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

There's no such thing as a free watch (2017)

topic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: There's no such thing as a free watch (2017)

#71

Post by smiley325 »

redial wrote: post #59

This companies are no different than any other company in the history of business. The only thing I can think of is the fact that in this case you can easily track the supplier and find out the "original price" of the item in a way that is very hard to do for let's say a pair of Nike shoes, but that's about it. Walmart is also full of these watches and you can believe they don't sell them for $5. Or do you really thi…

I think the key difference is in how truthful the marketing stories are. Apple/microsoft sell you a hypothetical future, while these watch "brands" sell a made-up past. Neither are 100% facts but one is clearly less savory than the other.

Re: There's no such thing as a free watch (2017)

#72

Post by antongribok »

avip wrote: post #58
rmason wrote: post #46

Why is it that each generation needs to relearn that there is no free anything? In my grandfathers day it was a free lunch. Today a free watch and tomorrow a free light saber perhaps?

My grandfather used to say "it's too cheap, we can't afford it".

My father used to say: "We're not rich enough to buy cheap things."

Re: There's no such thing as a free watch (2017)

#73

Post by Spivak »

redial wrote: post #59

This companies are no different than any other company in the history of business. The only thing I can think of is the fact that in this case you can easily track the supplier and find out the "original price" of the item in a way that is very hard to do for let's say a pair of Nike shoes, but that's about it. Walmart is also full of these watches and you can believe they don't sell them for $5. Or do you really thi…

I think there's a difference between a company selling their goods at a profit and this not-quite-scam where a popup company not-quite-lies to their customers and dropships cheap products from somewhere else.

Re: There's no such thing as a free watch (2017)

#74

Post by claudiawerner »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #62
claudiawerner wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was what I was trying to say; capitalism isn't distinguished by the fact of contradictions, it is distinguished by a new set of contradictions.

A new set because, while class isn't new, the specifics of the class structure are? BTW: Why "contradiction"? It looks like Marx chose that word in order to make the fall of capitalism look inevitable - it has contradictions, so it must be self-inconsistent, so it must fall, right? But it looks to me that what Marx is describing is just the differences that occur in any society. In what way are they truly contradicti…

A new set because history has developed in such a way to generate new contradictions - but yes, the new class structure is at least partially a result of changes in technology (though some Marxists disagree with me on this).

Contradictions doesn't mean internally inconsistent in dialectical sense; Marxism is famous for its application of dialectical logic, in which opposites oppose each other while maintaining unity which must resolve itself, rather than a binary opposition (i.e we must have one or the other) or a binary inclusive-or (which has no potentiality for resolution).

The point of contradictions isn't to say that society will fall because of them (that would be a vulgar reading of the concept and a scientifically untenable one) but rather that any new society must in some way answer to the contradictions, or arise out of their development or increase in intensity. For instance, the contradiction between use-value and exchange-value is only heightened with capitalism, but the contradiction between capital and labour is obviously new with capitalism. By specifying contradictions, they can be thought of (philosophically speaking) and potentially overcome (practically speaking). One such contradiction which has been present in all societies thus far is between freedom and necessity, which Marx claimed would be resolved with the advent of Communism.

I can't speak for the impression Marx wanted to give about the downfall of capitalism from his word choice, but I can say that the dialectical mode of presentation was admitted by Engels to have been rather outmoded even by the time Capital I was published. Contradiction in the dialectical sense doesn't imply inconsistency, it implies the functioning unity of opposites. At best, Marx's use of contradiction implies the possibility to overcome, but I don't know about the necessity. Herbert Marcuse, a renown dialectician, didn't seem to think that the contradiction would be resolved, and Adorno didn't seem to think that the contradiction would resolve positively.

Either way, I'm not going on the defensive here, since Marx's commitment to the scientific method should be reflected in Marxism's ability to be self-critical. Few other "sciences" would be so happy to cast doubt on the logical axioms under which they operate.

Re: There's no such thing as a free watch (2017)

#75

Post by redial »

smiley325 wrote: post #71
redial wrote: post #59

This companies are no different than any other company in the history of business. The only thing I can think of is the fact that in this case you can easily track the supplier and find out the "original price" of the item in a way that is very hard to do for let's say a pair of Nike shoes, but that's about it. Walmart is also full of these watches and you can believe they don't sell them for $5. Or do you really thi…

I think the key difference is in how truthful the marketing stories are. Apple/microsoft sell you a hypothetical future, while these watch "brands" sell a made-up past. Neither are 100% facts but one is clearly less savory than the other.

> Apple/microsoft sell you a hypothetical future, while these watch "brands" sell a made-up past.

You must be in marketing as that made absolutely no sense.

Do you think Apple's usb-c charging cable, which is currently listed on their site[1] for $19.99 costs them anywhere close to that to source? and at the same time tries to sell you a hypothetical future? wow, they do have good marketing.

If anything these watch brands, and I don't know why you put it in quotes as if to take legitimacy away from them but whatever, have more things in common with Apple than with someone selling the same watches such as "Walmart", as they are both trying to decouple the object from the sale and make it about the experience.

They all make stuff up, and when they don't they hide the information so you don't find out. That is why Apple will never say the price they pay for the leather Macbook sleeve they are currently charging $199 for[2]. I suspect very few people will buy it if they advertise right next to the price the 12 dollars it is actually costing them.

To be clear, I am not against any of this, anyone can charge whatever they want. Apple is certainly doing very well charging the prices they do. I am just impressed that people, most of all here, where people that actually build and sell products, actually price and order components and actually manage a supply chain, hang act so surprised to the fact that markup exists and that marketing is used to justify it.

And I am not defending this crappy watches or this shady company; I wouldn't buy a needle from them. All I am saying is that they are not any more shady than 95% of the "brands" out there that are actually owned by a mega conglomerate and never disclose it anywhere when trying to sell purified water to hipster college students on their way to protests against capitalism or whatever.

[1] https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MUF72AM/A/usb-c-charge-ca...

[2] https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MRQU2ZM/A/leather-sleeve-...

Re: There's no such thing as a free watch (2017)

#76

Post by redial »

Spivak wrote: post #73
redial wrote: post #59

This companies are no different than any other company in the history of business. The only thing I can think of is the fact that in this case you can easily track the supplier and find out the "original price" of the item in a way that is very hard to do for let's say a pair of Nike shoes, but that's about it. Walmart is also full of these watches and you can believe they don't sell them for $5. Or do you really thi…

I think there's a difference between a company selling their goods at a profit and this not-quite-scam where a popup company not-quite-lies to their customers and dropships cheap products from somewhere else.

What do you think Apple does every time someone buys from their online store? They even give you a tracking number where you can follow the item in real time all the way from the FoxConn factory in CHINA directly to your door. It never even flys over Cupertino. I think you are gonna be very surprised when you find out how the commodities trade actually work.

Walmart sells the exact same watches. So does Amazon. Do you think they are a not-quite-scam too?

Keep in mind people are actually getting real watches. I don't know in what world that wouldn't make it a legitimate enterprise. And if you say it's because of their marketing, then you should really take a look at the copy on some car ads one day. Preferably Tesla.

Re: There's no such thing as a free watch (2017)

#77

Post by AnimalMuppet »

claudiawerner wrote: post #74
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A new set because, while class isn't new, the specifics of the class structure are? BTW: Why "contradiction"? It looks like Marx chose that word in order to make the fall of capitalism look inevitable - it has contradictions, so it must be self-inconsistent, so it must fall, right? But it looks to me that what Marx is describing is just the differences that occur in any society. In what way are they truly contradicti…

A new set because history has developed in such a way to generate new contradictions - but yes, the new class structure is at least partially a result of changes in technology (though some Marxists disagree with me on this). Contradictions doesn't mean internally inconsistent in dialectical sense; Marxism is famous for its application of dialectical logic, in which opposites oppose each other while maintaining unity…

Why is there a contradiction between use-value and exchange-value? Exchange-value is just other peoples' use-value (with some exceptions like money itself).

> ... I can say that the dialectical mode of presentation was admitted by Engels to have been rather outmoded even by the time Capital I was published.

Is there a Marxism that doesn't depend on the dialectic? Or just on the dialectical mode of presentation? It has always annoyed me that if you don't believe the dialectic, there seems to be no way to even talk to a Marxist. Am I mistaken?

More generally, it seems to me that Marxists would communicate much more effectively if they used technical words much less in the process of presenting their ideas, at least in non-academic settings. Most people don't want to have to learn a bunch of technical jargon in order to understand the ideas of some group - especially a group that they consider to be not only fringe, but almost certainly already refuted. Few people have enough time to willingly take on such a task.

Re: There's no such thing as a free watch (2017)

#79

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

redial wrote: post #59

This companies are no different than any other company in the history of business. The only thing I can think of is the fact that in this case you can easily track the supplier and find out the "original price" of the item in a way that is very hard to do for let's say a pair of Nike shoes, but that's about it. Walmart is also full of these watches and you can believe they don't sell them for $5. Or do you really thi…

Which is why I thought this point in the article was a great summation:

> Maybe this explains what’s so galling to people about the Folsom & Co. not-really-scam: It simply lays bare the categorical deception at the heart of all branding and retail. The different watch values are, in the strictest sense, speech acts: the watch is $29.99 because someone said it’s $29.99. It’s $29.99 because a certain person is wearing it on Instagram; it’s $29.99 because it’s photographed next to flannel and a Chemex. While “Bradley” of “Bradley’s men’s shop” may not be the most fleshed-out character, he – and the entire existence of Folsom & Co., Soficoastal, etc. – are examples of the now-household term, “brand storytelling.” And the internet makes it possible for anyone to tell any story, about anything, from anywhere.

It makes you realize that there really are tons of huge cases of products whose value is solely a result of marketing. My favorite current example is how YouTube influencers have completely upended the makeup industry, with each brand trying to convince you that this pallette of brown and red eyeshadow is imminently Superior to some other brown and red eyeshadow, when the input costs of all of them is literally under $1.

Re: There's no such thing as a free watch (2017)

#80

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

rmason wrote: post #46

Why is it that each generation needs to relearn that there is no free anything? In my grandfathers day it was a free lunch. Today a free watch and tomorrow a free light saber perhaps?

The article is really not very much about the concept of a "free lunch" as more of a concept of how these pseudo-watch brands are laying bare the absurdity inherent in all fashion and branding.
Post reply on HN