Owning nothing is now a luxury, thanks to a number of subscription startups • Hacker News Board

Re: Owning nothing is now a luxury, thanks to a number of subscription startups

#301

Post by pluma » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 9:18 AM UTC

drivingmenuts wrote: post #233

pluma wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I mean if you're unemployed, what's the use for furniture or a bed? And it's inconceivable that you might remain unemployed for any extended duration or not have savings (or sufficiently affluent relatives) to fall back on. Pardon the sarcasm but I sincerely doubt you know what you're talking about if your biggest worry was moving/storing/selling your furniture.

My biggest worry was trying to find a job followed by what do I do with all this stuff when I got evicted. By that point, I didn’t have savings left and no family to fall back on. I slept on an air mattress for the best part of a year in a borrowed room of a very kind (mostly) stranger. I got through it, but I do not want to ever be in a position again where I have to watch my stuff get given away because it’s old cr…

Then your mistake is just thinking you'll end up in a financially better position by renting. Companies do things because they are profitable.

Also, I don't see how "being unable to sell your stuff because it's crappy and old and having to give it away for free" is worse than "being unable to sell your stuff because it didn't belong to you in the first place and is taken away as soon as you lapse a payment". Except of course in the former case some other poor person might still get some use out of the old and crappy stuff and in the other case some company is taking the (relatively new) thing and likely just shredding it.

Re: Owning nothing is now a luxury, thanks to a number of subscription startups

#302

Post by Thorrez » Sat, Jun 15, 2019, 4:10 AM UTC

apatters wrote: post #300

Thorrez wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems strange. I don't know what their motivation for that is, given I assume it would lose them money, and it's contrary to digital rentals being so expensive. This article (admittedly from 2008) says studios hate Redbox. And that Redbox gets its DVDs from regular movie wholesalers (I assume where Walmart gets them too). https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/universal-studio...

First sale doctrine protects your right to rent out a copy that you own to one person at a time. Since movies are in high demand when they first come out and the demand tapers off quickly, this alone doesn't create a very appealing economic model for rentals. At $20 per DVD it's hard to make back your cost. So the studios have offered rental outlets deals in the past. I actually don't know the details of Redbox. The…

It makes sense that rental stores would get cheap copies if they're also doing profit sharing. But it's unclear to me who's getting a better deal there compared to the rental place just buying at normal price and keeping all profits.

Re: Owning nothing is now a luxury, thanks to a number of subscription startups

#303

Post by apatters » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 4:48 AM UTC

Thorrez wrote: post #302

apatters wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First sale doctrine protects your right to rent out a copy that you own to one person at a time. Since movies are in high demand when they first come out and the demand tapers off quickly, this alone doesn't create a very appealing economic model for rentals. At $20 per DVD it's hard to make back your cost. So the studios have offered rental outlets deals in the past. I actually don't know the details of Redbox. The…

It makes sense that rental stores would get cheap copies if they're also doing profit sharing. But it's unclear to me who's getting a better deal there compared to the rental place just buying at normal price and keeping all profits.

I just remember reading (or hearing) that it was a tough business because demand for new releases was very high, and then tapered off quickly. So a lot of DVDs would only get rented out 2-3 times and then would never be needed again, if you're paying $20 per DVD it's tough to come out ahead.

It's all ancient history at this point so my memory is fuzzy, but I think hobbyist stores actually had the better business model by that measure (they'd focus on a limited selection of classics that people would rent again and again). Then Blockbuster came along with these studio deals they were able to negotiate based on their volume, allowing them to offer practically unlimited copies of new releases. In conjunction with a decent selection of classics this enabled them to lure customers away from the hobbyists. A combination of pressure from the studios and the emergence of competitors with lower operating cost (Redbox, Netflix etc.) later crushed Blockbuster. And watching the studios raise their fees until Blockbuster collapsed surely contributed to Netflix's decision to produce a lot of original content. And now we're caught up to the present day.

Re: Owning nothing is now a luxury, thanks to a number of subscription startups

#304

Post by drivingmenuts » Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 8:47 PM UTC

pluma wrote: post #301

drivingmenuts wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My biggest worry was trying to find a job followed by what do I do with all this stuff when I got evicted. By that point, I didn’t have savings left and no family to fall back on. I slept on an air mattress for the best part of a year in a borrowed room of a very kind (mostly) stranger. I got through it, but I do not want to ever be in a position again where I have to watch my stuff get given away because it’s old cr…

Then your mistake is just thinking you'll end up in a financially better position by renting. Companies do things because they are profitable. Also, I don't see how "being unable to sell your stuff because it's crappy and old and having to give it away for free" is worse than "being unable to sell your stuff because it didn't belong to you in the first place and is taken away as soon as you lapse a payment". Except o…

Honestly, at the time I was concerned with surviving the next weeks, rather than worrying if some poor person could have used it. From where I sat, merely being poor would have been an improvement.

Renting means being potentially being able to ditch payments while you still have at least some money to survive on, if you can recognize that is a possibility.

I’m skittish now. The moment the paycheck stops, for some reason beyond my control, I’m dropping everything unnecessary to survival and paring down to being able to live in a closet, if necessary.