Instead of justifying the status quo, I think we would all benefit if we retired the concept of an economy that incentivizes companies to act evil in order to succeed in it.
Edit: 'evil' is a loaded word. I'm generally referring to profit being the only measure of success. I for one would like to see other KPIs enforced by government institutions, such as 'environmental impact' or 'human benefit'.
I don't get what's evil about it. If you want the expensive headphones and can afford them, get them. If you think they are too expensive, get other ones.
Edit: want I wanted to say is, that prices are arbitrary. They are a number on a label. As a customer you pick what suits you best. If you think Sennheiser or Apple is overpriced, buy something else. It is their decision to set a price, as it is your decision what to buy. You are also not an "evil" customer, if you don't buy their headphones.
I said companies are acting 'evil', not that customers are evil for not spending money.
You don't get what's evil because you're reacting to the environment you know, but you don't have to. Imagine a better environment where your options are not limited to "expensive headphones" or "less expensive headphones".
The alternative to the "'expensive headphones' vs 'less expensive headphones'" choice is not "less expensive headphones". Best case scenario, it's "slightly less expensive headphones but still more expensive than the originally less expensive ones". Or perhaps "they stop manufacturing headphones".
We're not living in a dream world. The conditions you set have consequences in how people behave. Not just individuals, but also companies.
Everybody arguing like this in the thread seems to be missing that the company is offering cross-subsidized headphones for $150. If you actually make them stop the two-tier system, then they would stop offering those for $150 and would need to sell the single-tier product for over $200. There will be some people who can't afford that. So your activism would prevent them from getting nice headphones for $150. Who's evil now?
Very correct, but you’re missing their point. What’s “evil” is that the folks who’ve spent their life designing, optimizing, investing in, and producing these products aren't doing it purely out of the goodness of their hearts, but selfishly in the pursuit of a better life.
What is “evil” to these posters is always “profit above the value of goods provided”. It doesn’t matter whatsoever that the (subjective) material and emotional situation of every happy sennheiser buyer, employee, and investor is better than before.
> What’s “evil” is that the folks who’ve spent their life designing, optimizing, investing in, and producing these products aren't doing it purely out of the goodness of their hearts, but selfishly in the pursuit of a better life.
Sure. That's true though to different degrees for everybody participating in a market-based economy. You can call all of us "evil", but then the term loses most of its meaning.
Instead of justifying the status quo, I think we would all benefit if we retired the concept of an economy that incentivizes companies to act evil in order to succeed in it.
Edit: 'evil' is a loaded word. I'm generally referring to profit being the only measure of success. I for one would like to see other KPIs enforced by government institutions, such as 'environmental impact' or 'human benefit'.