Privacy (for robot vacuums) isn’t cheap. via the Verge.

  • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This title is dumb. Companies are not selling all of their products at a loss just to harvest your data[1] and privacy is not significantly more expensive. Don’t let capitalism fool you into believing we’re suffering from anything but the natural progression of “infinite growth”.

    We’re so far into dystopia, and used to every company double/triple/quadruple dipping, that the entire concept of a company simply building a quality product, that lasts as long as possible, without ads, or extracting and selling your data, planned obsolescence, or price gouging is insanity… which is itself, batshit insane. This is not an efficient system. It’s a runaway freight train of greed and narcissism that is parasitically killing our host spaceship.

    [1] they might be with Alexa hubs and other select data harvesting multipliers, but they’re probably selling them at cost or a tiny loss.

    • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Depends on the business model. Take Apple and Amazon. Apple makes most of its cash off hardware sales. As such, Apple will never sell you a $50 Mac hoping to make the money back thru services or ad revenue of any kind. And why their HomePods cost 3x more than any smart speaker.

      On the other hand, Amazon doesn’t make money off hardware. They routinely blow out Fire products at insane discounts. A 10th of what Apple charges for a comparable product. Because they make their cash of sales and services. Products are just a conduit to more lucrative services.

      You can’t lump every company into the same money making MO. Every company tends to have their own unique angle.

    • DaDragon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean it’s partially true, do you remember Juicero? The entire goal was to get you integrated into the subscription model. It was well built, but they still priced it in a way that would make people want to buy the service needed to actually use it. Most companies either want subscriptions, or willingly lower build quality just to be able to sell you a new version within a shorter timeframe

      • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        The idea you need to buy a “juice pack” rather than literally buying a bag of good frozen fruit and just letting it melt into juice is insane. I hate how companies have everyone convinced they can offer you something and act like its super hard and only they can do it sucks.

        I had this realization about computer apps. You can replicate almost any function or code, but it does makes sense often in that domain to simply buy the app if its for keeps and that is maintained.

        • DaDragon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It was a badly thought out product, I agree. It also failed quite spectacularly because of it. I just brought it up because it was actually a really good deal based on the device quality itself. Sadly the entire press can’t even use normal burlap pouches with fruit inside, it doesn’t produce the pressure. It might have been a turd, but by god, they put as much gold on it as they could.

          I think juicers themselves can be a good product, but not with an idiotic business model behind it too. Oh and they should not require WiFi access for DRM verification of the juice packets and device.

          • homura1650@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            One of the lessons I have learned as an engineer is that device quality doesn’t matter if you do not need a high quality device. There are times when you need a high quality press. Squeezing juice out of a pouch is not one of them. All of that extra quality you bought is doing nothing, because all you are using it for is squeezing juice out of a pouch.

            • DaDragon@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fair. Although it is nice seeing needlessly well built products when they do pop up (as long as you don’t need to pay for that extra build quality, of course)

      • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It may have been well built, but was still completely idiotic. Who, in his right mind, would buy a proprietary bag of fruit pieces instead of normal fruit that has to be at least half the price.

        The business model just didn’t make sense.

        • arc25275@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It wasn’t even a bag of fruit pieces, it was already pre juiced and the machine just put it into your cup (which you could do by manually squeezing it too)

      • Tak@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree with that being the reason. Products without lots of bullshit do fine but Instant Pot purchased other companies and tried to expand into basically every kitchen role in like 5 years.

        Look at Vitamix for instance and even with making composters? they seem to manage without bullshit.