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

Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 566 posts

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#341

Post by snarf21 »

lolsal wrote: post #333
supernovae wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the value of "owning" something? I've owned VHS's, they're worthless I've owned houses - that I had to short sell I've owned DVD's - they're worthless I've owned Books - they're worthless What is the value of owning over just paying to enjoy access? I like spotify because i can sync music to my phone to play offline - but "owning" all this music is worthless... I had a HUGE cd collection growing up but they w…

> I've owned VHS's, they're worthless ... > I've owned DVD's - they're worthless > I've owned Books - they're worthless I honestly find this unbelievable and amazing. You have never rewatched a video, or re-read a book? You've never lent a movie or a book to a friend? You've never used a movie or a book to job your memory and spark a conversation with someone? There is value in all of those things to me, not to menti…

That's a fair point but I think they are saying that if they really wanted to re-read a book, they could just rent it again. The other side of the coin is how many of the books or movies that you own have you never rewatched? What happens if you DVD stops reading? I think neither are wrong, just different. It depends on your goals.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#342

Post by jancsika »

There's no mention of FLOSS philosophy. Those are philosophies that emphasize control of the software and data on those devices by the users of the devices.

Even a cursory understanding of licensing of Wikipedia content is an anti-dote to the loss of ownership the author describes. If you download the current state of Wikipedia that data is yours under a very liberal license. No one can call foul and remove it from your machine.

By ignoring these important concepts the author's piece makes it sound as if digitization itself is somehow making people forget the importance of ownership.

Anyone else find this odd and disappointing?

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#343

Post by wott »

macleginn wrote: post #323
lovich wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point, which I did not make clear, is that there aren't very many people traveling all over the world to begin with. Most people on the planet do not routinely visit other cities outside their home area and could easily be served by a single local company rather than needing a company with a network that spans the globe

Of course, but all over the world is not needed: a company with a presence in whatever country you go for holidays/work is enough, so an app with a nearly global presence will get all the travelers' money automatically. (For instance, I never use Uber in my home country, but at the moment I am in Romania, and the fact that I could call a cab at the airport in a new city with zero hassle is very sweet; I imagine that…

If there is one place in a country where finding a cab has always been straightforward, that's an airport. I mean, it is easier to find a cab by walking through the airport doors than avoid the cabs there :-) That's really the place where Uber & Co add zero value.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#344

Post by bad-joke »

pathseeker wrote: post #199
_bxg1 wrote: post #134

The article identifies some problems but totally misses their actual source. The problem isn't that we own less stuff, it's that the ownership is replaced by a dependency on a handful of corporations which we have no ability to influence or appeal to. The substitution of individual ownership for a communal one in which individuals retain a stake - a real community, or at a larger scale, a democracy - is not inherentl…

>The substitution of individual ownership for a communal one in which individuals retain a stake - a real community, or at a larger scale, a democracy - is not inherently bad. IMO it's still terrible if there is effectively only one product option. A democratic decision is just as bad as a shareholder one if it's choosing to favor a majority group over the minority (2 wolves and 1 sheep voting for dinner choices). >o…

> Labor != Value. I can go dig ditches in a yard for 10 years and not create any value.

Well that really depends on a) whether someone (including you) wants or needs ditches (farming irrigation? undertaker? dog hiding bone?) and b) the amount of time required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. If someone really wants a ton of ditches, and you can dig faster and deeper than anyone else, is your labor more valuable? As programmers we should hope so.

I don't mean to sidetrack the conversation but let's not make sweeping statements of fact without thinking about them!

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#345

Post by Kalium »

caust1c wrote: post #338
Kalium wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I view this as a distinct upgrade. Instead of being coerced into lots of interaction with people I may have nothing in common with except vague geographical proximity, I have the option of interacting with people who actually share my interests or concerns or hobbies. To me, this isn't isolated loners. It's the first real community I've ever known. The first one I've ever actually felt like I was a part o…

I used to think the same as you, but I realized that I was putting no effort into my local communities. Once I started to start putting more effort into the local community, I began to appreciate geographic proximity much more. That said, as all things, there's a balance. The Internet is a great tool for bringing people virtually close together and spreading ideas. Sharing those ideas is a great way to enhance your l…

Can we just agree that it's not evil that people get a choice now where they didn't before?

You're very right! Sharing ideas to enhance your local community can be incredibly valuable and rewarding! However, some people occasionally find that their local communities do not always uniformly and enthusiastically welcome the ideas they want to share. Some people, faced with such experiences and fears, might consider that analog and digital communities offer different tradeoffs.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#346

Post by ddingus »

dredmorbius wrote: post #254
qiqing wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor quibble, but Airbnb doesn't own the hosts' homes or apartments, and Uber doesn't own the drivers' cars. Renting is an accurate descriptor of Netflix or Kindle (and Google Play movies actually does have "rent" on the label of the button when you want to rent a movie). And I can see what you mean from the perspective of the guest or rider, but not from the perspective of the host or driver.

Content isn't king. Channel control is.

Yes.

Thought experiment:

There are two channels. One airs very compelling content (the king), but is low quality. The other has tepid content, but is excellent quality.

Which do you use?

Over time, I have asked this of a ton of people and have A/B tested it a few times in my home. Originally about legacy, broadcast media and choices I did not understand.

Compelling is the majority answer people give. And yes, that varies, but not so much as to make the discussion moot.

Yet, what we see is majority tepid, regardless of production and delivery quality. Secondly, peak quality is rare. Choice comes before that. Broadcast wants multiple streams more than fewer, better ones. Almost every time.

Channel control is king. Competition gets balanced to avoid mass tune outs.

Anyone doing all compelling, goid quality, few to no ADS will win big, costing others a lot.

Watch Netflix, Amazon, YouTube and the legacy media sorting all that out right now.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#347

Post by pathseeker »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #237
pathseeker wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The substitution of individual ownership for a communal one in which individuals retain a stake - a real community, or at a larger scale, a democracy - is not inherently bad. IMO it's still terrible if there is effectively only one product option. A democratic decision is just as bad as a shareholder one if it's choosing to favor a majority group over the minority (2 wolves and 1 sheep voting for dinner choices). >o…

Except that network is only valuable because it has people in it to do the labor.

Yes, that's how network effects work. The connectivity provides value. Telephone networks were also useless without the people to call.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

A bunch of people independently operating their cars to give rides with no common means to find them, schedule them, and pay them makes them almost completely useless. The network is the only thing making them useful to consumers.

It's like claiming Google is only valuable because it has websites to crawl.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#348

Post by wristmittens »

snarf21 wrote: post #341
lolsal wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've owned VHS's, they're worthless ... > I've owned DVD's - they're worthless > I've owned Books - they're worthless I honestly find this unbelievable and amazing. You have never rewatched a video, or re-read a book? You've never lent a movie or a book to a friend? You've never used a movie or a book to job your memory and spark a conversation with someone? There is value in all of those things to me, not to menti…

That's a fair point but I think they are saying that if they really wanted to re-read a book, they could just rent it again. The other side of the coin is how many of the books or movies that you own have you never rewatched? What happens if you DVD stops reading? I think neither are wrong, just different. It depends on your goals.

But the point of the original article is that "just rent it again" is entirely dependent on the renting authority deciding they still want to rent it to you. If Kindle decided (or was pressured) to censor a book for whatever reason, then it has enormous ability to dictate exactly what type of information you're able to consume.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#349

Post by gnicholas »

LeftTurnSignal wrote: post #317
gnicholas wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My reading-related startup is in the middle of conducting a poll on ebook usage. So far, the data is showing that most people still prefer reading on paper versus on screen, by a decent margin (only 14% prefer screen). However, people still read more ebooks than paper books, likely due to the convenience factor. This can be squared with the NPD data because library ebooks are included in our poll, not just purchased…

Doubt you would have this data but in case you do... I wonder what the numbers are for people who read books to completion on ebook or paper formats. Or how far into the different formats people choose to read. I know that most of the time when I read any ebooks, I end up never finishing the book. When it's paper, I usually finish the book. I think it's mainly because with a paper book it's harder to get distracted t…

I had the exact same thought. I might add this question in, or add it to a later survey (we're doing a bunch of surveys on paper versus screen for ebooks, news, PDFs, etc.).

I have the same behavior pattern you mentioned, though it's hard to know whether this is strictly a bad thing. If word-search-ability means I can get all the relevant stuff out of a book, then perhaps that's more efficient than reading the whole thing.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#350

Post by wott »

supernovae wrote: post #311
ryandrake wrote: post #241

I’m surprised at the criticism here and I think the critics are missing the author’s point. He’s not saying, “buy more stuff you don’t need” or even, “possess more stuff.” He’s saying, “you ought to own the stuff you possess.” Which I didn’t think was a controversial opinion but I guess I stand corrected. I might be an outlier. I make a deliberate effort to own instead of rent. My commute is enormous because I moved…

What is the value of "owning" something? I've owned VHS's, they're worthless I've owned houses - that I had to short sell I've owned DVD's - they're worthless I've owned Books - they're worthless What is the value of owning over just paying to enjoy access? I like spotify because i can sync music to my phone to play offline - but "owning" all this music is worthless... I had a HUGE cd collection growing up but they w…

> It seems we're substituting "ownership" with control.

But you do not control anything any more with those companies. They can revoke your accesses, they can ban you from using their services for any reason, they can change the terms of services, the offers, the rates, whenever they wish.

Unlike you, I would say you lost the control which came implicitly with ownership, and did not regain another form of control. At least not as much, far from that.

Post reply on HN