Live data from Hacker News

Pay Too Much for everything

allentucker.com

31–40 of 170 posts

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#31
The idea in this article is sometimes true, but it completely fails to take into account the relentless march of technology. Some items, such as cell-phones or laptops, will be totally obsolete within 10 years no matter how finely made they are. Other items, such as guitars, will not be obsolete since the technology isn't changing quickly, if at all. There will be new digital guitars with funky synth modes every year, but a gibson dobro will still sound like a gibson dobro in twenty years.

Some things fall somewhere in between. Your grandfather's watch is a marvel of mechanical engineering that will keep time adequately for centuries if taken to a watch-shop for maintenance every few years. That maintenance will cost more than buying a new timex would, and the timex will keep far more accurate time. Timex's are disposable. When the timex's battery dies it will probably cheaper to replace it than to replace the battery. However, their function is superior for all practical purposes. Many people currently enjoy the aesthetics of mechanical watches. They're currently enjoying a major surge of collectibility, but that wasn't the case twenty years ago and it may well not be the case twenty years from now.

The real trick is to figure out what can last and what should be treated as disposable. e.g. Say you're building a home theater. Amps have changed very little over the last 20 years. Preamps and receivers go obsolete every few years. If you spend $5000 on a Bryston amp it will easily last 20 years (that's how long it'll be under warranty!), but a Bryston preamp will be hopelessly unusable long before that 20 year warranty runs out.

There are also big variations in short-term durability too that aren't necessarily correlated with price. e.g. Macbook air's and the new retina pro's are gorgeous pieces of engineering, but they're made to be disposable. If you spill coffee on them they're basically done. You can't remove the battery and take them apart to clean them (proprietary screws) like you can with a much cheaper laptop and Apple won't lift a finger to help you. This is a case where our perceptions of what is durable and high-quality can actually lead us to buy something that won't last as long!

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#32
post #31

The idea in this article is sometimes true, but it completely fails to take into account the relentless march of technology. Some items, such as cell-phones or laptops, will be totally obsolete within 10 years no matter how finely made they are. Other items, such as guitars, will not be obsolete since the technology isn't changing quickly, if at all. There will be new digital guitars with funky synth modes every year…

Paying too much for something works if you have no idea how to actually judge the quality of the item. I know computers and bikes, and will not pay too much for those thing, because I know the quality and I know the cost. I have no idea about cars, or houses, or shoes, so I have not way of judging the quality of these items.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#33

The russians have a saying for this: "I'm too poor to buy cheap". Really says everything about it.

My stepfather is a carpenter and the maxim he passed down to me is "buy cheap, buy twice". It applies particularly strongly to the tools of your trade, doubly so if those tools are physical things like saws and hammers.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#34
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

huh. my jeans usually fail through use; they don't usually languish. The thing is? I have some costco brand jeans I bought during the first dot-com that I still wear. they were under $15. Actually, at the same time I bought a bunch of designer jeans. The designer jeans all failed (at least one of them catastrophically... dramatically ripping the crotch wide open as I lifted a server in front of something of a crowd.)…

I have a friend who used to buy jeans from Costco. If he was ever with me when I was buying clothes, he would always be shocked at the money I was spending on jeans (I'm not talking designer, I mean £40 high-street jeans, that kind of thing). He would say that I could buy 2 or 3 pairs for the same price at Costco and there'd be no difference. I challenged him to buy a pair and now that's all he wears. They last longe…

eh, I think that most of what you are paying for is, well, paying more.

I mean, today, the kids are buying $400 jeans that are thick and tough (then they don't wash them, which sounds disgusting, but what do I know?) but, you know, at least they are probably durable. But during the first dot com? the expensive jeans were made of this super thin denim that was then pre-stressed at the factory;

So yeah, in '99? if you walked in to a store and bought the very cheapest jeans you could get, you'd get a medium weight denim that was reasonably durable. If you spent USD$50-$80 for the 'calvin klein' low end designer stuff? it was this ridiculously thin denim that had been bleached to hell.

But yeah, my point is that if you really do choose your product based on price positioning, rather than on the merits (and price) of the product? you are likely making suboptimal choices. Just because there is a more expensive version and a cheaper version available, that doesn't make the middle of the road choice the most reasonable.

A more recent example: I recently got a giant TV for the office for my montoring setup, and I lost the HDMI cable it came with.

I went to Frys, and the first HDMI cable I saw was the $150 "monster cable' version. So I look a little further, and I see a $15 cable by some middle of the road cable company. I look further, down on the bottom, and I see a $1.50 HDMI cable with no brand.

as far as I can tell, they were the same gold-plated HDMI cable. Of course, I bought the cheapest version and it worked just fine.

I mean, I always spend the extra money for ECC ram and for 'enterprise' or 'raid edition' drives in stuff that matters. Yeah, if I get more of what I want for the money, I'll pay more. But I have to see evidence that I'm getting more of what I want. I'm unwilling to pay extra for a label that says I paid extra.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#35
post #17

I definitely disagree. Maybe sometimes, paying twice as much gives you something that lasts ten times longer. Or maybe, you will pay five times as much, and get something that (hopefully) lasts a bit longer. I use a lot of earphones, and they tend to break quite fast. Once or twice, I decided to move away from the usual 15$ models and pay 60$ for better brands, with good reviews, and everything. Did they last longer…

Well, the $60 earphone actually comes with a 2 year warranty... whereas the $15 one does not.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#36
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend who used to buy jeans from Costco. If he was ever with me when I was buying clothes, he would always be shocked at the money I was spending on jeans (I'm not talking designer, I mean £40 high-street jeans, that kind of thing). He would say that I could buy 2 or 3 pairs for the same price at Costco and there'd be no difference. I challenged him to buy a pair and now that's all he wears. They last longe…

eh, I think that most of what you are paying for is, well, paying more. I mean, today, the kids are buying $400 jeans that are thick and tough (then they don't wash them, which sounds disgusting, but what do I know?) but, you know, at least they are probably durable. But during the first dot com? the expensive jeans were made of this super thin denim that was then pre-stressed at the factory; So yeah, in '99? if you…

Is it just me, or do jeans seem very cheap in America?

In Sweden, a pair of regular Levi's jeans might cost you 1000 SEK, which is about $136. The designer jeans might cost 1500+ SEK.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#37
post #14

I don't agree with most of this. The idea that price equals quality has long been used by merchants to extract money from consumers, not extend value. Sure it's true of some products and some companies, but overall I'd argue that at best, more expensive things aren't close to being relatively better - by any meaningful measure. A $300 meal isn't 10x better - in terms of taste (subjective obviously) or nutrition - as…

> The recent thread on memristors even highlighted that R&D costs are 1/100th of total cost, with marketing taking the lion's share.

I read that too, but what they meant was that development of an actual product costs Hewlett-Packard 10 times as much than the research of the underlying technology. And commercialization costs again 10 times more. "Commercialization" is a catch all term, of course marketing, but for the most part this means building factories, tooling and machinery. Ramping up production is difficult and binds tons of capital investment.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#38
post #14

I don't agree with most of this. The idea that price equals quality has long been used by merchants to extract money from consumers, not extend value. Sure it's true of some products and some companies, but overall I'd argue that at best, more expensive things aren't close to being relatively better - by any meaningful measure. A $300 meal isn't 10x better - in terms of taste (subjective obviously) or nutrition - as…

Pizza sells for $6.50 at my local store, but I'm sure pizza stores would still exist if they were priced at $10 instead, except there will be less stores.

As you go up in quality, it gets harder and harder to scale because..., how many celebrity chefs can you find in a city? You might find a dozen, but it would probably be very expensive to get enough chefs to staff shops in every suburb.

Prices are a function of demand AND supply. It simply isn't possible to supply enough celebrity chefs at $30 a meal. If there was such a shop it will have a long line stretching out around three blocks every night.

You won't get 10 times better meal by paying 10 times more; It just means the price equilibrium is 10 times higher. There's nothing to it, I don't think it is intentionally "used by merchants to extract money from consumers". They price their products at a point to maximise profit, and that's all there is to it.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#39
post #36
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eh, I think that most of what you are paying for is, well, paying more. I mean, today, the kids are buying $400 jeans that are thick and tough (then they don't wash them, which sounds disgusting, but what do I know?) but, you know, at least they are probably durable. But during the first dot com? the expensive jeans were made of this super thin denim that was then pre-stressed at the factory; So yeah, in '99? if you…

Is it just me, or do jeans seem very cheap in America? In Sweden, a pair of regular Levi's jeans might cost you 1000 SEK, which is about $136. The designer jeans might cost 1500+ SEK.

Levi's are what I'd call 'designer jeans' or maybe low end designer jeans. I mean, uh, I might be using that word incorrectly, but yeah, they are very expensive compared to off-brand jeans of similar quality. (I believe you can mostly evaluate the quality of jeans with your eyes and your hands.) I dono exactly how much I'd pay for them here, just, well, probably more than I'm willing to pay.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#40
Design determines manufacturing costs. Engineering determines durability. Marketing determines price. Coordinating all three is essential to delivering value. It's absurd to suggest that any one (or all) of them offer protection from obsolescence.
Post reply on HN