Lots of comments around this point - that the Kaleidoscope costs too much.
I agree, but that is completely irrelevant. Bear in mind that early versions of successful products often cost too much, then they get economies of scale, then competitors take note of the market and build competing products, and prices normalize.
The iPhone first cost the full unsubsidized $600. It did OK. The first VCRs and DVD players were over a thousand dollars. Now they are $35ea. Laptops? $2,000 plus. Garmin Streetpilot GPS? $1,200.
That's how it goes...unless some douchebaggery stops it cold, such as the MPAA is doing here. THEN what happens is it NEVER gets affordable, market tested, scale economies, improved, etc. And then so few customers notice or care, that John Q. Public doesn't even know they've been screwed out of a good product category, even to the point of saying something like "What do I care. Darn thing costs $4k, who wants it anyway?"
The problem I was getting at is that too many people seem to think that a Free Market is a Perfect Market. It is not. There is not a pareto optimal equilibrium, because of distortions such as information dis-symmetry.
BTW, both printers and Keurig machines often give the user enough "starter" coffee or ink to get through the 15 day return period. Also, people are not keen to return things, since this effort is an additional cost.
Not so. The "free market" implies perfect information. Most consumers won't know/care enough about this issue when they shop their coffee maker, and will find themselves "trapped". Without perfect information that they will be "locked in" when they buy the machine, the consumer cannot be expected to send the correct market signal to the supply side.
Do you think Keurig will put the information in bold on the box? "This machine will not let you use off-brand pods." Hmm. I don't think they will.
There is often an information dis-symmetry between the suppliers (who spend all day thinking about the coffee and pod business), and consumers. Suppliers take advantage of this dis-symmetry to game the market. Thus, it isn't a perfect or free market.
I agree. I have a Brother label printer that does this. It has a Patented system where the label rolls come on a plastic roller. The roller mounts in the printer and has a system of dots drilled out that tell the printer the width of the label roll. That "communication" between print media and printer is the innovation that was patented, so you can only buy the rolls from Brother.
Or, you get out a hacksaw, glue, and grinder, and rig a system to create a re-usable label roller. Then, you could buy the labels at 1/3 the cost.
My staff make fun of me for going to this effort to save a few bucks...but then, they don't pay the bills. And they don't understand the personal satisfaction I get from the FU factor. Aaargh, mateys!
Re: Only idiots use pods anyway, the coffee SUCKS and is expensive
No. You are stupid. Stupid because you think all consumers have the same desires, needs, and usage patterns you have. Perhaps for YOU, brew or french press is a better method, but for me, Keurig (single brew)is better.
I have a small office, people all want different brews, and they want them at different times of the day. I could have a couple of Bunn brewers, and then pay an admin to keep them fresh. Or I could have what most offices have, bitter, old coffee and people who finish the pot, but don't re-brew. OR, I could put in one of these machines, and spend more per cup, yet everybody gets what they want, clean-up is basically non-existant, none of my staff wastest 5 minutes brewing and waiting on a new pot, and we don't pour out old coffee.
Don't be so egocentrical. The whole world doesn't share your viewpoint, and it doesn't make them stupid. Yet your self-centered view of the world IS making you so.
PS: Screw Keurig 2.0. I'll brew before I give them their pound of flesh.
As a telecom guy, I can tell you that they ALL do this. But it's not as nefarious as you think. That's just how network planning is done, and it's not just done that way by greedy corporates, but that's how university researchers would suggest networks be built.
Network capacity is always designed based on expected average use. It is not built to handle the peak load of each user using their full individual capacity. This is just like roads planning, hallway planning in buildings, seating planning in theaters, etc.
To build based on peak load would waste resources, and the price of the service would normally go up as a result.
Now, that said, it is a marketing choice of the ISPs if they claim you can get 50mbps, when they always oversubscribe the networks. However, you'll probably find an asterisk with an "up to" and a "Best effort" disclaimer.
PS. to the guy getting slow Internet, you should consider buying a DOCSIS 3 modem online, and installing it yourself. Two reasons: if you currently have a DOCSIS 2 modem, you *may* get better performance from the more recent technology, EVEN if your provider uses DOCSIS 2. Second, most of us pay a $7/mo lease for our cable modem, where if you buy it once for $90, you can save money.
Clapper = hypocrite. Does Clapper and the CIA not *constantly* put our agents at risk, by merely deploying them or assigning them missions abroad? Covert missions are dangerous, no? But I suppose they justify THAT risk because they think the risk is worth the benefit. That is reasonable.
So how is it any different that Snowden might put some agents at risk, while the benefit is the defense of our rights, the constitution, and the 4th Amendment?
Interestingly, so far, it's pretty clear to me that Snowden HAS benefited me, as a citizen. I'm not so sure that's true for Clapper. Gov't repeatedly fails to provide evidence that their surveillance has provided results.
Snowden Clapper Has put agents at risk ? Y Defends citizens/rights Y N Self-Righteous Y Y Pants on fire ? Y
The score favors team Snowden.
*as a side note, I proposed, for argument's sake, that Snowden DID put agents at risk, but I am not convinced that this is even true. Yet it is certain that the CIA puts the CIA agents at risk.