The Age of Unjustifiable Consumerism(newark1.com)
newark1.com
The Age of Unjustifiable Consumerism
https://newark1.com/iphone-7-wireless-consumerism-marketing
49 comments
> Advertising does create demand, but it plays upon people's existing dissatisfaction with their lives. It only works because so many people are so unhappy.
It's not just that. It amplifies peoples' dissatisfaction. Brings it to focus, in order to convince them that the advertised product will help. It keeps telling people that they will be happier if they buy, and then it tells them what to buy.
> If more people were better connected with other people and able to live in the moment, advertising would be less effective.
Yeah, if more people would be able to resist the impact of huge armies of highly trained, highly paid professionals, with access to state-of-the-art research in psychology, sociology and economics, who also can leverage resources of huge multinational corporations... Yeah, if each of one individually could only resist that, we'd all be fine.
It's not just that. It amplifies peoples' dissatisfaction. Brings it to focus, in order to convince them that the advertised product will help. It keeps telling people that they will be happier if they buy, and then it tells them what to buy.
> If more people were better connected with other people and able to live in the moment, advertising would be less effective.
Yeah, if more people would be able to resist the impact of huge armies of highly trained, highly paid professionals, with access to state-of-the-art research in psychology, sociology and economics, who also can leverage resources of huge multinational corporations... Yeah, if each of one individually could only resist that, we'd all be fine.
> No, it exists as evidence of trying to be happy by craving material possessions. We believe that they'll make us happy, but all they really provide is temporary relief from our cravings and then more misery once the craving reasserts itself. It's a cycle that never leads to actual happiness.
It's more than that. It's an evolved behavior for status signaling. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00C4B2TC0
It's more than that. It's an evolved behavior for status signaling. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00C4B2TC0
Funnily enough I was in Berlin not so long ago, and I stayed with some students who don't even own smart phones and they live very happy, healthy lives.
They believe smart phones are a major threat to their privacy and wallet so they just don't bother with them at all. They just don't actually need them.
It's had me thinking for sometime now whether or not I actually needed a AUD $1000+ smart phone, when I first purchased one it was only society that told me I needed one, no one else.
Food for thought.
They believe smart phones are a major threat to their privacy and wallet so they just don't bother with them at all. They just don't actually need them.
It's had me thinking for sometime now whether or not I actually needed a AUD $1000+ smart phone, when I first purchased one it was only society that told me I needed one, no one else.
Food for thought.
Overall, it seems, smartphone ownership in Germany is less than the U.S., but not a whole lot less:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_smartphon...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_smartphon...
That's interesting about the students. Were they geeks? Also was it definitely a case of 'we don't want them' or was that just a cover for 'we can't afford them'?
Based on my limited interaction it seems pretty common among German university students to not own smartphones for reasons other than financial (but I can't tell you whether that's 5% or 25% of all students). Sometimes it's a conscious decision, sometimes they never felt a pressing need for owning one (given that among certain social circles they are not relied upon for communication). Even those that own one often don't carry them during routine days in university as they find themselves too distracted by it. Probably varies a lot by field. Social sciences probably have the lowest number of smartphone users.
(Of course you also see a lot of heads buried in phones as soon as you step anywhere near a university – or anywhere else.)
This also applies to graduates. People in the 25-35 age bracket around me have less smart phone usage than what I experienced in other countries. Among my friends almost anything is discussed face-to-face, via phone, or via email (in that order) and if I have to wait until the evening for an answer that's fine.
(Of course you also see a lot of heads buried in phones as soon as you step anywhere near a university – or anywhere else.)
This also applies to graduates. People in the 25-35 age bracket around me have less smart phone usage than what I experienced in other countries. Among my friends almost anything is discussed face-to-face, via phone, or via email (in that order) and if I have to wait until the evening for an answer that's fine.
Someone, somewhere at Apple: "Damn those German students for being too productive - don't they know this is what causes trade imbalances and global instability. Can't they just be like everyone else and buy stuff they don't need?"
Speaking for myself: Berlin has a special kind of poor-is-sexy culture and this would not be too unusual. Lived there for 4yrs, most of them without a smartphone (had a 20eur burner phone for communication and to receive monitoring alerts). Had an absolute blast and didn't feel like I was missing a thing.
I had the opposite experience when I moved to the US (coming from Europe). It struck me how people consumed more of everything. Tech gadgets, food... I think in Europe we are a bit more defiant toward consumerism, esp. in more educated environments (but we're catching up!).
It reminds me of a cool classic sci-fi movie about consumerism. John Carpenter's "They Live". I watched it as a kid but it started to make sense later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live
"Nada quickly discovers the sunglasses have unique properties: they reduce the colors of the world around him to black and white and allow him to see that media and advertising hide omnipresent subliminal totalitarian commands to obey, consume, reproduce, and conform. They also make clear that many people in positions of wealth and power are actually humanoid aliens with skull-like faces."
It reminds me of a cool classic sci-fi movie about consumerism. John Carpenter's "They Live". I watched it as a kid but it started to make sense later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live
"Nada quickly discovers the sunglasses have unique properties: they reduce the colors of the world around him to black and white and allow him to see that media and advertising hide omnipresent subliminal totalitarian commands to obey, consume, reproduce, and conform. They also make clear that many people in positions of wealth and power are actually humanoid aliens with skull-like faces."
>> "It struck me how people consumed more of everything. Tech gadgets, food... I think in Europe we are a bit more defiant toward consumerism"
Obviously it depends where you are in Europe. In the UK I'd say we're a lot more towards the American end of consumerism but they still take it much further. Food is the biggest jump for me. I still remember my first time in America and I was out for dinner. My friend suggested we split a meal as the portions were large. I still couldn't finish mine (and I eat quite a lot) and she brought home a doggie bag with enough food for two other people. And this was quite a nice restaurant too where I'd have expected smaller portions.
Obviously it depends where you are in Europe. In the UK I'd say we're a lot more towards the American end of consumerism but they still take it much further. Food is the biggest jump for me. I still remember my first time in America and I was out for dinner. My friend suggested we split a meal as the portions were large. I still couldn't finish mine (and I eat quite a lot) and she brought home a doggie bag with enough food for two other people. And this was quite a nice restaurant too where I'd have expected smaller portions.
Interesting. I've only spent a few days in Berlin (about a year ago) and I definitely got that anti-consumerism vibe. I quite enjoyed it and people seemed pretty happy just hanging out and having a drink and some conversation in grimy bars that probably wouldn't survive in London. I'm generalising probably as it's a big city but in the area I was in I definitely got that impression.
There's not really that much of a difference between "not want" and "not afford". There are two levels of "can't afford". One is "completely out of my league", the other is "i could, if i made compromises elsewhere".
Owning a beaten-up low end smartphone for the utility (e.g. being able to check public transport times anywhere) is well within the "compromise" range for just about everybody, playing the "latest iPhone every fall" game would be clearly out of range for many.
The "going low-tech" crowd just happens to be very sensitive (and hostile) to signs of consumerism and this perception blinds out all traces of utility they might see otherwise. "I'm too smart to play a game i can't win" is a very desirable status message to send and it's best conveyed by an old Nokia. Being in Berlin and having a good time also makes them pretty immune to the nagging question of "am i missing out on something big by not having a smartphone?" that is driving smartphone adoption in other parts of society (e.g. the elderly).
PS: oh, and one argument in favor of "can't afford" crossed my mind nonetheless: some might actually think that they can't afford a smartphone. The really cheap options are not heavily advertised, so non-technical people in Germany often think that all smartphone ownership would be as expensive as the ridiculous "1€ iPhone" contracts they see on the billboards. Avoiding smartphone ownership because you are scared of hidden costs would be a very, very "german" thing to do.
Owning a beaten-up low end smartphone for the utility (e.g. being able to check public transport times anywhere) is well within the "compromise" range for just about everybody, playing the "latest iPhone every fall" game would be clearly out of range for many.
The "going low-tech" crowd just happens to be very sensitive (and hostile) to signs of consumerism and this perception blinds out all traces of utility they might see otherwise. "I'm too smart to play a game i can't win" is a very desirable status message to send and it's best conveyed by an old Nokia. Being in Berlin and having a good time also makes them pretty immune to the nagging question of "am i missing out on something big by not having a smartphone?" that is driving smartphone adoption in other parts of society (e.g. the elderly).
PS: oh, and one argument in favor of "can't afford" crossed my mind nonetheless: some might actually think that they can't afford a smartphone. The really cheap options are not heavily advertised, so non-technical people in Germany often think that all smartphone ownership would be as expensive as the ridiculous "1€ iPhone" contracts they see on the billboards. Avoiding smartphone ownership because you are scared of hidden costs would be a very, very "german" thing to do.
One friend I made is studying sociology, he runs Linux and it's very important to him to run open source software. I wouldn't call him a geek, just a really conscientious person.
Smartphones are quite affordable in Germany even for students. I'm not a student anymore but I don't own a smartphone for the same reasons, even though I could afford one.
I find it crazy that so many people are willing to pay so much for iphones. There are much cheaper phones that offer pretty much the same features, certainly a little less polished but very usable. I know people for whom an iphone is a huge expense but they didn't consider the cheaper alternatives. Apple really did an awesome job marketing their phones.
It's basically the same as brand vs. no-name products, albeit with larger absolute values. I can buy an Android smartphone that's largely equivalent to an iPhone for half the price, and I can buy most processed food from no-name brands at half the price (or less) than brands. To add insult to injury, at least here in Germany, no-name products are usually produced by the same companies making the brand product, so it's not even a quality compromise (usually they only add some extra flavor to the brand product).
An other example is bottled water that can cost about 1000 times more than tap water.
Especially ironic since tap water is the most strictly regulated beverage in Germany.
Look past the airpod hate train in this post and I think you'll see a valid point. Post-Jobs Apple is shifting towards being a technology fashion company. It was always in their DNA, but if you look at the Apple Watch as well, the trend is clear. Since fashion is practically the platonic ideal of a marketing induced want, Apple fashion products will be useful examples of marketing's power to change our behavior.
Just by entering the Watch market you're doing fashion though. As more tech becomes 'wearable' won't all tech companies become fashion companies in some sense? Technically you could argue Google Glass was a fashion product (just not a very fashionable one).
Damn good point! I never really realized that before, but you are totally right. Watches and glasses are (maybe due to Luxotica) in the fashion category, you can't hide them in a pocket like you can with a phone. You want to show them off. Other items include bracelets, earrings, teeth/braces, anklets/armlets, and rings. Many of these are female specific though, at least in the US. I would not be surprised to find that these fit-bit things are aimed towards being a 'smart' replacement for bracelets, as a way to 'signal' that you are wealthy. The new earbuds for Apple may be a foray into replacing earrings with 'smart' earrings. The next things to look out for are then 'smart' versions of rings, anklets, and (somehow) braces, though I imagine only the braces for Asian countries where braces are seen as a luxury good and not a medical one. Other far-future things would then be hand-bags, clutches, wallets or belts, shoes, and dresses, possibly even 'smart' make-up like lipsticks and mascara holders. Basically, Apple is maybe deciding to become a techy fashion and signaling mechanism for wealthy and upper middle class people. The price is very high, but the quality is also very good too, though maybe not enough for the price. If this is true, expect more things that are 'exclusive' and tied towards appearance.
The author talks about Bluetooth headphones as if it was an invention of the evil Apple...
I've been exclusively using Bluetooth headphones/earphones, with my phones, since 2009, when the NOKIA BH-905 came out. And its price was around $300.
The liberty of movement a Bluetooth pair gives you, either running, around the house, or in your commute, made me never go back... I'm already on my 7th different Bluetooth headphone/earphone.
You can critique the design that Apple chose for its Bluetooth hearbuds, but don't say Bluetooth headphones/earphones in general are unjustifiable consumerism and that wired is the way to go...
The liberty of movement a Bluetooth pair gives you, either running, around the house, or in your commute, made me never go back... I'm already on my 7th different Bluetooth headphone/earphone.
You can critique the design that Apple chose for its Bluetooth hearbuds, but don't say Bluetooth headphones/earphones in general are unjustifiable consumerism and that wired is the way to go...
You've bought 7 sets of Bluetooth headphones in 7 years, for ~$300 each. I get that there are advantages to not having that wire but spending hundreds a year would be enough to keep me away. Plus the nuisance of having to charge them and the lower audio fidelity (though I'm far from an audiophile so my bar is set low, reliability and call quality more important).
Later models most likely cost less because the technology became more commoditized.
That's true, though I wouldn't expect such a fan to opt for the cheapest available. If someone's buying an average of one a year, that could be due to poor durability or each iteration has clear room for improvement, addressed by another model.
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wireless-exercise-head...
My understanding are the AirPods are a relative bargain when compared to other models that use independent pieces in each ear.
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wireless-exercise-head...
My understanding are the AirPods are a relative bargain when compared to other models that use independent pieces in each ear.
You're arguing against a strawman. No one is saying Bluetooth headphones aren't good...there's no need to defend them.
The critique of Apple is that they're only offering Bluetooth headphones. Bluetooth headphones work great on iPhones that have a headphone jack. If Apple introduced these headphones and kept the traditional headphone jack, there'd be no criticism.
The critique of Apple is that they're only offering Bluetooth headphones. Bluetooth headphones work great on iPhones that have a headphone jack. If Apple introduced these headphones and kept the traditional headphone jack, there'd be no criticism.
As an engineer and business owner one of my main concerns is how to bring value to my customers. But making anything new or innovative is incredible expensive.
For me expending 159 USD in those earbuds in VERY CHEAP considering that making one pair of those myself will cost me some tens of millions of dollars.
Try it yourself to put accelerometers and gyroscopes, microphones a battery, a digital to analog converter, infrared sensors in such a small space and then tell me this is expensive.
There are professional people who could spend wisely on something so lightweight like this and 160 dollars is no money. For example we have some robots controlled by voice and the current wireless headphones we use weight too much. Cables are dangerous in this environment.
Some people believe that the world and the Universe rules around them. If they have not use for wireless earpods, or they don't have money for it, then nobody in the world has use for it, it it so expensive and "Unjustifiable consumerism".
Apple has a history of bringing things to market that "nobody will use" by the critics and then when they sell like crazy it is marketing and people being stupid.
If you consider people stupid, you should consider that maybe you are the stupid one and marketting in the real sense actually means understanding the market so well you create the thing that people needs before they know.
After someone lent me a Gopro camera, I realize I needed one. That was marketing? Yeah, it was someone who had the same needs I have creating the product I needed before I knew.
For me expending 159 USD in those earbuds in VERY CHEAP considering that making one pair of those myself will cost me some tens of millions of dollars.
Try it yourself to put accelerometers and gyroscopes, microphones a battery, a digital to analog converter, infrared sensors in such a small space and then tell me this is expensive.
There are professional people who could spend wisely on something so lightweight like this and 160 dollars is no money. For example we have some robots controlled by voice and the current wireless headphones we use weight too much. Cables are dangerous in this environment.
Some people believe that the world and the Universe rules around them. If they have not use for wireless earpods, or they don't have money for it, then nobody in the world has use for it, it it so expensive and "Unjustifiable consumerism".
Apple has a history of bringing things to market that "nobody will use" by the critics and then when they sell like crazy it is marketing and people being stupid.
If you consider people stupid, you should consider that maybe you are the stupid one and marketting in the real sense actually means understanding the market so well you create the thing that people needs before they know.
After someone lent me a Gopro camera, I realize I needed one. That was marketing? Yeah, it was someone who had the same needs I have creating the product I needed before I knew.
Yes, I personally find the (recurrent) dismissals of "marketing" posted on Hacker News are getting a little bit long in the tooth.
It's either criticized as some magical tool that can flip a switch in people's mind and make them buy anything, or something completely useless because people should be able to educate themselves about the objective qualities of products before they make a decision.
Every discussion gets muddled between people who a) have no experience in the field b) mix up marketing with advertising, with sales, or with anything they feel like criticizing c) do not seem to like the idea of commerce itself.
It's either criticized as some magical tool that can flip a switch in people's mind and make them buy anything, or something completely useless because people should be able to educate themselves about the objective qualities of products before they make a decision.
Every discussion gets muddled between people who a) have no experience in the field b) mix up marketing with advertising, with sales, or with anything they feel like criticizing c) do not seem to like the idea of commerce itself.
There's marketing, and then there's marketing. You can do this by asking yourself what's the best product that would solve some problem for largest amount of people and then building that, or you can ask yourself how you can trick people into buying the cheapest shit you can get away with. A lot of marketing criticized on HN is of the second kind; this is also pretty much what most startups do, by the way.
"There's engineering, and then there's engineering. You can do this by creating new products that help people solve problems, or you can manufacture bombs that blow up and kill people." And yet nobody criticizes "engineering". Odd, isn't it?
The trouble I've noticed is that the vast majority are completely unwilling to consider that what they feel is "the cheapest shit you can get away with" could also be a perfectly fine product for a set of users.
The product that will solve a problem for the largest number of people will tend to be cheap. That means most of the time it won't meet the requirement of first-world privileged engineers who think everything has to meet impossibly high standards of quality. But that doesn't mean it's something that's not worthy of anybody's consideration.
So I guess the problem is with the "tricking people" rather than the quality of the product. But here's some sobering reality for you: no amount of "tricking" whatsoever will make people buy things they don't want. You need a good product, i.e. a product people want.
Sure, some companies will use false advertising (illegal) or use other (illegal) means of coercing people into buying things.
And... that's not "marketing", sorry.
Much like I won't call "terrorism" "engineering" because some people used engineering knowledge to blow up a car somewhere.
The trouble I've noticed is that the vast majority are completely unwilling to consider that what they feel is "the cheapest shit you can get away with" could also be a perfectly fine product for a set of users.
The product that will solve a problem for the largest number of people will tend to be cheap. That means most of the time it won't meet the requirement of first-world privileged engineers who think everything has to meet impossibly high standards of quality. But that doesn't mean it's something that's not worthy of anybody's consideration.
So I guess the problem is with the "tricking people" rather than the quality of the product. But here's some sobering reality for you: no amount of "tricking" whatsoever will make people buy things they don't want. You need a good product, i.e. a product people want.
Sure, some companies will use false advertising (illegal) or use other (illegal) means of coercing people into buying things.
And... that's not "marketing", sorry.
Much like I won't call "terrorism" "engineering" because some people used engineering knowledge to blow up a car somewhere.
> "the cheapest shit you can get away with" could also be a perfectly fine product for a set of users.
Where cheapness is bad is when it is sacrificing a large amount of utility for a marginal price reduction, to trick people into thinking it's the best value.
> no amount of "tricking" whatsoever will make people buy things they don't want.
Well of course not, since the "trick" is making them want it when it will provide little benefit.
Where cheapness is bad is when it is sacrificing a large amount of utility for a marginal price reduction, to trick people into thinking it's the best value.
> no amount of "tricking" whatsoever will make people buy things they don't want.
Well of course not, since the "trick" is making them want it when it will provide little benefit.
How do you know the benefit it provides isn't exactly commensurate to people's willingness to pay for it?
Do you think that people buying Pet Rocks have been "tricked" into something, for example?
Do you think that people buying Pet Rocks have been "tricked" into something, for example?
That upfront cost of tens of millions of dollars is spread across tens of millions of units sold. That's why you won't see devices like this aimed at niche markets like "robots controlled by voice and the current wireless headphones we use weight too much".
IPhone7 comes with wired headphones that connect through the charger's port.
I live very frugal and I'm happier like that. However, I'm mature enough to understand that the world needs some consumerism to keep an healthy job market. The easier it is to get a job, the easier it is to correct your mistakes/misfortune during life.
My Note 4 was part of a batch of phones with no earphone jack. I buy pretty nice Bluetooth headphones for $15. They would work fine on the new iPhones, right? $159 earphones seems like a sucker purchase.
[deleted]
If they hate consumerism so much, why are they using Apple products and product pictures as a click bait hook?
I buy these products because they are the tools I use to earn my living. The EarPods are just another accessory that may or may not make sense to you.
I buy these products because they are the tools I use to earn my living. The EarPods are just another accessory that may or may not make sense to you.
see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
""" In an economy, the consumption of Veblen goods is a function of the Veblen effect (goods desired for being over-priced) that is named after the American economist Thorstein Veblen, who first identified conspicuous consumption as a mode of status-seeking in The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899). """
""" In an economy, the consumption of Veblen goods is a function of the Veblen effect (goods desired for being over-priced) that is named after the American economist Thorstein Veblen, who first identified conspicuous consumption as a mode of status-seeking in The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899). """
Consumerism is great. You just have to try to be on the selling side, not the buying side. Even if it is as an employee of a company selling useless stuff to easily suggested consumers.
As it is, there is a limitless supply of consumers. Society does not need you to play too.
As it is, there is a limitless supply of consumers. Society does not need you to play too.
Consumerism is good, if it binds for limited ressources great amounts of consumer time.In this time, the consumer does not spend, the consumer does not buy, the consumer does not destroy. Minecraft is a great example for destructive consumerism. Selling a game for 10 $ which would take a large part of the audience for up to five years partially out of the game industry market.
Seriously? More shit on the iPhone headphone jack?
>> What brings this to mind is the introduction of the Apple iPhone 7. One of its highly touted 'features' is the elimination of a headphone jack. Taking advantage of this 'feature' requires the purchase of optional wireless earbuds (AirPods) that retail for an additional $159.00. Plus, the AirPods need their batteries charged independent of your smartphone on a dedicated charger (each charge lasts a maximum of five hours) .
1. The elimination of the headphone jack is not touted as a 'feature'. The bluetooth alternative using the W1 chip is and that's not actually related to the phone.
2. AirPod's are an optional accessory. Just like a case. Or any other pair of wireless headphones. Standard headphones still ship in the box as always and connect to your phone with a wire. Complaining that they are 'required' to use a feature of the phone (which again, they are not) is like complaining you need to buy a Car to use the 'CarPlay' feature or that you need to buy a lightbulb to use the 'HomeKit' feature.
3. Of course they need charging. Just like most other wireless headphones. In fact charging AirPods is more convenient than most because the carrying case doubles as a charger and stores 24hours power. So when they're in your pocket not being used they can be charging.
When is this circle jerk going to stop? If you're going to waste time keeping it going at least get the basic facts right.
>> What brings this to mind is the introduction of the Apple iPhone 7. One of its highly touted 'features' is the elimination of a headphone jack. Taking advantage of this 'feature' requires the purchase of optional wireless earbuds (AirPods) that retail for an additional $159.00. Plus, the AirPods need their batteries charged independent of your smartphone on a dedicated charger (each charge lasts a maximum of five hours) .
1. The elimination of the headphone jack is not touted as a 'feature'. The bluetooth alternative using the W1 chip is and that's not actually related to the phone.
2. AirPod's are an optional accessory. Just like a case. Or any other pair of wireless headphones. Standard headphones still ship in the box as always and connect to your phone with a wire. Complaining that they are 'required' to use a feature of the phone (which again, they are not) is like complaining you need to buy a Car to use the 'CarPlay' feature or that you need to buy a lightbulb to use the 'HomeKit' feature.
3. Of course they need charging. Just like most other wireless headphones. In fact charging AirPods is more convenient than most because the carrying case doubles as a charger and stores 24hours power. So when they're in your pocket not being used they can be charging.
When is this circle jerk going to stop? If you're going to waste time keeping it going at least get the basic facts right.
It seems less of a critique of the headphone jack, than of $160 AirPods that easily fall out of one's ears. As the article concludes, the saving grace is the lack of a jack will lead to the proliferation of cheaper alternatives from other manufacturers.
It seems like a critique of the airpods, but it claims to be a general critique of consumerism. So far, Apple has not sold a single pair and it would not be the first Apple accessory to get rejected by the market. The airpods might turn out to be more of an example of reason prevailing than of consumerism.
(If this happens, I would blame part of it on the tactical decision to announce the airpods alongside the removal of the headphone jack. If those had been spread out over an iPhone generation or two, the airpods would have been met with a lot less hostility. Or maybe this was the plan, make people vent all their steam on the airpods while happily plugging into the lightning port?)
(If this happens, I would blame part of it on the tactical decision to announce the airpods alongside the removal of the headphone jack. If those had been spread out over an iPhone generation or two, the airpods would have been met with a lot less hostility. Or maybe this was the plan, make people vent all their steam on the airpods while happily plugging into the lightning port?)
>> "AirPods that easily fall out of one's ears"
Fine, but they haven't even been released yet. EarPods are the best fitting earphones for me. However I'm sure for others they fall out all the time. My point is that a paragraph based on the assertion that these 'expensive' earphones will fall out is ridiculous when the author hasn't tried them and their fit will differ from person to person.
Fine, but they haven't even been released yet. EarPods are the best fitting earphones for me. However I'm sure for others they fall out all the time. My point is that a paragraph based on the assertion that these 'expensive' earphones will fall out is ridiculous when the author hasn't tried them and their fit will differ from person to person.
I think the author's point stands since they show that the airpods should be expected to have the same fit as the earpods and that the earpods don't fit half of people's ears without falling out. Therefore the $160 headphones are vastly more disposable than wired IEMs of the same price. That's about what I paid for a pair of etymotic er4s a decade ago.
No, it exists as evidence of trying to be happy by craving material possessions. We believe that they'll make us happy, but all they really provide is temporary relief from our cravings and then more misery once the craving reasserts itself. It's a cycle that never leads to actual happiness.
Advertising does create demand, but it plays upon people's existing dissatisfaction with their lives. It only works because so many people are so unhappy. If more people were better connected with other people and able to live in the moment, advertising would be less effective.