote: post #22
theothermkn wrote: post #13

It's hard to put my finger on what exactly unsettled me about the fidget spinner craze, but it seems related to this article. All the hype seemed ad hoc. For Beanie Babies, in retrospect, it felt like a coordinated center (the manufacturer/importer and its marketing arm) surrounded by a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon. Fidget spinners just felt like every click-baiting view-monger jumping in with their hot t…

Someone, somewhere created the first fidget spinner, named it, and marketed it. The fact that you do t know their name maybe just means they did a better job of staying out of the limelight while still profiting from the craze.

Actually if you look into it you'll find she didn't profit that much from it.

Re: The Rise of the Fidget Spinner and the Fall of the Well-Managed Fad

#38

Post by jasondemeuse »

komali2 wrote: post #25
theothermkn wrote: post #13

It's hard to put my finger on what exactly unsettled me about the fidget spinner craze, but it seems related to this article. All the hype seemed ad hoc. For Beanie Babies, in retrospect, it felt like a coordinated center (the manufacturer/importer and its marketing arm) surrounded by a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon. Fidget spinners just felt like every click-baiting view-monger jumping in with their hot t…

I don't even get how they're supposed to help with ADHD. They require too much attention to use (or I just suck at using them). I've always managed ADHD by doing things that require practically no attention - twirling a pen, doodling without looking, pacing the meeting room, etc.

Have you used one? I'm not pushing fidget spinners but I've been a pen-twirler since junior high and the spinner is almost the exact same motion with the same amount of attention involved.

I don't know how you've been using them but I think you're making them far more complicated then they need to be.

Re: The Rise of the Fidget Spinner and the Fall of the Well-Managed Fad

#39

Post by Giorgi »

I think it started on Reddit, someone posted some gif, others asked what it was, and after several months we had craze going on our hands.

I remember specifically how I checked if any Chinese manufacturers where producing it by that time - none. In fact, item in post on reddit was done on some CNC machine.

then all the small-scale importers got on it. These days, it's really easy to move and market your own product small-scale.

I think all other fads will follow this fate - lot's of suppliers, rarely any brandname.

Re: The Rise of the Fidget Spinner and the Fall of the Well-Managed Fad

#40

Post by barrkel »

ars wrote: post #2

If you read between the lines this is the broken window fallacy: We need people to make useless junk in order to have jobs. But now there is no one making sure the useless junk stays popular, so less jobs. Except that's exactly the broken window fallacy: We could instead spend that money on other things.

It's not 100% fallacy if there's slack in the labour market.

If you have 10 chaps hanging around, all of whom have broken windows, there's a gain in both wealth and employment if some of those chaps get organized and start fixing windows.

To the degree that the novelty is good, keeping otherwise unemployed people active producing novelties is neither a loss nor a waste of time. Of course it doesn't make sense to go around breaking windows to keep the dynamic up, unless breaking windows is enormous fun and gives people lots of utility (which it might!).

More generally, thinking about these things in terms of money rather than wealth, production and consumption (a stock and its positive and negative flows) leads people to faulty intuitions. They're familiar with household budgeting and other situations where money seems tangible. But money is just a way of accounting for the stock, and measuring and transporting the flows. It's the actual wealth, production and consumption that counts.

Post reply on HN