Life With the Dash Button: Good Design For Amazon, Bad For Everyone Else

vivaoporto writes: A scathing review published on Fast Company describes Amazon's Dash Button, the "Buy Now" button brought into the physical world as "the latest symptom of Amazon's slowly spreading disease", "an unabashed attempt to disconnect customers from the amount of money we're spending." The author's criticism centers on Amazon's lack of focus on customer experience, a core UI that doesn't make sense, limited and expensive product selection and a store UX "no longer designed for your convenient shopping", but rather "designed for their profitable selling."

Comments

That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

Minimum viable product, maximum revenue extraction.

Or did you think the evolution of subscriptions and microtransactions was to benefit you, the customer?

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Minimum viable product, maximum revenue extraction.

If you don't like the product, don't buy it or use it.

Or did you think the evolution of subscriptions and microtransactions was to benefit you, the customer?

Oddly enough, yes. Successful businesses are motivated by maximizing their profit. But they succeed at this only if people actually choose to buy their products because they benefit. The fact that the business is primarily motivated by its own profits is not a problem, because in a free market, the only way to increase those profits is when people choose to buy their products and actually hand them their money.

It's not zero-sum game, it's a positive sum game: both buyers and sellers benefit, each in their own way.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[deKernel]

Very well stated. I wish I could add more, but I can't.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

You say this like you believe it, so I'll ask you this:

If you "don't buy it or use it" but the practice influences other companies into using the same practices, does your puny market influence even matter?

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[ExekielS]

We have studies that show there is no market competition with fewer than 5 choices holding more than 70% of market share. Freedom and choices are a lot more limited than you are imagining, both theoretically and practically. Which is why consumer survey's showed that 85% of consumers preferred low gloss/matte screens but over 95% of screens made were high gloss, a problem that has existed for MUCH too long.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, this is religious nonsense based on the fantasy of the perfectly informed rational mind.

Human brains are machines, capable of being twisted and programmed. There is nothing more respectable in manipulating a person's mind than there is in kicking them in the shins to get them to do what you want.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[trout007]

That is a point so many people fail to grasp. In a voluntary exchange overall wealth is increased. People exchange something they want less for something they want more. A purchase is not an even exchange of wealth.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why consumer survey's showed that 85% of consumers preferred low gloss/matte screens but over 95% of screens made were high gloss, a problem that has existed for MUCH too long.

That's one of those problems that is difficult to fix. When you are in the store and compare the gloss screen to the matte screen, the glossy one has much more vibrant colors, so consumers naturally pick that one. It's only when they get to using it in real life that the glare starts to get to them. But at that point it's too late. They've already bought it, thus rewarding the company for producing the glossy screen. They have no way to provide feedback to the company to incentivise them to manufacture matte screens. The best the consumer can do is, IF they happen to figure out that the gloss is the source of their frustration and they would have been better with a matte screen, and IF they can manage to remember that fact several years later when they buy their next TV, then I suppose they can make the point then. But the truth is most people WON'T figure it out, and most of those who actually do WON'T remember it several years later when they next buy a new TV. So they'll walk back into the store, say "wow that one looks a lot better" and walk out with another glossy, and the glossy manufacturer has been rewarded again.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an example of a post that didn't need to be. This is another example.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[sglewis100]

Yes. If people reject it, those other companies will also withdraw.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

You free market people are so blinded by that ideal that you cannot imagine how a corporation could be manipulating and tricking the masses to fritter away their money. Are con artists acceptable to you? Some people may see microtransactions and subscriptions for what they are, but many don't. To say that the consumers only buy things they benefit from is completely wrong. It is in their psychology to not ascribe the same significance to many small payments vice fewer large ones.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

It turns out that none of these posts need to be. People can read news without posting anything at all, and without reading any posts, and everything moves along just fine.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you give an example of that happening?

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[0123456]

Can you give an example of that happening?

Music DRM, for an obvious example.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[0123456]

Yes! Yes! EVIL CORPORATIONS use the MAGIC 'FLUENCE to force people to BUY THEIR STUFF!

My cat told me, and he would know.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[CauseBy]

"they succeed at this only if people actually choose to buy their products because they benefit."

If this were true, then economies would work they way Econ profs claim they should. But they don't, therefore it isn't true.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[CauseBy]

There is a tiny nugget of truth in the original statement ('people pick products they prefer') and there is a tiny minority of examples of it working in practice ('DRM in music').

I generally focus on the huge majority of cases when it isn't true, but I don't disagree that sometimes, in rare cases, it does actually happen.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[trout007]

The use of force or threat of force means it is not voluntary.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[CauseBy]

I was once having this debate with a free-market-promoting friend, when I managed to actually win it.

1. I asked him if he liked food labeling, and he said yes, but that if people like labels then they could just demand them in the free market.
2. I said yes, but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?

Done. I won. He even admitted it and I think he slightly softened his rhetoric after that.

Markets do not respond to the demands of customers. They respond to the demands of producers, who have a more-than-zero-but-still-tiny connection to customers.

You can focus on the more-than-zero-but-still-tiny if you want to, and everybody concedes that is true, but it's almost completely overwhelmed by the rest of market forces.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Coren22]

My guess would be that most consumers don't even realize that it is not normal to have the reflections. They wouldn't even realize that a matte screen discourages reflections on the screen, thereby improving the picture in most lighting situations.

To most consumers, it is normal to watch movies in a darkened room without any other light sources.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think many people actually fail to grasp the basic tenets of 18th-century economics, it's just that it's so obviously a massive oversimplification that maybe people don't quite believe that it's generally true in practice. You do say "voluntary" exchange, but it's not clear how "voluntary" many real-world purchases are. An example is vendor lock-in, where an exchange that was optional in the beginning is structured through technological and legal barriers such that re-purchases are not viably optional. Such a vendor is then free to raise prices as he sees fit, and he is no longer selling "the product" he is selling an antidote to the pain of discontinuing use of the product, the price of which might be way more than "the product" is actually worth per se. Overall wealth is not thereby increased, instead the vendor is siphoning money from the host (sorry, customer) without providing greater value in return. (A capitalist would argue that "value" inheres in saving money on not restructuring around a different product, but that's just bullshit.)

Even in the sphere of everyday life, it's not at all clear how far purchases for food, lodging, medicine and so on are truly "voluntary" exchanges.

So the theory as you stated may be quite correct, and yet not apply at all to real-world economics outside of very carefully demarcated areas such as the purchase of luxury products.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

If this were true, then economies would work they way Econ profs claim they should. But they don't, therefore it isn't true.

Content = null.

(Because I said so, so I’m rather like you in that way.)

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[GLMDesigns]

Either your "opponent" doesn't understand free markets or you just created a "straw man" to prove your point. There is no magic in the free market just as there is no magic in evolution.Food labeling comes as people want it. It may take time. People may create food coops (populated by avowed socialists) but the food coops are part of the free market (not from a top-down government bureaucracy).

The time and energy put in to make food labeling laws could be done to push the concept of food labeling to consumers. Then these consumers will reward companies who label their foods.

By the way free-market capitalism /= caveat emptor. If you say that your product is made of x (and only x) you are liable for that. In a free-market society if you were found to have adulterated x (or substituted y) you would be successfully sued.

I'm certain you can find all sorts of opponents of capitalism who would say "that's not so." How about showing some intellectual curiosity and reading what proponents of the free-market actually say:

Here's a list to start your reading: Bastiat, Menger, von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[XxtraLarGe]

1. I asked him if he liked food labeling, and he said yes, but that if people like labels then they could just demand them in the free market.
2. I said yes, but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?

Done. I won. He even admitted it and I think he slightly softened his rhetoric after that.

Points to consider:
- Many businesses who produce gluten-free, vegetarian, non-gmo, Halal or Kosher foods, etc. voluntarily label their products as such because it IS in their interest.
- Other businesses might see labeling their food as a competitive advantage if everyone else stopped labeling theirs.
- People may buy some non-labeled foods in the short term, but in the long term would seek other alternatives, such as growing their own in a garden or buying from the local farmer's market.

You won your debate with your friend, but you did not win the debate. He gave up too easily.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Oligonicella]

If the practice doesn't influence all the other companies to use the same practice, what's the deal?

Figured I'd just use a hypothetical question since one appears to by your entire argument as well.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Opportunist]

This WOULD be true in a world where the demand side had the same amount of transparency as the supply side. Unfortunately that is not the case. The ideal of Capitalism falls short at this very problem: The information level on the supply side is usually vastly superior to that on the demand side. You also usually have a supply oligopoly and a demand polypoly (unless you're dealing with very, very specific situations in which, surprise, surprise, the whole situation changes completely).

The combination thereof allows the supply side not only to organize far better but also to alter the market to suit its needs.

Maximizing profits may be in the interest of a business, but even this is not without a limit. Henry Ford understood this. He increased his workers' wages with the, correct, assumption that if they get more money, not only will they be far more interested in keeping their job, they will also become his customers. Businesses need customers. Customers need money to buy products. Sadly, contemporary businesses hope that someone else is going to provide this. Since this doesn't happen, we're in the current recession we're in.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Oligonicella]

I said yes, but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer,...

So, you lied to him to win your argument. Labeling most certainly is in the interest of the producer because it's an interest of the consumer.

if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?

Another piece of bogosity. This is definitely *not* the only alternative available.

Your friend missed two fallacies in your #2 "gotcha" query.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the product, don't buy it or use it.

The problem with this argument is you come across as telling us that we have no right to complain.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[nephilimsd]

I think Mr. Gillette would disagree. http://www.maxtonmen.com/blogs... https://hbr.org/2010/09/gillet...

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Oligonicella]

The problem with the complainers is they act as if their complaints must be taken as fact, not opinion and hurt feelings.

Complain all you want, but if you generally receive that little finger wave brush-off, you might reevaluate the need for publicly airing your personal opinion as if the other party were an actual villain.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[DarkOx]

isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?

Your assertion is false and the market has already demonstrated this. Many producers consider it in their interest to label and to create labels customers understand. They do this to differentiate their product.

Hence you see all kinds of labels some that have fairly well established and specific meanings that you can go look up with an industry group like "organic", "gluten free", and "fat free" and others less so like 'GMO free" etc.

Some customers want labeling and will pay for that. Some manufacturers will go above and beyond legal labeling requirements because that way they can capture the customers that want that. Personally I don't look for most of those optional labels.

However if we did not have mandated food labeling, you bet I would be willing to pay a premium at the grocery store to those manufactures that are willing to disclose what is in the product. After all even if manufacturer A has to put contains upto %30 saw dust on their label and manufacturer B has no label I am going to either pass on the product category entirely or go with A because B absence of label leads me to conclude they probably have even more saw dust than A or they'd be making some effort to inform me that they don't.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Gr8Apes]

When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable, cost of entry was relatively fixed for all players and there were usually multiples, and there were significant hurdles to the international behemoths commonplace today. Today, cost of entry is high for anyone attempting to enter an existing market, the number of players is so small as to be laughable to be considered a choice, a key to free markets

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[ScentCone]

You say this like you believe it

No, he says it like it's true. Which it is.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it not in the best interest of the producer to label their food products?

Most regulation on the matter is actually about not letting them falsely label their products, and setting standards so they can't accurately but misleadingly label their products.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[CauseBy]

Yes, it's super nice that companies put pretty labels on their food. But your argument fails because, in fact, zero food was usefully labeled before the law made it happen.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[CauseBy]

The lawsuit canard is common, but it's made by people who are lying, because they (you) know that launching a lawsuit is difficult, and any offense smaller than the difficulty will be unaddressed. It is made by people who, therefore, want companies to be able to defraud consumers in small ways, but not large ways.

I am opposed to that, and those people; I don't want companies to defraud consumers even in small ways.

Yes, we could all sit around forever waiting for markets to maybe fix a problem, or we can just fix it, like we did with food labeling and a zillion other nice things.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[trout007]

Just because you regret a decision doesn't mean that at the time it wasn't voluntary. Lock in is not force. If you buy something that requires a certain expendable item to function you know you are dependent on it being available. I'd like to be able to buy parts for my 20 year old lawn mower but the manufacturer refuses to support it anymore.

Food, lodging, and medicine are certainly voluntary. You can. Jose to be homeless or live in the wilderness and live off the land. It just so happens that voluntary exchange has made us so wealthy nobody even thinks it's an option.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[CauseBy]

I'm unconvinced.

1. Yes. Some companies put some other labels on food. The kosher thing is a particularly good example of a rare circumstance where consumer pressure was effective. Yay for the Orthodox Jews! If that were the typical case then we wouldn't need other labeling laws.

2. Yes, they might, or they might not, but they didn't. There was zero reliable food labeling before we legislated it, therefore we don't need to wonder whether they might or might not, because we know the answer: NOT. Hence, we addressed the problem with legislation.

3. You seriously just said "if people don't like it, then they can just grow all of their own food". I consider that ridiculous along the lines of "if people want seat belts, they can just manufacture their own automobiles". You can disagree if you want, and think it's not ridiculous, but meanwhile I live in a world where seat belts and food labels exist despite enormous opposition from producers.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[CauseBy]

"Labeling most certainly is in the interest of the producer because it's an interest of the consumer."

This is nonsense, a rejection of reality. If it was in the interests of producers, then why weren't they already doing it before we forced them to by passing a law? Food producers fought labeling then just like they fight it now, it's poppycock to say it's in their interests because it's in the consumer's interests.

"This is definitely *not* the only alternative available. "

Here are the options.

1. Starve to death
2. Miraculously be the only person in history to personally grow all of the food they need to survive
3. Live in an alternate universe where food is labeled because markets respond to consumer interests
4. Don't know what's in the food you eat
5. Legislate labels

I prefer #3 but alas, it's not up to me what universe to live in, so I go with #5.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel-good truthy maxims and the bold tag don't make you correct

Cold hard data tells a different story. Unchecked profit motivation destroys choice, raises prices, and promotes a very one-sided benefit. It's a story as old as money itself.

Free markets are an imaginary construct that do not exist in real life. Economics is a zero sum game. (The laws of conservation of energy apply to money too. Money is just a proxy for energy)

Never trust anyone attempting to tell you otherwise. They're almost assuredly out to exploit you.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[mjm1231]

But they succeed at this only if people actually choose to buy their products because they benefit

Patently false. Many branded products sell by convincing the consumer that a benefit exists, when in fact no benefit exists at all.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[JohnFen]

it's just that it's so obviously a massive oversimplification that maybe people don't quite believe that it's generally true in practice.

This is 100% my stance. I engage in transactions every day that leave me poorer in one way or another and that I would prefer not to engage in, but have no real choice about.

Case in point: my broadband. I have a choice of exactly one provider, who is drastically overpriced and I despise. Buying broadband from them is not a statement that I think they're doing a good job or that I approve. It's a statement that I would suffer an even greater loss by going without broadband entirely.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[JohnFen]

live in the wilderness and live off the land. It just so happens that voluntary exchange has made us so wealthy nobody even thinks it's an option.

That's not actually an option. At least, not legally.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[trout007]

"It's a statement that I would suffer an even greater loss by going without broadband entirely."

So you are better off making this voluntary exchange exactly like I said. The fact you only have one provider is not a function of the market but political.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[XxtraLarGe]

I'm unconvinced. You addressed partial instances while ignoring all the others. What's reliable food labeling? Are you sure what we have now is reliable, even with the government continuously changing it's food guidelines? You can say that it's based on science, but the science is always at odds with itself. There was an article on /. not too long ago about what a miserable failure food science has been.

What's ridiculous is comparing growing food to manufacturing automobiles, and you totally ignored the part about farmer's markets. Many people can & do grow their own food, others have community gardens, and farmer's markets are available in almost every town & city in the country. So are natural/organic stores.

And your seat belt argument isn't even close to correct. Seat belts were in place in automobiles well before seat belt laws were created. You may be thinking of laws making the wearing of seat belts compulsory, but the belts were in place by the manufacturers well before any laws came into effect.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[fldsofglry]

Just to piggy back on the point of the AC above in that the praxis often doesn't follow the theory. A good example is "selling" labor. Yes, I "voluntarily" sell my labor, but resources, politics, and capital are set up in such a way that the "seller" of the labor, i.e. the employee, often gains less value, or wealth, than the person buying the labor, i.e. the employer. Sometimes it can get so bad that the wage isn't enough for people to actually live.
Of course, this is all voluntary.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Rakarra]

but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer,

In addition to the other rebuttals, labeling is in the interests of the producer because it gives the consumer confidence that the product is what it says it is.

It lets people who need to avoid certain ingredients (like wheat or salt or excess sugar) or who just want to watch their calories buy your product. Without that labeling, most of them would probably avoid the purchase altogether. Food labeling is one of those rare situations where everyone's benefited, producers and consumers.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[GLMDesigns]

It's not a canard. No promoter of free market is in favor of caveat emptor. There are ways of dealing with the issue aside from sclerotic regulatory methods (which also requires law suits). Each method has it's problems.

If an advertiser says that 4 out of 5 dentists prefer X. The advertiser needs to point to a study that shows that 80% of dentists prefer X.

There are different mechanisms to solve the problem but it seems you want to stay with a failed system because it's tried and true.

If we had state run grocery stores in which you could only go to the one in your neighborhood you would think I was crazy for coming with the idea that people should open their own grocery stores - and that there might be a whole range of stores from small corner bodegas to larger stores (Whole Foods, A&P) to Costcos.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[trout007]

Only because the state claims the monopoly ownership of unused land. Again not a function of the market.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[trout007]

All employers pay less than what the employee produces otherwise you would be out of business. What the employee gets is an assurance they are getting paid at the end of the pay period regardless of sales, they get all of the capital (building, equipment, etc). The owners carry the majority of the risk since it's their capital at stake.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

The entrenchment of mp3 did a lot more than conscious choice by costumers. If the industry had managed to push a common DRM standard to the overwhelming majority of devices DRM would have prevailed. Music DRM is an anomaly as you are well aware, you cherry picked it because just "DRM" would be arguing for the opposite.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

It's somewhat difficult to get by without buying anything from consumer-oriented businesses so basically you said jack all and got 5 points.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

Why even bother to bring up producers volunteering information that benefits them in an argument on transparency. It's the information withheld by the simplistic topical labels you mention that is relevant here.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[david_thornley]

Explicit threats aren't always necessary. Plenty of people have to put up with whatever their employers demand because they don't dare lose their jobs. A hundred hours of work for forty hours of pay doesn't help anybody.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[david_thornley]

The fact that he has only one provider is a function of a natural monopoly, and would exist in the absence of government regulation. Except for the rabid attacks on municipal broadband, there are no political barriers to competition. Government-granted monopolies on cable or telephone service do not prevent anybody from moving in with other forms of broadband.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[david_thornley]

Who's going to sue the advertiser if the advertiser doesn't provide the study? It's a big deal for an individual to sue, with very little upside. Having some sort of collective entity to sue is the only way to enforce such principles.

You seem to want to go with a failed system just because you're young and aren't interested in history. Just because an ideologically attractive idea didn't work before you were born doesn't mean it's going to work now.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[trout007]

No. People chose to put up with what their employer asks.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[GLMDesigns]

The advertiser would not be the responsible party any more than the ux guy, the graphics people, front-end, back-end coders, dbas, and network people who were involved in putting up the website.

It's the management that cleared the copy who is responsible.

First lie. (not saying you - but in general) Free market capitalism == caveat empto. Second lie. There is no free market solution to thieves. A thief is not only a person who puts a knife to your throat but someone who claims this product is x when it really is y.

How would this work? There would be companies (and organizations) whose sole purpose, and main source of revenue would be in checking that a claim is truly a claim. If you are interested there are tons of articles and white papers dealing with this.

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist but if there's one thing that community does well is explore this particular issue.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The ideal of Capitalism falls short at this very problem: The information level on the supply side is usually vastly superior to that on the demand side.

Irrelevant. Free markets don't assume perfect information or symmetry; they function perfectly fine without it. Any information deficit by any party is priced into transactions.

Maximizing profits may be in the interest of a business, but even this is not without a limit. Henry Ford understood this. He increased his workers' wages with the, correct, assumption that if they get more money, not only will they be far more interested in keeping their job, they will also become his customers.

In different words, Ford didn't act out of altruism when he raised his workers' salaries, he maximized his profits.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

If this were true, then economies would work they way Econ profs claim they should.

There are lots of "Econ profs" with wildly different ideas about how the economy works, so I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Today, cost of entry is high for anyone attempting to enter an existing market,

The cost of entry into most markets is high not because of capitalism or free markets, it is high because of government interference and regulation.

When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable

Nonsense. Read Adam Smith. Not only were there plenty of monopolies and barriers to entry, he recognized that the source of those monopolies and barriers to entry was government. He argued for free markets and against government interference precisely because he wanted to end the vast monopolies and barriers to entry that existed.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Opportunist]

Altruism was certainly not the motivator for Ford. He knew he needed a demand for his goods, and that demand needed money to back it up. Something that's sorely missing in today's business world.

And the sad fact is that free markets do not work perfectly fine. If left unchecked what we'd end up with would be products that can barely fulfill the desired function with contracts that shift any and all risk to the consumer side, abusing the lack of information on this end. In the end, after enough people died, we would probably end up with a rather luddite society that shuns everything new because, well, look how much good it did to uncle Fred.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Patently false. Many branded products sell by convincing the consumer that a benefit exists, when in fact no benefit exists at all.

I didn't use the term "benefit", I was simply echoing it in the context of "subscriptions and microtransactions"; those succeed only if people "benefit" from them, in the sense that they find it more convenient.

The point is that businesses don't "extract" revenue from buyers as if buyers were passive bystanders. In most markets, buyers, not businesses, are in charge, and the buyers ultimately determine what products businesses offer and create.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Your views are bizarrely out of touch with reality. In fact, it was businesses and corporations that widely adopted new technologies because they made production more efficient and made companies more competitive in the free market. It was the Luddites who demonstrated against that operation of the free market.

Likewise, most risk-shifting is done courtesy of government, government that bails out businesses and limits their liabilities.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Gr8Apes]

The cost of entry into most markets is high not because of capitalism or free markets, it is high because of government interference and regulation.

I would disagree. Take a look at building a chip foundry, automotive assembly line, textile mill, or pretty much any manufacturing process.

When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable

Nonsense. Read Adam Smith. Not only were there plenty of monopolies and barriers to entry, he recognized that the source of those monopolies and barriers to entry was government. He argued for free markets and against government interference precisely because he wanted to end the vast monopolies and barriers to entry that existed.

Again, I disagree. Smith was a philosopher and economist. A brief skim indicate his papers were theories on the economy, and his impressions of how things worked. Show me what "vast monopolies" and "barriers to entry" that existed prior to 1790 in the US, when he died.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cat is right. It is you who is an idiot.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I would disagree. Take a look at building a chip foundry, automotive assembly line, textile mill, or pretty much any manufacturing process.

You said that the "cost of entry was relatively fixed for all players", which presumably meant that you believed cost of entry was equitable for all market participants, and implicitly because you believe that there were no monopolies hindering that entrance. Historically, that is ludicrous.

When I say that "the cost of entry is high because of government regulation", in that context, what I mean is that the cost of entry is high relative to the intrinsic cost of entry into a market, or the cost of entry in a free market. It was so back in Smith's time, and it is so today, and for the same reason: government-created barriers to entry.

theories on the economy, and his impressions of how things worked. Show me what "vast monopolies" and "barriers to entry" that existed prior to 1790 in the US, when he died.

Well, the prototypical example is the East India Company, controlling half the entire world's trade. And the guilds at the time created big barriers to entry. There are many more examples. You really need to actually read the books and read and understand something about history.

The same mechanisms flourish just as much today as they did then, and Adam Smith's criticism is as valid now as it was then: the requirement for government and occupational licenses, exempting or limiting businesses from liability, taxation of imports, subsidies of exports, monopolization of resources through government grants.

Again, I disagree. Smith was a philosopher and economist. A brief skim indicate his papers were

You can't understand his "papers" from a brief skim. In fact, understanding economics is harder than understanding relativity or quantum mechanics, since understanding economics requires a lot of knowledge of history, businesses, and human behavior.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

>But they succeed at this only if people actually choose to buy their products because they benefit.

Many of these simplistic assumptions in classical economics are known to false. Dan Ariely, Steven Levitt, and the entire field of behavioral psychology, have decades or research showing exactly the opposite. Consumers (and very often, businesses as well) make choices that go directly against their own self-interest. The invisible hand in economics is really more of an imaginary hand at this point.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Gr8Apes]

Who isn't aware of the East India Company? That still didn't stop someone from making chairs, saddles, bridles, wheels, carts, tools, clothes, etc, right here in the US, or the colonies as it were at the time. Recall what the topic is - it was the existence of monopolies and barrier to entry in the 1776-1790 time period, in the US. I hold that there was very very little of either at that time for the US. The East India Company was irrelevant to the US at the time, as Britain was in some state of war until the end of 1814. Your statements hold for Europe, but that's not the context in question. Europe's been in a bad state for a far longer period, and was the basis for Smith's criticisms. This was about a form of capitalism that had never been tried before, based on assumptions of a free market which as you correctly point out was highly hampered in Europe.

Economics is still pseudo science at best precisely because (irrational) human behavior is a major component. You can only model it probabilistically. Otherwise we'd have a proven theory, and the current state of disagreement over economic policy and which theory to follow is enough proof of the state of economics today. It's a guess, at best, much like which way the stock market is going to go today. You can't know because you can't know what future events may affect it, unless you have some sort of time lens handy.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[ExekielS]

Studies consistently show no measurable competition when fewer than 5 companies hold more than a combined 70% of market share, there simply isn't enough competitive force to push supply and demand to regulate prices. What you are talking about is nothing more than an extreme fringe.

And our modern economic models that take into consideration imperfect competition, game theory, complex systems theory do profoundly well at predicting what will happen even along several year time spans. You are objectively wrong.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[david_thornley]

Okay, who sues the management? Bear in mind that filing a lawsuit, even in small claims court, would cost me more than any reasonable damages on low-level fraud, so it would have to be a collective organization, which you seem to agree with. Our big difference here is that I think the government exists and can do the enforcement, while you seem to think appropriate organizations would spring up to do this, and that somehow this (plus the load on the courts) would be better than having the government do it.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[david_thornley]

Nice theory you have there. In practice, lots of people need their job, and often have responsibilities towards children and others. They have effectively no choice other than to put up with what the employer demands. What's the difference between the threat of firing, under these conditions, or the threat of getting beaten?

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Who isn't aware of the East India Company? That still didn't stop someone from making chairs, saddles, bridles, wheels, carts, tools, clothes, etc, right here in the US, or the colonies as it were at the time.

You were implying that Adam Smith's writings aren't relevant to today because he didn't see "vast monopolies" and "barriers to entry". I disproved that point: the monopolies of his day, and the barriers to entry, were higher. And, in fact, at the time, people could not simply make "chairs, saddles, bridles, wheels, carts, tools, clothes" either because there were strong barriers to entry.

I hold that there was very very little of either at that time for the US.

And you would be right. How is that relevant to Adam Smith's understanding of economic issues? Adam Smith was Scottish, not American.

Economics is still pseudo science at best precisely because (irrational) human behavior is a major component. You can only model it probabilistically.

So, according to those criteria, quantum mechanics, psychology, neuroscience, and much of modern engineering is also pseudo-science?

Otherwise we'd have a proven theory, and the current state of disagreement over economic policy and which theory to follow is enough proof of the state of economics today.

There is actually much less disagreement about economics than you think. And the fact that people like you find it utterly confusing is no more a sign of a failure of economics than people seeing faces and pyramids on Mars is a sign of a failure of astronomy.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Gr8Apes]

You were implying that Adam Smith's writings aren't relevant to today

I don't believe I made that implication at all. Relevant to late 1700s US? Not very much.

So, according to those criteria, quantum mechanics, psychology, neuroscience, and much of modern engineering is also pseudo-science?

psychology - yes. Neuroscience is still arguably in its infancy, and much of modern engineering is applied science. Quantum Mechanics is the one case I'd considered addressing previously, as it is the one obvious hard scientific field that we're still massively struggling to come to grips with.

There is actually much less disagreement about economics than you think. And the fact that people like you find it utterly confusing is no more a sign of a failure of economics than people seeing faces and pyramids on Mars is a sign of a failure of astronomy.

Who says its confusing? It's a fact you cannot predict the future, which most practitioners assert they can. IMNSHO, the best you can do is attempt to see trends, and much like the stock market, you'll be just as accurate. Where is the huge trickle-down economic enrichment? We've seen just the opposite. Where is the communistic ideal? Every communistic society is failing or has failed. Economics apparently has failed to provide the path to global enrichment everyone says they want. Or, looked at another way, everyone has gambled to be the top 1% in those scenarios at the cost of the rest. I'd just make the simple statement that the economic models and theories are universally flawed, as none have proven accurate in real life. Given the scope of the model necessary, I'd say that it will likely be beyond our capacity to model accurately until we no longer need to model it. And I'd still say there's significant disagreement within the field of economics, and that the laissez faire viewpoint would initially enrich a small segment of business owners at the cost of everyone else except the lowest classes in the world (an admittedly huge percentage) as wage and price equilibrium is reached. But this would only happen in a perfect world where every country has the same policy. The current free trade policies are a similar process, draining jobs and money out of the US, and it will continue for the foreseeable future. If congress had balls, they'd slap a general tax on all transactions, including at the border, to make up for the lost revenue but that's yet another conversation.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I don't believe I made that implication at all.

Apparently, you just don't know what you are saying:

When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable

Nonsense. Read Adam Smith.

Again, I disagree. Smith was a philosopher and economist. A brief skim indicate his papers were theories on the economy, and his impressions of how things worked. Show me what "vast monopolies" and "barriers to entry" that existed prior to 1790 in the US, when he died.

Who says its confusing? It's a fact you cannot predict the future, which most practitioners assert they can.

Most economists are not trying to "predict the future". They are more like physicians, in that they tell you what is likely to produce better outcomes and what is likely to produce worse outcomes. Mainstream economics is pretty clear that free trade and free markets generally provide better outcomes for everybody.

Economics apparently has failed to provide the path to global enrichment everyone says they want.

Are you blind? The world is enormously wealthy by historical standards, and it is largely due to the defeat of central planning and the adoption of free market economics and free trade.

The current free trade policies are a similar process, draining jobs and money out of the US, and it will continue for the foreseeable future. If congress had balls, they'd slap a general tax on all transactions, including at the border, to make up for the lost revenue but that's yet another conversation.

Your degree of economic illiteracy is stunning.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Gr8Apes]

I don't believe I made that implication at all.

Apparently, you just don't know what you are saying:

When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable

Nonsense. Read Adam Smith.

Again, I disagree. Smith was a philosopher and economist. A brief skim indicate his papers were theories on the economy, and his impressions of how things worked. Show me what "vast monopolies" and "barriers to entry" that existed prior to 1790 in the US, when he died.

Note that my statements are regarding the latter half of the 1700s.My statements had nothing to do with the question of Smith's relevance today. Previous to 1800, the only monopolies were state sponsored, supported, and sometimes enforced monopolies. IMNSHO, those types of monopolies don't apply. The first free market capitalism based monopolies formed in the mid 1800s. So we've had a pretty small window to study free markets and monopolies, but we've already concluded that unbridled free markets are bad, hence the Sherman Anti-trust Act, among others. Guilds, mentioned previously, really weren't monopolies but more a constriction on the passing and ownership of knowledge. The patent section of the Constitution targeted them in an effort to spur the sciences and benefit the country.

Who says its confusing? It's a fact you cannot predict the future, which most practitioners assert they can.

Most economists are not trying to "predict the future". They are more like physicians, in that they tell you what is likely to produce better outcomes and what is likely to produce worse outcomes. Mainstream economics is pretty clear that free trade and free markets generally provide better outcomes for everybody.

Economics apparently has failed to provide the path to global enrichment everyone says they want.

Are you blind? The world is enormously wealthy by historical standards, and it is largely due to the defeat of central planning and the adoption of free market economics and free trade.

More than 50% of the world's population lives of less than an equivalent $3 US a day. That's not wealthy by anyone's standards. There is a small percentage of the world's population that is wealthy. Unfortunately I don't have the time to dissect that into historical numbers and correlate, but that sure does not seem to be a "wealthy" number. And yes, the "wealth" of the world has increased. "Wealth" is a subjective measure, it can be created, destroyed, and altered just by comparison.

The current free trade policies are a similar process, draining jobs and money out of the US, and it will continue for the foreseeable future. If congress had balls, they'd slap a general tax on all transactions, including at the border, to make up for the lost revenue but that's yet another conversation.

Your degree of economic illiteracy is stunning.

A bald assertion. Surely you can do better to prove your superior grasp of economic literacy? The short story is the US middle class is shrinking, and has been for decades, pretty much in line with the free trade treaty adoptions. We have a net outflow of wealth from this country (view imports vs exports). However, we appear to be creating more wealth, so the net effect may not bleed us dry as it stands today. Wealth is not a fixed value.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Note that my statements are regarding the latter half of the 1700s.

Yes, the statement "When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable" refers to that period and it is completely and utterly false.

Previous to 1800, the only monopolies were state sponsored, supported, and sometimes enforced monopolies

And that is still the case today. You postulate the existence of mythical stable "free market capitalism based monopolies", but those simply don't exist. Free markets sometimes produce short term unstable monopolies (lasting a few years, maybe a decade), but that's it. There may or may not be a few "natural monopolies" (economists still debate that). Large, stable monopolies are the result of, and require, government action. Adam Smith already talks about this at length.

More than 50% of the world's population lives of less than an equivalent $3 US a day. That's not wealthy by anyone's standards.

Well, no, that's not true. Median family incomes is about $9300, and median per capita income is about $2900, worldwide, nearly three times what you claim. That's nominally nearly three times what you claim, and even more in terms of PPP.

In any case, whatever it is, it is a whole lot wealthier than people used to be.

"Wealth" is a subjective measure, it can be created, destroyed, and altered just by comparison.

You're playing meaningless semantic games. If you don't understand what the word "wealthier" means in this context, then we can simply put it this way: the world is much better off today than it used to be, across countries and income groups. There is less hunger, less violence, less homelessness, greater literacy, higher life expectancy, etc.

A bald assertion

No, not a "bald assertion". The idea that free trade "drains jobs and money" flies in the face of both established economic theory and long term data. The economic theory isn't even hard to understand: if you erect trade barriers, goods get more expensive so the money people have available is worth less. And, in fact, the cost that the trade barrier imposes on Americans is always higher (often a lot higher) than any increased demand in the US. In addition, politically, if the US erects trade barriers against imports, other nations will erect trade barriers against US imports in retaliation, and our export trade will also suffer. Historically, trade barriers have caused everything from recessions and depressions to outright war.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[GLMDesigns]

Edit my comment above (There are free market solutions to thieves.)

Re your point. It's simpler than you think although it will take a different take on the problem.

1. There would be companies who do this for a living.
2. Rewards would be based on sales made.


There are many, many papers and briefs (written by attorneys) on this issue. Please see the Cato Institute, von Mises and Heritage.

In general free market people are against lawsuits that circumvent individual responsibility (such as you have to make a high fence around your pool in case a trespasser falls in) but are for lawsuits when you (a corporate entity) makes false claims.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Gr8Apes]

Previous to 1800, the only monopolies were state sponsored, supported, and sometimes enforced monopolies

And that is still the case today. You postulate the existence of mythical stable "free market capitalism based monopolies", but those simply don't exist. ... Large, stable monopolies are the result of, and require, government action.

While I may not have stated it clearly, I don't consider state sponsored monopolies as a valid point. They're propped up by other than economic forces.

Regarding pure free market monopolies: Standard Oil, Microsoft (virtual monopoly), Intel (virtual monopoly), The current ISP situation in the US, which occurred via local government deals, so that one is arguable. For business networks, it's Cisco to a smaller extent (80% or so from the last time I looked). If you step back 1 level where the choice is extremely limited by cabals, there's plenty there. If the government would let them merge, they would be monopolies.

More than 50% of the world's population lives of less than an equivalent $3 US a day. That's not wealthy by anyone's standards.

Well, no, that's not true. Median family incomes is about $9300, and median per capita income is about $2900, worldwide, nearly three times what you claim.

That is self reported, by people with jobs. Is it accurate? Not that the World Bank and others recently changed the poverty measure, reducing the group considered to be in poverty. And there's a considerable number of people without jobs.

"Wealth" is a subjective measure, it can be created, destroyed, and altered just by comparison.

You're playing meaningless semantic games. If you don't understand what the word "wealthier" means in this context, then we can simply put it this way: the world is much better off today than it used to be, across countries and income groups. There is less hunger, less violence, less homelessness, greater literacy, higher life expectancy, etc.

I think the people in Syria for one, might disagree.

A bald assertion

No, not a "bald assertion". The idea that free trade "drains jobs and money" flies in the face of both established economic theory and long term data. The economic theory isn't even hard to understand: if you erect trade barriers, goods get more expensive so the money people have available is worth less. And, in fact, the cost that the trade barrier imposes on Americans is always higher (often a lot higher) than any increased demand in the US. In addition, politically, if the US erects trade barriers against imports, other nations will erect trade barriers against US imports in retaliation, and our export trade will also suffer. Historically, trade barriers have caused everything from recessions and depressions to outright war.

It's still a bald assertion. There have been many documented cases of jobs leaving the country post free trade agreements. So until you provide some facts, you're still making an unsupported assertion that sounds more like a policy plan than anything based in reality. Thanks to numerous studies and facts, I can conclude that free trade has moved jobs out of the country, lowered wages, and has had a relatively pronounced and severe negative impact on our trade imbalances as wealth flows out of the country.

There is also a difference between a trade barrier and shifting costs. If you can't understand that, perhaps tha

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I don't consider state sponsored monopolies as a valid point. They're propped up by other than economic forces.

Those are the only stable monopolies that exist, because economic forces by themselves don't support stable monopolies.

Regarding pure free market monopolies: Standard Oil, Microsoft (virtual monopoly), Intel (virtual monopoly),

Microsoft and Intel never were dominant OS or CPU suppliers, they just supplied much of the desktop equipment. Even there, they were merely dominant, with alternatives always available. And even that dominance pretty much ended on its own after about a decade. Standard Oil is pretty much the same. None of the examples you give are examples of actual, stable monopolies; they are mostly examples of companies that achieved temporary success in a rapidly expanding market before competitors have had the time to move in. And the myth that they were monopolies was mostly created by competitors, or a small percentage of coddled wealthy folks who dislike not having choices in everything from luxury transportation to caviar.

That is self reported, by people with jobs. [...] I think the people in Syria for one, might disagree.

So, you are seriously taking the position that the world is economically worse off than it was 100 years ago? That free markets and free trade have made life worse for the vast majority of people on this planet? That's the economic equivalent of believing in the flat earth.

Thanks to numerous studies and facts, I can conclude that free trade has moved jobs out of the country, lowered wages,

It has done that when you look at specific job categories. But that is what free trade is supposed to do. That doesn't mean it's bad for people or the economy.

and has had a relatively pronounced and severe negative impact on our trade imbalances as wealth flows out of the country.

Actually, our trade imbalances mean that wealth flows into the country, because "wealth" isn't "money", it's an abundance of resources and material possessions. You keep confusing "wealth" and "money".

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Gr8Apes]

Those are the only stable [state sponsored] monopolies that exist, because economic forces by themselves don't support stable monopolies.

I would hold those are no more or less stable than anything else. Once the state removes support, they're gone.

Microsoft and Intel never were dominant OS or CPU suppliers, they just supplied much of the desktop equipment. Even there, they were merely dominant, with alternatives always available. And even that dominance pretty much ended on its own after about a decade.

Are you serious? (My turn)

Microsoft was the de facto desktop operating system from at least 97 through about 2010. Yes, you could buy a mac in there which almost no one did, or if you had particular masochistic streak load one of 50K different Linux distros, which even fewer did. I'd call that a monopoly, as there were no other real choices if you wanted to interact with the world at large. That's almost 15 years of exclusivity, and even today, most would say MS has a lock on the desktop, other than macs. What has changed is their stranglehold on Office documents, which now need to be viewable on several other platforms, as mobile has upturned that lock in. So we're talking 2 decades, and the only real competitor at this point is Apple on the desktop. Linux, however, is always poised to make serious inroads, if it could ever gain enough traction. Maybe Win10 will provide it.

Meanwhile in desktop PCs Intel with their relatively poor x86 architecture has pretty much killed AMD (only kept alive by their graphics cards at this point, IMHO) and has killed off a whole host of others CPUs: MIPS, Alpha, PowerPC, Sparc (barely kicking) and a lot of others. This even goes to servers with IBM now selling Intel mainframes.

Standard Oil is pretty much the same.

Standard Oil was broken up by the government and yet it's various left over parts were all controlled by John D Rockefeller for the rest of his days until his heirs sold off pieces, slowly, over many decades.

None of the examples you give are examples of actual, stable monopolies; they are mostly examples of companies that achieved temporary success in a rapidly expanding market before competitors have had the time to move in.

20 years and still going isn't stable? Name a viable competitor to Intel and Microsoft on the desktop. Standard Oil had viable competitors for roughly 100 years? In the mobile device arena, the marketplace is still roiling, but Apple and Samsung appear to be the 2 that will emerge with the lions share of the market, with Samsung struggling to make a profit.

That is self reported, by people with jobs. [...] I think the people in Syria for one, might disagree.

So, you are seriously taking the position that the world is economically worse off than it was 100 years ago? That free markets and free trade have made life worse for the vast majority of people on this planet? That's the economic equivalent of believing in the flat earth.

I'd say the Industrial and Technological Revolutions have made huge indisputable improvements in life quality. Trade has certainly bettered things and allowed for faster improvements. Free trade? Make your case. It has certainly siphoned jobs out of the US, which it is now admitted it was designed to do. Saying but but but, those are low-wage jobs doesn't help those displaced. Saying they can train for higher quality jobs doesn't make more of those appear. Note that the net employment (percentage of employable people) in the US actually working is at it's lowest level since 1984. You'll note that as we were coming out of the 1987-1994 recession, jobs were returning back to their previous growth path and level. Then, miraculously, as we're growing GDP, we have numerous dips as the employment hits a peak several times bef

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Microsoft was the de facto desktop operating system from at least 97 through about 2010.

Yes. And notice how it is not anymore? It took care of itself.

Yes, you could buy a mac in there which almost no one did, or if you had particular masochistic streak

In different words, throughout that entire time, Windows was merely dominant, but it wasn't even a monopoly.

Standard Oil was broken up by the government

Standard Oil was a supplier of fuel for a few pampered rich people who could afford a car back then, and even there, it wasn't a monopoly, it merely had a large market share in a tiny and (then) unimportant luxury market segment. By 1910, the market was growing, their share was declining. The high Standard Oil market share would have disappeared in a few years without any government intervention at all. Government intervention was politically motivated and pointless.

It has certainly siphoned jobs out of the US, which it is now admitted it was designed to do [...] gain, are you serious? What job areas has it increased? Truck drivers?

You're equivocating, confusing "moving [some] jobs out of the US" with "reducing the total number of jobs available in the US". In fact, trade liberalization moves low end, low paying jobs out of the US and it increases the total number of jobs available in the US.

And that's exactly what the statistics show: between 1960 and 2002, the US labor participation rate steadily increased, meaning that not only did we get job gains from a growing population, we got job gains on top of that too, and by "job gains", I am referring to jobs filled by American workers. At the same time, the share of untrained labor, assembly line work, and similar jobs decreased in the US. Both are good things.

(Since 2001, labor participation rate has been decreasing, largely due to idiotic economic policies by Bush and Obama)

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I generally cannot use things purchased with wealth to purchase things

That's what most reasonable people do: they use money to buy something productive, like a share in a company. That's wealth, not money. And it's also where the so-called "trade imbalance" comes from: it's simply incorrect accounting. Necessarily, people who we buy from get something in return, and it's not generally money.

Having a factory, on the other hand, can definitely be a wealth generator. And we're shipping quite a few of those overseas.

And we have even more of them here, thanks in part to foreigners that invest in them here. That's why the US is so prodigiously wealthy. And outsourcing drudge labor like iPhone assembly or lawn ornament fabrication to China is good for the US: it makes us better off.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Gr8Apes]

Microsoft was the de facto desktop operating system from at least 97 through about 2010.

Yes. And notice how it is not anymore? It took care of itself.

Yes, you could buy a mac in there which almost no one did, or if you had particular masochistic streak

In different words, throughout that entire time, Windows was merely dominant, but it wasn't even a monopoly.

It still is an effective monopoly in the OS on the desktop. Look at the pricing changes coming down the pike from MS. What has changed is that they can no longer dictate Office apps, and that's primarily because they sold copies instead of a service. Just think if Win10 SaaS model had been implemented with Office 2003? No one would still be on versions previous to Office 2010, and MS might have been able to nuke at least Android, and possibly the iphone also and we'd all be using WinPhones because documents wouldn't be compatible with anything else.

Standard Oil was broken up by the government

Standard Oil was a supplier of fuel for a few pampered rich people who could afford a car back then, and even there, it wasn't a monopoly, it merely had a large market share in a tiny and (then) unimportant luxury market segment. By 1910, the market was growing, their share was declining. The high Standard Oil market share would have disappeared in a few years without any government intervention at all. Government intervention was politically motivated and pointless.

Citation? The history I am familiar with has Standard Oil being pretty much the only oil refinery company within the US, able to set prices at will. Not only that, it was highly successful, produced the richest man in the world, and allowed for expansion into multiple other lines of business. They by no means were fading, nor disappearing, and you may know of several of the companies today as Mobil, Exxon, Texaco, Chevron, Amoco, US Steel, and others were all part of Standard Oil and were around almost 100 years after the breakup.

It has certainly siphoned jobs out of the US, which it is now admitted it was designed to do [...] gain, are you serious? What job areas has it increased? Truck drivers?

You're equivocating, confusing "moving [some] jobs out of the US" with "reducing the total number of jobs available in the US". In fact, trade liberalization moves low end, low paying jobs out of the US and it increases the total number of jobs available in the US.

And that's exactly what the statistics show: between 1960 and 2002, the US labor participation rate steadily increased, meaning that not only did we get job gains from a growing population, we got job gains on top of that too, and by "job gains", I am referring to jobs filled by American workers. At the same time, the share of untrained labor, assembly line work, and similar jobs decreased in the US. Both are good things.

(Since 2001, labor participation rate has been decreasing, largely due to idiotic economic policies by Bush and Obama)

Bush came into office in 2001, his policies would take at least a year to have any effect. The 2001 turning point was driven first by the dot.com bust, and then 9-11. Bush's policies did not help us get out of that quagmire at all, as instead of economics, he funneled trillions into invading Iraq, a continuing mess.

I generally cannot use things purchased with wealth to purchase things

That's what most reasonable people do: they use money to buy something productive, like a share in a company. That's wealth, not money. And it's also where the so-called "trade imbalance" comes from: it's simply incorrect accounting. Necessarily, people who we buy from get something in return, and it's not generally money.

Most people use their funds to live off of

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

It still is an effective monopoly in the OS on the desktop

What you are saying is just that they have a high market share in a niche market. And it bothers you because the market isn't giving you what you want at the price you want. Well, tough cookies; when 90% of people choose a product you don't like and get the benefit of economies of scale, that's not a monopoly. (And I should say, I think Windows is awful.)

See, a lot of economic legislation is about politically powerful minorities trying to impose their preferences on a market and a country that makes different choices. People like fast greasy food, big cars, big houses, Microsoft Windows, sexist video games, mail order books. Wealthy people and intellectuals don't like those things, they are annoyed that the market is giving people what they want while not catering to their refined tastes, so they lobby and get legislation passed.

The history I am familiar with has Standard Oil being pretty much the only oil refinery company within the US, able to set prices at will.

Even monopolies can't set prices at will, so what you are saying isn't even self-consistent.

In any case, you can start by reading the Wikipedia article for some background information, including the monopoly/no-monopoly views, then do more reading, like

https://mises.org/library/100-...

Bush came into office in 2001, his policies would take at least a year to have any effect.

We were discussing your claim that liberalized trade leads to job losses, yet throughout 40 years of trade liberalization, the US has gained large numbers of jobs. What happened after 2001 is a red herring.

Most people use their funds to live off of. Only the top 10% or so do anything else meaningful with it.

We were discussing your claim that trade imbalances are bad. I'm pointing out that foreigners are buying stuff for it, namely shares in US businesses. Your (erroneous) beliefs about which Americans own shares is a red hering.

The US is prodigiously wealthy primarily because of large oil and other natural resources, and the fact that we didn't get bombed to the stone age in WWII and got to supply lots of exports to Europe, Asia, and Africa in the late 40s and early 50s.

That is true for many other countries that aren't wealthy. What makes the US different is our reliance on (relatively) free markets and free trade. And as the US is getting more regulated and more protectionist, our fortunes are declining.

http://www.heritage.org/index/...

While some European and Japanese firms have created factories here to build automobiles mostly, what other factories, specifically by China, have been built in the US?

They do it all the time. They do it by investing in US businesses through the stock market, so that the US can do whatever it is doing best with that money. And those investments show up as a "trade deficit".

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Gr8Apes]

It still is an effective monopoly in the OS on the desktop

What you are saying is just that they have a high market share in a niche market. And it bothers you because the market isn't giving you what you want at the price you want. Well, tough cookies; when 90% of people choose a product you don't like and get the benefit of economies of scale, that's not a monopoly.

The DoJ seems to disagree with you. Seems there was some sort of anti-competitive action on MS's part that forced competitors out of business or something. And no, it wasn't that people chose MS, it was that there was no other choice available due to MS's actions.

The history I am familiar with has Standard Oil being pretty much the only oil refinery company within the US, able to set prices at will.

Even monopolies can't set prices at will, so what you are saying isn't even self-consistent.

Do you have the slightest idea what a monopoly is? They can set prices at will, and extract higher profits than would be possible in a free market. As Standard Oil had stated profits of almost 840M between 1882 and 1906, it seems that they certainly extracted large amounts of profit from a "fading" and "failing business" as you stated earlier. For comparison, the US debt in 1906 was around 1.5 billion, not even double Standard Oil's profit. Now, "set prices at will" has some restrictions, but that's the verbiage used in the definition. You can take any arguments you have with that statement up with those who set the definition of a monopoly.

In any case, you can start by reading the Wikipedia article for some background information, including the monopoly/no-monopoly views, then do more reading, like

https://mises.org/library/100-...

You are not seriously proposing Standard Oil was not a monopoly? Your revisionist side is showing.

Bush came into office in 2001, his policies would take at least a year to have any effect.

We were discussing your claim that liberalized trade leads to job losses, yet throughout 40 years of trade liberalization, the US has gained large numbers of jobs. What happened after 2001 is a red herring.

And I'd say "Free Trade" is an irrelevant and that the technological (computer) revolution that's occurred since about the early 80s has been the major driver of jobs.

Most people use their funds to live off of. Only the top 10% or so do anything else meaningful with it.

We were discussing your claim that trade imbalances are bad. I'm pointing out that foreigners are buying stuff for it, namely shares in US businesses. Your (erroneous) beliefs about which Americans own shares is a red hering.

The discussion is about the American middle class, who's jobs are being shipped out of the country and are having their standard of living lowered. Foreign investment in American businesses only benefits shareholders, and as such is irrelevant to the discussion. It makes that top 1% more wealthy, but doesn't do squat for Joe American, except potentially lower.

The US is prodigiously wealthy primarily because of large oil and other natural resources, and the fact that we didn't get bombed to the stone age in WWII and got to supply lots of exports to Europe, Asia, and Africa in the late 40s and early 50s.

That is true for many other countries that aren't wealthy. What makes the US different is our reliance on (relatively) free markets and free trade. And as the US is getting more regulated and more protectionist, our fortunes are declining.

http://www.heritage.org/index/...

Our f

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[CauseBy]

Seat belts were invented, then hardly used. Car manufacturers didn't want the public to think cars were unsafe. Only because of legislation did the modern seat belt come to all cars. But, then, of course they are there because of the law. We don't pass laws requiring things that are already satisfactory.

Growing your own food would take most of the free time that most people have. That's why most people don't do it, and that makes it similar to building your own car. It's not the same because, tautologically, it's not the same. Both of those are examples of things that people don't do because they would make modern life impractical. And by "modern" I mean for the last thousand years or so.

Critique food labels if you want to, but we didn't have them before the laws. Now we do. I like them and use them frequently and every time I do, the benefit I receive is because of regulation, not because the manufacturers are swell folks.

You know what would be super awesome? If we lived in a universe where people were honest, caring, ethical, didn't lie about what was in the products they sold, wanted to sell safe products, where market forces were good enough to produce good safe products, and where we didn't need big government to legislate where the market fails. That would be awesome! Alas, here we are, stuck in this universe.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[CauseBy]

"In addition to the other rebuttals, labeling is in the interests of the producer because it gives the consumer confidence that the product is what it says it is."

If it were true, then we wouldn't have regulations forcing food makers to put labels on food, because the labels would have always been on food.

It is false to assert that consumer interests imply business interests. They don't. Occasionally they overlap, more often they don't.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[CauseBy]

If anything you said were accurate, then we would have had all those wonderful free-market services with no fraud and happy jolly unicorns, or whatever, before the era of big government.

But no, people looked around and were grossed out by the human flesh in their sausage, and decided they'd rather have big government than eat peoplemeat. Likewise, all other big-government regulations.

Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do

[Anonymous Coward]

Another would be IBM DisplayWrite, at one time the #1 word processor on the PC platform. IBM tried to force people to buy IBM printers by removing drivers for third-party printers from DisplayWrite. People chose instead to buy Epson printers and WordPerfect.

Contacts on cell phones in the US will soon be another example of this.

Actually great UX for everyone else

[trybywrench]

The UX of the Dash Button is great, shopping for laundry detergent is boring, just one press and it's over. Managing your personal finances has zero to do with the dash button user experience.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[brunes69]

I can tell you didn't RTFA.

The whole point is pushing the button provides no immediate feedback at all. People are used to pushing a button doing something immediately, not pushing a button and *MAYBE* something happens 48 hours from now.

As such, these buttons are unlikely to gain any kind of popularity.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[njnnja]

Exactly. If you want the cheapest price on something, cut coupons and brave the crowds at the local Walmart. The dash button is about convenience. For people who have all the time in the world, then it makes sense to go out to the store whenever you discover you are out of something. For people who only have time on the weekends, it makes sense to make a shopping list and inventory the consumable products in your home and stock up as needed. But if you have other things that you want to do on the weekend, then anything that reduces the amount of time making a list and walking the aisles at the store is a big plus, and definitely worth the extra $1.50 to use the dash button.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[squiggleslash]

Well, kinda. The latency is awful.

I know iUsers think Android users are insane for putting up with such an non-responsive UI because it frequently takes Android a few milliseconds to respond to a touch or swipe.

I've just upgraded from Win 8.1 to Win 10 on a tablet, and - for whatever reason - I'm seeing the UI switch from more or less an instant response to delays of often a minute or more, depending on the operation.

But this button takes the take. I need some Imodium(tm) brand anti-diarrheal medicine, I press the button, and two days later the button responds...

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[drinkypoo]

Even without RTFA, the whole premise of the things is stupid. Even children have smartphones now. A smartphone can play the same little game. a QR code that one-clicked you a replacement whatever would be at least as useful.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason I do not get it is the 'disconnect'.

These guys play games with prices ALL THE DAMN TIME and Amazon is not alone in this game.

Depending on when you buy things like this the price can vary as much as 2-5 dollars.

Though in this case it looks like if I buy the a type particular box. With S&H it is cheaper than my local stores per oz. But the box I normally get is 5 dollars more. That is why I did not get this button. I am always having to do linear algebra to cost optimize what I buy.

When is buying smaller saving you money? Apparently all the time at the grocery store.

It adds up fast too. I figure in under a month I can pay for next months groceries and everything else with the savings.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[Notorious G]

I not only RTFA, I have several dash buttons now. I get immediate feedback through a notification on my phone which lets me know it was ordered and the estimated arrival (as well as giving me the option to go to the app and cancel if it was a accidental order). I get routine updates as it moves through the delivery process - shipping, updated delivery times if it will be late, delivered. It's handy as hell. Take the last paper towel out of the closet and the button is right there, just a press and new paper towels arrive and I don't have to cart them home.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[CastrTroy]

Why not just have a cell phone app. Open the app, see a list of easy to order items, click on the items you want to order and hit send. That's it. Very simple to use, and the user knows that their order went through. You can also alert them of any number of inventory problems. You can also make it work for any item you sell, not just a very small number of products that you think somebody might want to order frequently. If you figure out the frequency with which they order the item based on their account history, you could automatically send them notifications asking if they would like to order more.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[lgw]

I really don't like the fact TFA uses "but you can get Gillette razors cheaper on Amazon without the button". Bad example! Amazon has a huge problem with gray-market (or maybe just fake) Gillette razors that 3rd party sellers sell at a discount, but they only last about half as long. The reviews are full of complaints and advice on how to find the real product. I had almost given up on buying razors through Amazon, but now it's much easier to find the real ones, even if you don't use the silly Dash button.

While Amazon has a real problem to fix with the bogus goods in it's store, that's not a problem with the Dash: rather, the opposite.

Personally, I'd be happy to see a store that had basic sorts of staples that wasn't targeting the cheap-over-everything Walmart shopper! Give me reliable high quality and convenience even at 1.5x the price, please! (Though that's not what Dash is about). Not weird hipster alternatives to staples, either, that's a totally different market.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not clear you understand the use-case for the button. Mind you, I haven't yet bought into the button myself. But it's clear that this isn't to be used for something you actually need *right now*. It's decidedly NOT for one-off purchases either. Your example of needing medicine is (generally) one of *both* immediacy as well as a relatively one-time purchase; definitely not a good use-case for the button.

The use-case for the button is *more* like the use-case for Costco. Running low on toilet paper? You go to Costco and you buy a big damn bag of it all at once, right? You don't wait until you've used the very last square of TP and you're sitting on the toilet going "uhhh, now what?" -- and then dash off to Costco. No, if that happens you just run down the street to the local grocery store and pick up a small pack to hold you over until you can get across town to Costco. But what you *normally* do is you go to pull out a new roll and you realize your big ass pack is getting near empty; so you make a mental note to go to Costco this weekend and buy another large pack.

You see what's happening, right? Costco is the button. You make a mental note (ie: the button) and 3 days later you go to Costco to actually get the product (ie: UPS). There's no "instant gratification" for Costco, either; and yet it's wildly successful. You don't *typically* think of Costco for one-off purchases either; generally you think of Costco for your regular-use stuff, even though you might buy several one-off items once you are there.

What the button brings to the table over Costco is convenience -- I push the button and I no longer have to remember my mental note and I no longer have to take the time to drive to Costco to get the stuff. Push the button, forget about it, and it just happens.

What's not understand? It's simple.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[sh00z]

To which I have to ask: just WHAT was the author expecting? I RTFA, and he should have known it would not provide instant gratification.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

The UX of the Dash Button is great, shopping for laundry detergent is boring, just one press and it's over. Managing your personal finances has zero to do with the dash button user experience.

Bullshit. It's about paying for convenience.

The UX would be great, but TFA explains why it's not.: "I buy Mach3 razors. (Now you know.) Gilletteâ(TM)s button wants to sell me Fusions, or, at the very least, Mach3 Turbo razors. If I buy my Mach3s through Amazonâ(TM)s actual website, not only can I spend less money on more razors, I can choose from seven pages worth of other Gillette razor options, full of different sized packs, disposables, bundles, clippable coupons, and more. Plus, on other items, the website allows me to see price per oz or per sheet. Amazonâ(TM)s Dash button interface leaves these money-saving details behind along with Add-on Items and Subscribe & Save. The Dash button narrows your options to what, at best, will be the stock Amazon price on what you wanted, and at worst, lack applicable discounts, optimally priced configurations, or even the option to buy the product that you loyally purchase through Amazon already. Why doesnâ(TM)t Dash just offer the option to program a button with any product you want, or at least any product you want under a certain brand?"

If you're a consumer of Tide Super Mega for High Efficiency Washers in the 120-oz giganto-jug because it's the cheapest per volume and you particularly like Tide Super Mega for High Efficency Washers, pressing the Tide button doesn't get you the 120-oz TSMHEW that you bought at $0.03/oz, it gets you the default 64 oz Tide at $0.035/oz, or maybe two 32-oz Tide Super Megas at $0.04/oz, all of which are the formula for conventional washers that will over-foam in an HE washer and make a mess of everything.

It's a dark UX pattern: Take away user's options, present it as "simplifying," and then set the defaults to the expensive ones. (Any parallels with Windows 10 guiding users away from using local accounts, or Firefox removing the menu option to disable Javascript and burying it in about:config, are, of course, entirely coincidental.)

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[squiggleslash]

First of all, I invite you to read this Wikipedia page.

But going onto your debunking of a joke:

No, Costco is not the use-case for the button. Costco is where you go once a month to buy things cheaply. You don't go to Costco because you're running low on toilet paper. Going to Costco is a planned, methodical, activity that involves making an inventory, determining what will need replacement soon, building a list, viewing the special offers, and then visiting the store.

The button doesn't give you anything cheaply. In fact, quite the opposite, you're required to buy only a limited number of expensive brand name items that are almost certainly cheaper at the store. Nor is it designed to be pressed after you've taken careful inventory of your household consumables and determined a list of items that will need replacing soon. Instead, it's a button you press when you notice you need something.

As such, all joking aside, the latency on it is actually fairly relevant..

If I were to design something remotely useful for the purpose you imply this is for, it would be a panel that feeds general ideas into a shopping list. The panel would be covered with buttons entitled, generically "Toilet paper", "Cat food", etc. And you'd press the things you're running low on as you go around your home determining what you need. You'd then visit the store, be it online or brick-and-mortar, and the website would list options for each item, and you'd select the things you want.

But that's not what the Dash Button is. The Dash Button assumes you will only ever want Bounty Brand Toilet Paper, regardless of the price of the alternatives. That you will only want a 48 pack. That you will remember to press the button two days ahead of when the replacement is needed despite there being no organizational motivation for you to do so. And that you're prepared to do that for every single item you'd normally go to Cosco for that Amazon happens to also sell.

Most people will never find it useful.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[friedmud]

You might be interested in http://jet.com/ . I haven't used it yet (friend just told me about it the other day). But it seems a bit more targeted than Amazon at non-greymarket goods.

(Note: I don't work for them, or with them or anything... simply heard about it the other day and thought I would pass it on)

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[brunes69]

So then, why wouldn't you just order the thing from a cell phone app (Amazon DASH app) in the first place?

The physical button is stupid.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[Bob the Super Hamste]

A better solution is just to give up on buying disposable razors, or at least the fancy ones. Go and get a butterfly razor and then you don't have to buy the silly expensive blades and can get good cheap ones. The other option is to give up on safety razors all together and go and buy a couple nice straight edge razors and learn how to maintain them.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

The button itself provides feedback. You push it, it blinks for a few seconds, then shows a green light if successful and a red light if not.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[Zak3056]

Costco is where you go once a month to buy things cheaply. You don't go to Costco because you're running low on toilet paper. Going to Costco is a planned, methodical, activity that involves making an inventory, determining what will need replacement soon, building a list, viewing the special offers, and then visiting the store.

For you it is. For some people, not so much.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

It is worth the extra 1.50 per use? For something you can pick up when you go to the store already?

You would have to deliberately NOT buy something so you can use this.

1.50 across 10 goods is 15 bucks. Per trip that I do every other week. That is ~360 bucks. I end up with 2 'free' trips compared to what you pay. 360 bucks is about 1 day of work for me after taxes.

A dollar here a dollar there and it adds up fast. Faster than you think. You are paying to be lazy. Lazy in 'I am not going to think' lazy. My marketing team LOVE people like you. You are easy to rip off.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[Oligonicella]

The immediate feedback is the button push and knowledge you ordered the laundry soap. Also, there's no *MAYBE*, the purchase is sent and the soap will arrive later. (Most people don't wait for the empty box to get more soap and so don't need it to materialize on the spot, they put it on a list and get it later. Much the same logic as the button.)

I think it will catch on somewhat.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[njnnja]

So I assume you clip coupons, right? For $3 you can pick up the Sunday paper, peruse the advertisements, and work all morning so you can save (typically) $5-15. And of course you dig through the store leaflets to decide which store you go to based on where the sales are. That's good for another $5 or so. This only takes a little bit of time and over the course of the year will save hundreds of dollars.

There was a time in my life when I did that to save every little penny. Now I am in a totally different income quartile and I would gladly spend hundreds of dollars per year to spend a couple more hours with my family, or going to the gym, or even catching up on some reading. I am making mature, rational choices as to where I want to spend my money versus my time. You are free to make different decisions, but everybody spends money on something that someone else would think is a "waste".

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[Oligonicella]

"My marketing team" -- right AC, right.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[DarkOx]

Your have just described "Target"

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[rthille]

"For some people, not so much."
This. This is why I (try to) never go to Costco on the weekend. Whole families clogging aisles, huge crowds around the free food, people using the trip to Costco as some sort of fucking dystopian entertainment. WTF!

Me, I'm going on a weekday on my way home from work with my list on my phone, in, out as fast as possible.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[lgw]

Tried everything. The disposables are simply better and sharper, for reasons that make good physical sense - or at least they can be, not all brands are.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[lgw]

No, not any more. Sure, they're a step up from WalMart, but they've started to play some of the same games, and selection is quite limited in most stores every since they decided to copy WalMart and be a grocery store too. Plus, brick-and-mortar stores just suck in general.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[rthille]

The great thing about the hackability of the Dash buttons is that I can get a cheap Dash button which, when I press it, add that thing to my Costco shopping list (which is in an app on my phone).

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[rthille]

I was greatly annoyed that at my last trip to Costco I ended up buying the disposable razors for my partner, rather than just the blades of the same brand, because the disposables, despite the added plastic and size/bulk of the package and attendant shipping costs, I could get 14 instead of 8 for approximately the same price.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[JohnFen]

The immediate feedback is the button push and knowledge you ordered the laundry soap.

"Knowledge" is not feedback.

The button push is only feedback that the button was pushed. It does not indicate that pushing the button had any effect.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[JohnFen]

There are few retail scams bigger than the razor scam. Anyone who is buying "premium brand" cartridges or are buying them in a store are people who wouldn't mind piling their money up and setting fire to it.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[JohnFen]

It's a dark UX pattern: Take away user's options, present it as "simplifying," and then set the defaults to the expensive ones.

Indeed. You've explained very well why I consider the current UX trend of "simplifying" everything to be Very Very Bad: it's only simplification if your usage matches the preprogrammed one. If it doesn't then all that's happened is that everything has been made more complicated.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[rthille]

Meh. I get ~3 years out of a ~$30 Costco size package of blades. But then my partner likes me scruffy...

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[david_thornley]

Empirically false. I've found something that works for me at an acceptable price, and I tried several things that didn't work well. You're suggesting I should do some work and research to maybe halve what I spend on razor blades. It isn't worth it.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[lgw]

Just false. I've tried the cheap brands/models, they tear my face up. There's a great deal of materials science that goes into a modern blade, you know. And, of course, for a given material, the sharper you make it, the less long it's going to last. I'm sure I could double the life of my razor by shaving with cold water, too (corrosion is the major wear factor if you only shave your face).

And there's little difference in price between the stores and online, unless you're getting the knockoffs.

Re:Actually great UX for everyone else

[zugmeister]

Because pushing a single dedicated physical button is, surprisingly, much easier than finding / pulling out your phone, opening an app and selecting an item from a list. It provides no interruption to the flow of your activity. When I'm doing heavy cooking, I use a voice recorder (hardware, not app on my phone) to record ideas, tasks and things to put on the shopping list. It makes a huge difference in time and attention compared to taking even a tiny break from my current task. If it queued up user designated items on a list these things would be awesome.

Great Flashback!

[kamapuaa]

This review was brought from the "I love the 00s" section of Slashdot! Great new feature! I hope the next one is a scathing review of the Palm V!

Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[Drewdad]

Milk, cheese, and eggs WAAAAAAY at the back. And you have to walk past candy and general merchandise (the high profit stuff).

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[amalcolm]

Not my experience. Fresh produce at the front, deli and fresh meat at the back, with the bakery. BWS right at the far end, boring shit in the middle

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[Drewdad]

http://www.realsimple.com/food...

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like that guy above you only shops in neckbeard grocery stores

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[DerekLyons]

Seriously... designing stores to increase/maximize sales and profits rather than for customer convenience is old, old news. (Not like 1980 old, more like 1890 old.)

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[slashmydots]

Yeah, because installing a refrigerated section in the middle of the store, away from the delivery docks is such better design.

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[amalcolm]

Umm... every Tesco, Sainsbury and Waitrose I've been to in the UK

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[drinkypoo]

In my experience, there are three main kinds of entry. The old kind, and the new kind, and the even newer kind.

In the old kind, the first thing through the doors was carts. That's what dominated. In the new kind, the first thing through the doors is some shit and then a choice between food and more shit. For example through one door is a starbucks and through the other door is a rack of seasonal crap. On the other side of those things you find a choice. You can turn towards the perimeter and find food or you can turn towards the interior and find processed food. Of course, the baking aisle is in the middle of the processed foodstuffs in most stores. Finally there's the new-new store layout. Up front, a bunch of crap. Actual food, way in the back. And the aisles don't run straight there, they actually run diagonally to slow you down and run you past more processed shit.

So your experience has mostly to do with how recently your store was remodeled, and how alternative it is. A normal store won't do that diagonal crap, but some whore foods will.

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[rockmuelle]

Milk and meat are around the periphery because their display cases are connected to (or close to) the bulk cold storage in the stores. It's part of preserving the "cold chain" of ensuring that products that need constant refrigeration throughout the supply chain actually get constant refrigeration.

Most of the marketing text written about grocery store layouts was developed after the layouts were already in use. Most of the layout quirks are the way they are for more practical and mundane reasons. Layout as a conspiracy makes a great story, but in general, it's just that. Yes, impulse aisles are exceptions as are some other elements in the store, but for the most part, the practicalities of storing and presenting large amounts of food determine the layout.

-Chris

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[Anonymous Coward]

We refer to it as perimeter shopping ignoring all the high profit sh!t at the front and in the middle with the exception of running a few jogs into the Salt and Sugar zone for select canned beans, tomatoes and tuna.

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[sglewis100]

Who cares anyway? Even if it were true, it's not a conspiracy. Grocery store layouts being subtly organized to maximize sales. Gee, what'd you expect? Maximized to minimize profits?

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all well and good. Where is the dairy and eggs? You can't refute the fact that an orange is the color orange by asserting that an avocado is, in fact, not orange too.

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[swb]

I kind of think this is BS. The closest local large grocery store has their cold storage shelves (frozen and refrigerated) along the back and side walls of the entire store. Your argument about practicality would make more sense if all of it was concentrated at the back of the store, but cold storage is like a giant U surrounding the packaged goods in the center of the store. AFAICT there is no rear access to larger bulk cold storage on any of these shelves, and most don't even have easy access to the "back room" area of the store, which I don't think is even all that big or even big enough to hold a lot of stock.

Plus, any newly built grocery stores could easily place cold storage anywhere. When it's a new store, they could easily run branch lines for power or bulk chiller feeds in the floor to where they wanted the cold items. If they wanted rear stocking or storage, just make a 6 foot wide aisle inside the larger chiller compartment (ala Costco).

It also doesn't seem like most large groceries even have that much of a "back room warehouse" for cold or packaged goods. The consumer accessible shelves seem like they are the warehouse, for cold or room temperature packaged goods.

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[GuB-42]

Supermarkets are full of these kinds of tricks :
- candies right by the cash register, ready for you to pick up when you are waiting in line
- goods you will most likely buy arranged in a way to make you "tour" the shop
- a small selection of high margin related items conviniently sprinkled everywhere. For example, you will find small packs of the most expensive brand of batteries next to toys
- "on sale" items placed in a way that obstruct passage : make seem like there is a crowd around these

Basically, nothing is left to chance.

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[Osiris Ani]

Planet Money covered this one reasonably well.

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[Osiris Ani]

*groan*

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/01/...

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, and Coca Cola is allllll the way back at the end of the soda aisle not so that you have to walk by all the store brand and second tier carbonated beverages but instead to accomodate the Coke delivery guy's bad back. Sure.

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chris,

The 1960's called with this new thing called refrigeration. You can build electronic outlets anywhere in the store as evidenced by the freezer aisles in the store. The stores are trying to maximize their profit.

-- someone with half a clue

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[Oligonicella]

Now figure in the bulk storage of the cold restock items and how to get them to the shopping shelves. You've got half a clue and half an argument.

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, you're full of shit, "chris", and we don't give a fuck. You think a business that makes 10-20 % margins on 20 milllion in revenue gives a fuck about whether they can hire a 5000$ electrician during a 50,000 renovation? The layout is set up for business purposes, and hasn't hinged on any of this nonsense you're BS'ing in many decades.

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time you go shopping. Look at the back wall of the cold storage. You will either be able to see directly into the fridge or a small sliding door for access.

There are 2 typical kinds you will see. Stand alone and cold attached. The cold attached will typically have a door on the back wall to easily let the people in back doing the stocking do it without the item leaving storage.

Storage shows up at random times of the day but most of the time stocking happens at night when the store is closed or low volume times. So your shipment shows up at 5PM when everyone is busy. Where does it land? In storage.

The ones I shop at around here have fairly small storage. But look at someone like a walmart and you will see they have a fairly LARGE area to hold stuff. It is not too hard to see in.

Smaller mom and pop shops though will tend to have stand alone. Meaning when the item shows up it needs to be packed down right then. No mater who is in the store.

The larger chains will use stand alone for pre-packaged frozen. They over freeze it then put it into the storage area. Then shelf it when they can.

For example eggs. They pretty much need to be kept cold in the US because of the way we clean the outside of them and vaccinations of the chickens themselves. Egg dude shows at 1PM because he got held up at a weigh station then ran out of hours. Do you think he is going to hang around and load up the shelves? No pop it into the local walk in fridge in the back and take off for the next stop. Then the stocking manager will sign it off. Then the next dude he can get ahold of will shelf it. From inside the cold storage area.

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[bws111]

10-20% margin on a grocery store??? Try 1-3%.

Re:Have you ever been to a grocery store?

[DRJlaw]

You think a business that makes 10-20 % margins on 20 milllion in revenue gives a fuck about whether they can hire a 5000$ electrician during a 50,000 renovation? The layout is set up for business purposes, and hasn't hinged on any of this nonsense you're BS'ing in many decades.

You think a business that makes 10-20 % gross margins cares? Yes... because the net margin on that business is less than 2%. When your net profit just about paces the rate of inflation, you care about everything.

an overview of the dash button for geeks.

[nimbius]

For the uninitiated, the dash button is an electronic wireless device branded with the logo or namesake of your favourite brand or product. Pushing the button automatically incurs an order for the product and should you be sufficiently removed from the understanding of how this technology works, you'd be inclined to insist its nothing short of magic. It isnt. As a geek, you must understand this technology is a powerful and its opportunities are many. For example:
1. Reprogramming. What if the tide button closed the garage door? opened the trunk? set off the neighbours sprinklers or fired up the coffee maker? Amazon is offering for a discount the opportunity to break out that sweet oscilloscope and crack away at some assembler. Its a discount wireless device that can actuate a solenoid and pour cottage cheese on the cat at the press of a button
2. relocation. Place the device in more suitable areas. What if every time your neighbour sat down on the couch they inadvertantly ordered a 12 pack of bleach? how about whenever the dog bolts through the doggie door your inlaws end up ordering a 24 pack of disposable diapers? The potential is endless and the power is great. you control who gets two crates of macaroni and cheese, how often, and even when.

Re:an overview of the dash button for geeks.

[Jason Levine]

2. relocation. Place the device in more suitable areas. What if every time your neighbour sat down on the couch they inadvertantly ordered a 12 pack of bleach? how about whenever the dog bolts through the doggie door your inlaws end up ordering a 24 pack of disposable diapers? The potential is endless and the power is great. you control who gets two crates of macaroni and cheese, how often, and even when.

My first thought, when I saw the dash button, was "How long until a parent is charged hundreds of dollars and shipped a ton of laundry detergent because his/her toddler got hold of the button and pressed it five dozen times?" As the parent of two boys, I can attest the irresistible draw that buttons have to little kids. Also, no matter how much you think you've put something out of reach, your kids' arms will somehow stretch to reach it.

Re:an overview of the dash button for geeks.

[Notorious G]

You can only order 1 at a time. In the event of multiple presses, you get a notice and have to confirm that you really intended to buy that many.

Re:an overview of the dash button for geeks.

[Anonymous Coward]

The button doesn't register duplicate orders until the first one has been delivered.

We like them

[turp182]

We have three Dash buttons and last night while my wife was doing laundry my phone informed me that laundry detergent had been ordered via the Dash button.

We realize they aren't pushing the cheapest priced products, it's the convenience we are looking for (prices are comparable to grocery stores, a bit higher than Wally World, at least for the things we use them for).

The article goes on and on about instant gratification and the delay between pressing the Dash button and receiving the product. Comes off as whining to me.

Re:We like them

[tlhIngan]

We realize they aren't pushing the cheapest priced products, it's the convenience we are looking for (prices are comparable to grocery stores, a bit higher than Wally World, at least for the things we use them for).

Well, the problem is it isn't pushing the cheapest price of the product. It just dings you regular price - even if the website has a better deal for you. So if you pay $10 for laundry detergent, and Amazon's website has it on special for $7, you push the button, you're dinged $10, leaving Amazon to pocket $3 more in profit.

And that ignores other specials - perhaps 1 bottle is $10. Amazon carries 2 for $15. Push button, get 1 bottle for $10. Push it for two, you get dinged 2 bottles for $10 each, instead of the $15 bundle.

That's why it's considered "good for Amazon" - they can push you into paying more for the convenience of not having to go to their website and scanning for deals to save money.

(You could, in theory, just put the barcode where you would put your button, then use the amazon app to scan it with your phone and select your deal).

So yeah, they're great for the ultra-lazy who will give up the ability to save a few bucks just to avoid shopping on the website (or app). And no, it's not an emergency if you can wait for the shipping.

Re:We like them

[Anonymous Coward]

Wally World

... wat

Re:We like them

[turp182]

These are items we would have otherwise bought at the grocery or Wally World. And the prices are comparable for that purposes and I don't have to make a special trip to the store (usually for toilet paper).

The Dash buttons basically provide continuity of availability without hassle (going shopping). And it's more efficient than the "subscription" model since our usage of some products is variable over time (the day after Thai food sees a spike in TP usage in the house...).

If the prices are comparable, Amazon can have a couple of $$$, shoot, they even drop it off at my door, that's worth something to me. I'm very unlikely to comparison shop for toilet paper as I have a preference for a certain type.

Re:We like them

[bws111]

What you call 'ultra-lazy' others call 'busy' and/or 'forgetful'.

To take the example of razors: there are exactly two times when the thought of buying razor blades enters my mind - when I am shaving, and if i pass by the razor blades in a store. By the time I get done shaving, complete the rest of my morning routine, and start using my computer, I have completely forgotten the need to order razor blades. Lazy has nothing to do with it.

Re:We like them

[ScentCone]

they're great for the ultra-lazy

Also known as busy, intelligent people who have finally realized that there are finite minutes ticking away in their finite lives, and that if their time is worth anything at all, there are better ways to spend it than taking extra time to save a few pennies on a product they buy once in a while, but would rather not find themselves running out of. You're splitting hairs over $3, when that amount is completely lost in the noise of what a typical Amazon shopper's income and expenses looks like. I'd rather not crowd my brain with to-do lists and app fiddling. My brain is more valuable to me, even while doing laundry, contemplating the things I'm supposed to be doing for my customers, who pay me at least 50 times that $3 per hour to think for them. I could not be happier knowing that Amazon makes good money off of me. They provide me what I consider to be an incredibly valuable service: they sell me time.

Re:We like them

[JohnFen]

It's the cutsey name some people have for Wal-Mart to try to make them seem less evil.

Re:We like them

[Anonymous Coward]

Note taking is not a new thing. Forgetful people who aren't ultra-lazy can actively counteract it. It's not even hard, about half a step above from being ripped off by this shit.

Lets not forget

[koan]

The other disturbing things about Amazon.
How when my dad buys something shipping is wayyyyyyyy overpriced but go to my account (one where I have cancelled orders because of overpriced shipping) and it's less than half the cost *same town*, or their bait and switch, or their sending an item entirely different from what was pictured.
Yeah I know there are resellers, but Amazon fronts them so they get the blame too.

Wonderful Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

One wonderful thing about capitalism is that the customer chooses the price, quantity, time and place of any purchase. If the customer chooses to let Amazon or any other seller take control of their transaction, well, that's his or her problem.

If you don't like it, shop somewhere else. I do.

Re:Wonderful Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

customer chooses the price, quantity, time and place of any purchase

Except when the sellers choose the price, quantity, time and place of any sale. It takes two to tango, not that any armchair economists seem to know how to dance.

Re:Wonderful Thing

[Oligonicella]

Ah, purposefully switching "chooses" from purchaser to seller. Of *course* the seller chooses their price. *All* of the competing vendors do. Then the customer chooses the price they like for the goods they'll receive.

If you're going to imply someone's shallow, don't be so shallow yourself.

Wait what?

[Virtucon]

"an unabashed attempt to disconnect customers from the amount of money we're spending."

That would be credit cards, student loans and auto dealers. Amazon isn't the innovator in this space.

wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel stupid for having read that. It's a button that delivers a product to your door, some people will really like the convenience, some people will not.

Amazon Employees at work

[trenien]

The first few comments from IDs numbers between 50387607 and 50387627, all shooting down the review (most with : "let's avoid shopping chores" and one with "it's great for imaginative geeks").

Yeah, I don't really believe there's anything genuine there...

Re:Amazon Employees at work

[EvilSS]

The first few comments from IDs numbers between 50387607 and 50387627, all shooting down the review (most with : "let's avoid shopping chores" and one with "it's great for imaginative geeks").

Yeah, I don't really believe there's anything genuine there...

This post sounds like something a Wal-Mart employee would post....

Re:Amazon Employees at work

[Anonymous Coward]

The first few comments from IDs numbers between 50387607 and 50387627, all shooting down the review (most with : "let's avoid shopping chores" and one with "it's great for imaginative geeks").

Yeah, I don't really believe there's anything genuine there...

This post sounds like something a Wal-Mart employee would post....

That kind of condescension is typical of the Target gang...

Re:Amazon Employees at work

[Opportunist]

Maybe they have the same astroturfing company?

Re:Amazon Employees at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are comment ID's, not user id's. /. doesn't have that many users... yet. Still... posting as AC does make you go "hmmmm...."

Re:Amazon Employees at work

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the comment number, not user id.

Re:Amazon Employees at work

[trenien]

That's true! I looked too fast, without paying attention.

That said, I really felt that most of those early comments came from the same source. I may be mistaken, but still...

Re:Amazon Employees at work

[Anonymous Coward]

The first few comments from IDs numbers between 50387607 and 50387627, all shooting down the review (most with : "let's avoid shopping chores" and one with "it's great for imaginative geeks").

you are mixing up comment IDs and user IDs there.... your own comment ID is 50387719 :)

Should we get off his lawn?

[Maxwell]

"store UX is no longer designed for your convenient shopping", "designed for their profitable selling."

It's a conspiracy! A conspiracy I tell you! This has never happened before!

Easy to make the Dash button kick butt...

[mlts]

The one thing Amazon could have done which would remedy the current issues with the Dash button is have a color e-Ink display on it, and have it show a picture/logo of what product it is associated with. This way, there is more selection available and opportunities for niche products.

For example, I have a few Dash buttons myself, all of which will make their home in my RV. That way, instead of writing something to buy on a list, I just hit the buttons, and since they are connected to a Wi-Fi router, they will go out regardless.

However, the Smart Water is limited to one offering, and other choices are still limited. If Amazon made Dash buttons that had a display on them, they would be a lot more relevent. Otherwise, as Dash buttons stand now, they are pretty much a novelty at best.

Re:Easy to make the Dash button kick butt...

[Oligonicella]

They're new, so they're novel. They'll mature.

Opinions don't count as news

[bakoolguy2]

That's certainly one way to look at it. However, consumers who have more money than time don't mind paying for convenience. Sounds like the author just isn't the kind of person amazon is trying to reach. If saving money is the goal, I find that if I'm willing to shop around, amazon is usually cheaper than my local big-box store.

Re:Opinions don't count as news

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo

Idiot ranting

[bluefoxlucid]

The product has flaws and limitations, so he's taking it as a personal attack.

The whole corporate shareholder myth is bullshit, too.

I thought Amazon was having trouble keeping up with rush 2-day shipping, so was trying to back it off. They tried building a new warehouse in Seattle, but they couldn't because they ran out of cranes--as in, there are no more cranes in the United States with which Amazon could build a warehouse. They have to wait before they can build new warehouses to satisfy all of this demand for 2-day shipping. Their current warehouses are at maximum efficient staff, and won't be able to deliver any additional volume of 2-day shipping orders simply by hiring more employees.

Re:Idiot ranting

[Anonymous Coward]

They've been shifting a lot of home goods and groceries from 2-day Prime shipping over to Amazon Prime Pantry which has a per-box charge to ship and they meter your purchases as you fill up the box. I suspect this is because groceries are pretty low-margin and heavy.

I can do that already! Fast Company fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can do that already! When I'm in a store I grab then checkout. Not a lot of difference. Fast Company's article is typical of social alarmists who are paranoid and have nothing better to do than circumvent free will.

Fast Company fail.

the real problem...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Buttons are satisfying to press because they make things happen. Just watch two kids under the age of 12 fight for the privilege of pushing the elevator.

"Mommy, why is there a mountain of Macaroni and Cheese boxes in our front yard?"

"Johnny, have you been playing with the button in the kitchen again???"

Re:the real problem...

[turp182]

Pressing the button does nothing if there is a pending order or an order in transit. I've tested this (I didn't care if a bunch of toilet paper showed up).

Re:the real problem...

[friedmud]

In addition to what turp182 said about not allowing multiple orders it also sends a notification to your phone telling you all about the order... and you receive multiple emails about the progress of that order (just like any Amazon order).

You can even cancel the order within 30 minutes.

Have you?

[Sycraft-fu]

That describes none of the grocers I shop at. Most of them have the cheese up front with the deli. The trend seems to be various cheeses at the deli you can get sliced, and then a separate display of a bunch of other block cheeses you can browse. As I said, they like to locate the deli up front.

Milk varies. At Safeway it is directly back from the deli. You have deli, liquor, bakery, milk heading back in a straight line. At Sprouts it is at the other corner of the store, as far away from the deli as it could be. At Target, it is in the front, along with the other refrigerated foods (meats, produce, cheese, etc).

Most places seem to lay their stores out based on themed isles. A given isle will be devoted to like items. So you walk along the isles until you find what you are after, then walk down one to find the item you want.

Re: Have you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many groceries now have a"quick grab" section by the checkouts for things like a gallon of milk or a dozen eggs.

The big refrigerators are in the back for efficiency. They can be stocked from inside so stock automatically rotates and the chillers are all in one spot on the roof.

Yes, to get to them you have to traverse the whole store but they are also the items you will pickup last anyway.

Re:Have you?

[mrchaotica]

Most of them have the cheese up front with the deli. The trend seems to be various cheeses at the deli you can get sliced, and then a separate display of a bunch of other block cheeses you can browse. As I said, they like to locate the deli up front.

That's because the cheeses available up front in the deli are much more expensive than the ones at the back in the dairy case.

Better Functionality

[Jason Levine]

A dash button to order laundry detergent? No thank you.

However, a dash button that would actually do the laundry? That I'd pay good money for!

i love them!

[Lumpy]

Where else can you get a complete Wifi and processor board for hacking ready to go for $5.00?
I just hope they dont realize that the 4 I bought will never be pushed to buy their products. I already have one triggering events on my Linux server, and soon to have the rest acting as remotes for home automation.

Re:i love them!

[pruss]

An ESP8266 WiFi board, with easily reprogrammable firmware (you can even download firmware that runs lua scripts, e.g., a web server in a few lines of code), is $2.69 shipped on ebay. But the Dash also gets you a button and a battery, and that might be worth it depending on your application.

Re:i love them!

[Lumpy]

More than that. you get a button, a nice plastic case already finished and is all set up for battery use. absolutely worth it in every way. Plus the microphone on it makes it easy to do the same audible configuration they use.

Re:i love them!

[rthille]

I got mine at $0.99. At that price it was totally worth it. At $5, I'm much less interested until I actually have a use case.

Re:i love them!

[perryizgr8]

There's a mic in the button? That's pretty creepy.

Re:i love them!

[Lumpy]

Yep, creepy as in it listens for high frequency tones as binary to set up the wifi info, it's a very cool design.

https://mpetroff.net/2015/05/a...

  It's got a very tight notch of response above 15Khz

amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

> "....Amazon's slowly spreading disease...."

SLOWLY spreading? Uhhh, I got some bad news for you, Sunshine. You already have the disease, you've had it for years and you didn't even know it.

Horrible Walmart UX

[Anonymous Coward]

I was shopping paper products at Walmart the other day and I noticed something that really annoyed me. Every single item that I saw had the unit defined as item so that the per unit price was the same as the item price. Gee, thanks Walmart. I decided to not buy anything and went to another store instead.

wasn't this a joke

[wstrucke]

Honestly, who thought this was a good idea? This is up there with the Edsel and Baconnaise. It sounds like a joke (and wasn't it announced on or around April Fool's Day?!)

give it a display, make it programmable

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I think in its current form, this thing is not a good design. But give it a cheap 20 line LCD display and 20 corresponding buttons, with each line displaying a user-selectable product and the number of items currently on order, you have a winner. I'd get a handful and put them around the house for common items.

Re:give it a display, make it programmable

[Dutch Gun]

That seems like typical geek thinking (no offense intended)... add more features, more buttons, more complexity, and more expense. And honestly, I think it's precisely the oppose of what most people would actually want. It's the reason many geeks didn't get (and still don't get) why Apple products like iPods and iPhones are so insanely popular. They'll look at the specs and see that they're really no different or even technically inferior to the product they purchased for half the price, without ever understanding that the critical factor is the streamlined user experience.

Want more laundry detergent? Press the detergent button. Done. No fumbling through a crappy menu and display that's overly complicated to program and use. For people who want maximum control, there's a website and mobile app you can use. This is entirely aimed at people who prefer simplicity and convenience.

Re:give it a display, make it programmable

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Want more laundry detergent? Press the detergent button. Done. No fumbling through a crappy menu and display that's overly complicated to program and use.

I didn't say that there should be a "menu" that I need to "fumble through". I want a static set of 20 choices, each with one button next to it, for the most common items I need in the kitchen, bathroom, and other places.

That seems like typical geek thinking (no offense intended)... add more features, more buttons, more complexity, and more expense.

You should make things as simple as possible but no simpler. A single plastic button with a fixed function is useless to me, since in order to order all the staples I need that way, I'd have to scatter dozens of ugly buttons around the place, and I'd probably never find them if I need them.

This is entirely aimed at people who prefer simplicity and convenience.

No, this is entirely aimed at geeks who prefer useless gadgets. Normal people just pick up toilet paper in the store, along with all the other stuff they need to go to the store for anyway.

Say it ain't so!

[chefmonkey]

Holy craps! Capitalistic systems have a built-in profit motive? And companies succumb to that motive to increase profits? Why did no one ever point this out before?

For certain products, I would find this very convenient. Don't want one? Don't ask for one.

Forget what?

[sjbe]

How when my dad buys something shipping is wayyyyyyyy overpriced but go to my account (one where I have cancelled orders because of overpriced shipping) and it's less than half the cost *same town*

Perhaps because you buy more from Amazon so they are willing to cut you a better deal. Very little on Amazon has wildly overpriced shipping and the minority of stuff that does have overpriced shipping is obvious and invariably from third party vendors. Most of what I buy is through Prime and has "free" shipping. If you see overpriced shipping don't buy it.

Of course I've made my living doing ecommerce in the past so I can assure you that most people have NO idea what shipping actually costs. We used to charge exactly the rate UPS charged us and people would complain that we were inflating shipping prices even though we were shipping at cheaper rates than they could get themselves.

or their bait and switch, or their sending an item entirely different from what was pictured.

Aside from one or two mistakes where the wrong item got picked I've never seen this happen and I've ordered a LOT of stuff from Amazon. The few mistakes they've made they corrected and sent the correct item or refunded me no questions asked. I've never seen Amazon "bait and switch" anything, ever. If it was a third party vendor not sending what was shown I would just immediately send it back and complain to Amazon. They'll pay the return freight and refund your money.

Yeah I know there are resellers, but Amazon fronts them so they get the blame too.

If you buy the thing with the overpriced shipping, the only party to blame is yourself. Buy somewhere else if you don't think you are getting a good deal.

Re:Forget what?

[rthille]

I once got a blender. Well, it was a comforter in a blender box. Someone had obviously bought the blender, replaced it with the comforter and returned the "blender" and Amazon didn't bother to check if the blender was in the box before restocking it.

They made it right, aside from the delay.

Re:Forget what?

[ScentCone]

Everything you just said is exactly correct. The person to whom you were responding is either uninformed, or disingenuous (or both).

Re:Forget what?

[david_thornley]

I can assure you that most people have NO idea what shipping actually costs.

I've taken to using this as a guide to how likely I am to get something from a Kickstarter. If the page apologizes for having to charge that much for international shipping, they're serious about it. If the page offers shipping at no additional cost even internationally, the backers really don't know what they're doing.

Damn

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Holy crap, it's almost like they exist to sell stuff!

Bezos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeff, is that you?

Not lazy enough

[Karmashock]

when I buy stuff online, I am very happy to go to the website, do a search, check prices, etc.

But even then, I'm not going to buy stuff that way when there is a store RIGHT HERE... that I can get it from... NOW... and often at a lower price.

Why press the button the at all? I'm not getting who this is for really. I don't see the demographic.

If you're poor you don't buy things this way.
If you're middle class you're very happy to buy it at the store.
If you're rich and are just too busy to even look at a site or care what it costs... then you have a maid or some other servant that buys things for the house.

So i don't get who this is for... Who is well off enough to find the markup acceptable and yet too poor to just have servants?

And that excludes the point that many rich people are appalling cheapskates.

The applicable demographic is so tiny as to be laughable.

Re:Not lazy enough

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're middle class you're very happy to buy it at the store.

I think this is the flaw in your argument. You've demonstrated fairly well that very rich and very poor people won't have use for it, but your analysis of the majority demographic is fairly lax. Every middle class person is not happy to run out to the store when they realize they forgot to buy laundry detergent. Middle class people have jobs and typically kids, and their free time is their most valuable asset. The markup becomes acceptable when you realize how much your free time is worth not to have to go to the store just for this one item you forgot. Detergent is one of those things you don't think about until you need it, whereas when you notice it running out you can cope with a shipping delay before the next one arrives.

I must confess to being a little confused about ordering fucking detergent from fucking Amazon myself, but I guess if you're already a Prime member then shipping is free so why the hell not?

Re:Not lazy enough

[Karmashock]

Middle class people go to the store all the time. And keep in mind... they have to wait 48 hours to get the thing they want.

Forty.... Eight.

Now... would a middle class family rather wait 48 hours or simply buy it from a store when they're out and about doing something already.

Yes yes... you don't want to buy the thing RIGHT NOW... but amazon isn't going to give it to you right now either. Are they?

And tomorrow... because you're middle class and have a job... you're going to go to work... and when you are coming back from work... you might stop off at a store to buy some beer, or some wine, or some bell peppers or some nice steak... or something that people buy at stores... and you might think "oh, I also need tooth paste"... and then you'd buy that then and there.

So... hold the opinion you like but I'm not seeing this for the middle class.

The middle class tends to be quite happy to buy things from stores.

The big problem I've noticed with Amazon for these goods is that the prices are not competitive. the middle class does price check. They're not so rich that they don't care if tooth paste costs 50 percent more. And again, there are a lot of rich people that won't pay that either... just cause.

I know a guy with 10 million in the bank that refuses to over pay for anything. The guy haggles and negotiates everything. Its actually fucking obnoxious but he has to do it because he just does... and so the best thing you can do is stare at the ceiling when it starts and count to a thousand. It will eventually end... often in his favor. He frequently pays 20 percent to HALF what things are listed as because he just refuses to pay the list price. He gets the manager out, he talks about what the thing is being billed for at different places, he talks about the quality, the condition, on and on and on... and eventually he gets the fucking discount. Like clockwork.

Its more obnoxious than you can imagine.

The point I'm making though is that even amoungst the people that could be argued to not care about the mark up... lots of them do care. Rich people haggle over shit all the time. Nickle and dime shit. And those are the people that it doesn't really matter to... for the middle class... those nickles and dimes will add up to actual money for them. And so they do it as well.

Look, the concept of this amazon idea is interesting. I would modify it a few different ways.

1. Amazon is restricting who can offer certain types of products to artificially inflate the price of certain goods so they can over charge for their grosery delivery service. I recently looked for some soda stream syrup on there and they were asking for 20 dollars for bottle of syrup that at any retail store costs about 5. But you'll see them do that for everything... flour, detergent, toothpaste... anything you'd go to a grosery store to buy and on amazon its suddenly way way way way more expensive for no reason. And the reason they're doing it is to hide/subsidize the cost of their delivery service. Their delivery service HAS to charge a premium price. They have to. But they don't want the consumer to realize how much they're being charged for it, so they inflate the product costs and then use the profits from that to offset the delivery charges.

This is a price strategy that works on idiots. You don't see companies do this when their primary customers are other businesses... why? Because businesses spread sheet costs and any bullshit in the prices sticks out rather prominently if you actually do the math.

So the first thing Amazon has to do... is stop doing this... starting from the premise that your customers are stupid... is not a good thing to do when you're going after young tech savvy professionals.

2. I don't think they should immediately order whatever so much as add the whatever it is to a shopping list that can be executed later.

3. Given element one and two... just use the fucking website. I'll also point out that a lot of stores like target for example

Re:Not lazy enough

[Anonymous Coward]

In your rant you seem to have forgotten that there is no middle class. There's the working poor and the super rich. Guess who this product is for.

Re:Not lazy enough

[Karmashock]

... Rejected.

*crumples up stupid comment*

*throws it in trash*

Login if you want to discuss this in more detail... lurk as AC and get more of the same.

Re:Not lazy enough

[david_thornley]

As a member of the middle class, I often find it inconvenient to go to the store. A special trip to the nearby supermarket is at least twenty minutes of my free time devoted to the acquisition, and they have neither the best selection nor the best prices. Stopping on the way to or from work is awkward given rush hour traffic flows, means that a crowded store will slow me down, and I usually have to be getting to work or really want to get home anyway. If I stop on the way home from work I'm likely to forget something I'd intended to buy. It wouldn't happen if I were more organized, but I'm not.

I'm not complaining, but pointing out that buying stuff at the store isn't an automatic win. Not having to make a trip to the store is worth some money to me.

The nearby supermarket is the first floor of a building with high-end condos. I've wondered what it would be like to be an elevator ride from a grocery store that's open pretty much any time I'm awake. Not that I'd spend that much money on a condo.

Re:Not lazy enough

[Karmashock]

Can you give me a rough idea where you live. I'm not asking for a street address or GPS... tell me what point of the compass you live in whatever area... town, city, county... something.

Because I frankly find your position to either be unbelievable or a sign that your local economy is doing a very poor job of serving your area.

I have lived in a lot of places. Some of them the ass end of no where. And I've never had that problem.

So... I mean do you like at the bottom of the sea?

I am from the US... we have stores that sell common commodities everywhere. Some specialty goods can only be obtained on line or in specialty stores only consistently found in large cities. But for the basic shit that Amazon is using these tags for?... Easy.

And while people love to hate on Walmart... ever bought RAM, a gallon of milk, and a dozen tube socks at 2 AM? Because you can do that at walmart. As surreal as that is...

How many times a week do you go to the store to buy things? You obviously have to go to the store to buy food... no?

And keep in mind, I'm not saying "don't buy things online"... I'm saying "why would you use this button?"

If I'm going to buy something on line, I'll login to the website and order whatever. And as I pointed out, on some goods, amazon's prices are SHIT. Especially anything that they want to sell you with their grocery delivery service. The prices are obviously inflated. They go from being very competitive for anything else... and then suddenly you're looking at 30~200% price increases for some things. And its exclusively in items that are easily obtainable in your local store.

No sale.

Re:Not lazy enough

[david_thornley]

First, it's not a big problem. It is one that would make me think of spending a little extra money, not a whole lot, to avoid a trip to the store. To answer your question, I live in Northeast Minneapolis, not far from downtown.

I have a supermarket pretty close. It isn't really on my way home, and getting to it during rush hour is somewhat unpleasant. If the weather's nice, and what I need isn't all that heavy, I'll walk there just for the exercise, if I have the time. After retirement, I suspect I'll have the time more often, but right now I'm somewhat jealous of my free time. I often forget to put something on the list.

As to why I'd want something with a physical button, presumably taking up space, I have no idea. I might well use a computerized version of the button for some things. If I'd find out I would get worse prices using the button than online, I'd never use the stupid thing again.

Re: Not lazy enough

[Karmashock]

as I said, the prices are not competitive. never trust an unlisted price.

The solution to every problem isn't an app

[sjbe]

Why not just have a cell phone app.

Because the best solution to every problem isn't an app. Believe it or not there sometimes are better and more efficient ways to solve a problem.

Open the app, see a list of easy to order items, click on the items you want to order and hit send. That's it. Very simple to use, and the user knows that their order went through.

All of which is harder than just pushing a button. You just described a 4 step process than in reality has even more steps. (turn on phone, log in, find app, open app, scroll through list, select item(s), select send). Compare that with pushing a single button on a wall and it is absurdly complicated.

Look I don't have any use for these Dash buttons myself but I understand what they are trying to do. The less steps someone has to go through the more likely they are to buy. The founder of Coke basically built his business around making sure his product was "within arm's reach of desire" which is why you can easily find a coke product almost anywhere on the globe even in some of the most remote corners. They made buying their product VERY easy. Amazon is trying to do similar things. Maybe the Dash buttons won't work out but the principle of what they are doing makes sense. Sometimes a more general solution isn't the better one.

Re:The solution to every problem isn't an app

[fluffernutter]

In other words, people have become disgustingly lazy. God help us if there are robots that can feed people because some will loose the ability to do even that.

At pools

[MobyDisk]

I want a big "Pizza" button at my local pool. Nevermind: there's probably an app for that.

Re:At pools

[TheGratefulNet]

anyone old enough to remember the iOpener? (I have one still in a box, anyone want it? it has been modded to run linux; 2.0 iirc).

https://commons.wikimedia.org/...

keyboard had a pizza key on it. not much else memorable about that failed marketing experiment.

(and that's a $100 that I'll never see again. oh well. it was a different world back then)

Life after Amazon

[QuietLagoon]

I've all but stopped buying at Amazon. Yeah, the free shipping for orders over $35 is nice, but at what cost?

.
Amazon sits on those orders for nearly a week before they are shipped.

The "shipping cost" is built in to the price of each item. So if you buy more than one item, you are over-paying for shipping.

I recently purchase a WiFi Access Point from provantage.com. At that site shipping is extra. However, the cost of the item plus the cost of shipping was still less expensive than Amazon's price with "free shipping". Plus ProVantage shipped the item the same day as I ordered it. Since I am in UPS's next day delivery zone for ground shipments, I got the access point the next day, instead of waiting the 10 days as Amazon drags its feet.

For me, it's life after Amazon, and it's a happy life.

Re:Life after Amazon

[Oligonicella]

1) I've never had Amazon sit on an order for a week without a notice that the item wasn't in stock.

2) I just went to Amazon and ran a test. The shipping price is *not* built into the item price. I ordered one, the two comupter mice. Same mouse each time. The shipping was $8.29 and $8.49. So your statement is demonstrably false.

Re:Life after Amazon

[QuietLagoon]

So your statement is demonstrably false.

Or your test was demonstrably incorrect, as it does not test the concept I stated. You showed that the shipping changes when multiple items are purchased. You did not show that the price of the mouse has shipping costs built in already, and that you were paying extra for shipping you had already paid for.

Re:Life after Amazon

[specktater]

I haven't noticed a price increase either, but I have noticed it's been taking about a week (for non-Prime, free shipping) from placing the order to it being shipped. I live in a major metropolitan area and the packages used to ship within a day or two (unless they were out of stock), but the last few orders were all held for at least five working days before shipping. All the items were "sold and shipped by Amazon". Maybe coincidence, but I do see a lot of people mentioning it.

Re:Life after Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Seattle I've seen free same-day shipping on Amazon prime for some items, and free one-day seems standard. This is reminiscent of the dotcom boom era with Outpost.com and their free one-day shipping. I shop around / look for better prices when buying something significant, but generally their prices don't seem overinflated. The same-day is great, as well as saturday/sunday deliveries. This one time I needed a 7ft pool floaty replaced after I discovered it had popped, the morning of a pool party. I had a new one in my hands by evening, on a saturday.

this is really a new problem?

[Goldsmith]

Amazon (generally) isn't profitable. They need to find ways to make more money to stay in business. Is it surprising that they're trying to get more profit out of their store? As a customer, yes, that's annoying. I would love convenience, flexibility, and low prices for ever and ever. But, every other store on the planet is also trying branding, partnering and placement tricks like this to turn a profit. That candy isle at the grocery store checkout isn't there as a service to the customer.

It IS a business

[Anonymous Coward]

"store UX is no longer designed for your convenient shopping", "designed for their profitable selling."

So since they are in the business of selling, their profitability should take a backseat? While I tend to agree with some of this summary, I just can't get past that. This is a company who is in business. As such, profitability should be the first priority. Of course the entire thing is designed for profit and "sellability".

Product doesn't even _need_ a "scathing" review

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the nicest, sweetest, most money-corrupted review you can find, and even still: on the face it, the Dash Button appears to have negative value and no situations come to mind where you might want one. You'd have to be paid to accept one.

"Disease" is too strong a word, because diseases can infect. This is more like a distant turd. Sure, you can go over and pick it up, but there's little chance you'll be tempted to. It's "hookless."

Re:Product doesn't even _need_ a "scathing" review

[Oligonicella]

I think you have your pronouns confused. You meant to use "I" but mistakenly used "you".

True target market

[Chris Johnson]

Maybe it's the indie small business dev in me but I saw this and had one question:

How much do you have to pay Amazon to be the one product in a given market segment that they do a Dash Button for?

That's where the real money is, and precisely what Wal-Mart has been up to for all these years.

If Huggies wants to kick Pampers off the Dash button so that everybody out there will randomly change products without thinking too much about it, they simply have to outbid Pampers. And whether the product has glass shards (actually crystallized sodium methylparaben, a preservative) has nothing to do with it.

That's what the Dash Button is. Other companies bid to be the one represented on it, very likely losing money in order to have a little 'brand awareness' token stuck in people's actual houses, and Amazon gets paid from both ends.

Not MY Dash Button ;) http://ep.yimg.com/ay/stylinon...

Shipping on Amazon

[sjbe]

I've all but stopped buying at Amazon. Yeah, the free shipping for orders over $35 is nice, but at what cost?

They offer free shipping to Prime members for orders less than that. I get free shipping on things that just cost a few dollars. Sometimes they are add-on items so you have to order above a given threshold. Sometimes you can get things cheaper elsewhere but the prices at Amazon are usually competitive and the convenience is hard to beat.

Amazon sits on those orders for nearly a week before they are shipped.

Only if you explicitly select their slowest shipping methods. I have most stuff in my hands in exactly two days and even if I select their slower shipping methods it usually ships out in 2-3 business days anyway.

The "shipping cost" is built in to the price of each item. So if you buy more than one item, you are over-paying for shipping.

That's true no matter where you shop. Go to Walmart and I assure you that there is a cost of freight in the price and they don't give you a bulk discount. Same with any other vendor where there isn't an explicit freight charge.

Re:Shipping on Amazon

[QuietLagoon]

Amazon sits on those orders for nearly a week before they are shipped.

.
Only if you explicitly select their slowest shipping methods.

Yup. I am not a member of Prime, and I select the free shipping, which is the slow method you mention.

.
I can order the same item elsewhere for a price+shipping that is cheaper than Amazon, and get it in a day .

Thanks for agreeing with me.

CueCat

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's CueCat all over again?

You aren't the customer for Dash

[sirwired]

For the end-user, these things are of marginal utility. (In fact, I'm surprised they want to charge for them at all; you'd think they'd just toss them in for free if you've bought one of the items they cover a couple times.)

The true customer for these is the brands they are surely charging to be featured on one of these buttons.

Really, what Amazon should be doing is selling these "blank" at-cost to be used for the purchase of whatever item(s) you like.

Can't you people plan ahead?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

If you need something like those Dash buttons, you really need to learn to manage your inventories. Let's take paper towels for example. Always have two packs in your house. When the first pack is finished and you open up the second one, buy another pack the next time you shop for groceries or whatnot.

And since I'm talking to programmers here, the newly opened second pack becomes the first pack and the newly bought pack becomes the second one. /sigh

Re:Can't you people plan ahead?

[bws111]

I see no reason why inventory management and these are mutually exclusive. In fact, it seems like an ideal thing for inventory management.

If I am opening the last roll of papers towels, there is a very good chance I am already involved in some task. Do I stop that task and go do whatever is required so I remember to get towels next time I am at the store? More likely I keep going with the task and forget about the towels until we run out. The button would make it easy to order the towels without interrupting the task at hand. Seems like a good idea to me.

I guess what I would really like is buttons like these that just make an entry on a shopping list, without actually ordering the item. Maybe I'll get one and see if it can be hacked to do that.

Re:Can't you people plan ahead?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Oh, that's an excellent idea. Make the whole thing open source and open hardware, 3D-printable casing, etc.

Use 12×12mm buttons and round button caps. Just pick another colour than white for the button cap so Amazon won't complain about the "design trademark" and make the whole thing send something like an email so it's platform-agnostic.

Well

[koan]

Instead of buggering Amazon lets take a look at the mentality of the average "consumer" and how well they have been groomed over the years by marketing teams.

That's the real story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

BFD

[Anonymous Coward]

Lighten up dude - Sellers have been prying money out of customers for thousands on years.

Disconnecting the customer from pricing.

[hwstar]

Press a button, pay top dollar.

Sounds similar to Priceline, a company which also obfuscates pricing information to extract the most from its customers.

I could build my own dash tabs with an ESP8266 wifi board, and some Python code running on my home server, but relying on my memory is way easier.

Amazon has gone for obfuscation as business model

[Comrade Ogilvy]

My family has decided to avoid Amazon as much as possible because they changed their billing system in a manner guaranteed to confuse customers..

First, they do not just ship an order, but ship by some magic optimization algorithms, where they might pick and choose between various of our open orders and ship opportunistically. We do not like that change, but we recognize there is a legit business reason or going that way, so we are okay enough with it..

Second, they do not send you a bill that says "We sent you item A and item B, and we are charging your credit card X and Y". No, they just charge you account. And they send an email "Oh, we just shipped A and C." .

So if you are curious about any of the charges to your account, you must manually correlate (1) your credit card bill and its many entries by date, (2) all your original order that have info on item cost, and (3) the various emails about stuff getting shipped to you. If you have many orders, that can be a 4 hour process. If you want to call Amazon and have a question, the friendly person on the other end will be more confused than you, and you get to spend 2-3 hours on the phone, and they still may not have a clue. So you get to have multiple phone calls..

BTW, it is pretty obvious that Amazon must track "We charged X for item A and shipped it date D" for accounting purposes. But they do not want you to know anything about that. You are supposed to obediently pay whatever they feel like charging your account.

Customers and value propositions

[sjbe]

Or did you think the evolution of subscriptions and microtransactions was to benefit you, the customer?

It HAS to benefit the customer. If it doesn't benefit the customer the customer won't buy it. It might benefit the seller more but customers don't buy anything that doesn't have a value proposition. If the customer buys it then obviously the customer found some amount of benefit in the transaction.

Re:Customers and value propositions

[JohnFen]

It might benefit the seller more but customers don't buy anything that doesn't have a value proposition.

This is demonstrably untrue. Customers buy things all the time that have no value proposition to them. We even have an entire industry devoted to convincing people to do this. It's called marketing.

Re:Amazon has gone for obfuscation as business mod

[dagarath]

Which is only a problem if you have numerous open orders at any one time... that are delayed shipping for some reason.. You are wanting to batch order and have amazon itemize your ticket when shipped.. vs itemize on order which is what they do. I'm sure you have some reason for wanting that, but it doesn't fit my use case.

Re:Amazon has gone for obfuscation as business mod

[blueg3]

I order quite a bit from Amazon, including things that split shipments (ship different days or are a mix of Prime and non-Prime). The "Your order [...] has shipped!" e-mails list an amount charged for the items that actually shipped, and these are the same values that appear on my credit card. While the default "Your Orders" view on the website groups things by order (which is not the same as shipment or credit card charge), the "Invoice" link on each order breaks down the order correctly (by shipment, with separated charges). These also match up with credit card charges.

Sour grapes idiot

[samantha]

One click is brilliant. Amazon has changed the face of finding stuff you want, seeing what its popularity and rep is and buying it and getting it delivered to your door. Anyone that thinks they can do better is very welcome to try. I love Amazon and am very glad they are there.

Shock

[argStyopa]

Business offers convenience at a slightly higher price point, makes it easy for customers to spend money.

This is news to ANYONE? It's a fucking business, they're trying to make money (and AFAIK Amazon doesn't really make any). Would we be surprised that grocery stores are laid out to make the most money? Car dealerships?

Oh, and they're startlingly easy to hack
http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/...

The summary reads like the grossest sort of hit-piece. Not sure why Fast Company backed such a naked assassination attempt, but whatever.

Re:Amazon has gone for obfuscation as business mod

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is dubious. There's always an option to ship opportunistically or group them into as few shipments as possible in the shipping options page during checkout.

Re:Amazon has gone for obfuscation as business mod

[ScentCone]

they do not send you a bill that says "We sent you item A and item B, and we are charging your credit card X and Y". No, they just charge you account. And they send an email "Oh, we just shipped A and C."

Everything you want to know is right there under the "My Account" button, including per-shipment invoice display with charge details reconciled to every charge and shipping event. The only reason you aren't talking about that is because you're either trying to spread some FUD, or you're suggesting that you've been a customer of theirs through multiple orders, and couldn't ever bother to click on a "see details" link.

You are supposed to obediently pay whatever they feel like charging your account.

Ah, it's not laziness, then. This is demonstrably not true, even for someone giving it a casual look. For some reason, you're just trolling.

Re: That's all that consumer-oriented businesses d

[Anonymous Coward]

Cows are not useless. Mooo.

Provantage is Ingram Micro reseller

[Anonymous Coward]

Provantage (all chicks by the way) re-sells Ingram Micro stock. I used to use them when they went by another name many many years ago. So many years, even, that it used to be internet orders were a lot slower than phoning it in, by 2 or 3 days.

I still get the every-2-months sales brochure. Prices in these lately, say last few years, are SKY-HIGH -- high-margin product -- where yesteryear they were sane. I mean same product classes, just now all high-margin products. For example, an 8-port Gbit switch you can get for $20 many places on the net will not be had at provantage. Instead you see $300 switches. Just basic stuff. Or if you want low, you get old. Want an $80 AP/router? Here's a class-G wifi for you.

Lots and lots of UPSes. Never seen so many UPS in so few pages.

On UPSes. From amazon many moons ago I order a tripp-lite UPS. Got it and it didn't work. Sent it back for replacement. Got another and this one rattled. It worked. Opened it up. All four screws holding in the transformer where NO SCREWED IN. All four of the 4-inch screws where not screwed in at all. End of anything tripp-lite again. Amazon will send out returns as "new", and this may have been somebody, maybe APC, doing that, buying tripp-lite and messing with it, then sending it back to amazon for return and amazon turning it back around as new. Yeah, amazon does that. Got a radio once that already the batteries in it -- backwards! More.

Saving time on wasteful activities

[sjbe]

In other words, people have become disgustingly lazy.

The target demographic for these is the exact opposite of lazy. It's aimed at people who are very busy and who are willing to trade a bit of money for time. Just because someone thinks time spent shopping for and buying dish soap is wasteful does not make them lazy. It makes them prudent if anything. I buy stuff online all the time so I don't have to waste hours pointlessly driving around so I can buy things - a complete waste of my life. I'd rather spend the time doing something else. This is just a logical extension of that. Do you find the process of ordering dish soap to be a good use of your time? I sure don't.

Re:Saving time on wasteful activities

[fluffernutter]

I don't know, I'm not part of the new-school where everything possible has to be done online. I spend 10 seconds in the dish soap aisle at the grocery store, because I have to be there for food anyway. Doing it the old way means I don't need all kinds of gadgets to run my life and is probably way more efficient.

So what?

[kmoser]

This is just like complaining that Costco or Sam's Club entices you to buy too much of a product because you have to buy a minimum amount. If the button entices me to order an extra case of toilet paper or bottle of detergent a little earlier than I would have without the button, what's the difference? Either way I'm going to use up that product, and since it has a long shelf life it probably won't go bad. The only problem might be with compulsive hoarders who feel compelled to keep ordering more and more.

I found ...

[PPH]

... a button I could use.