RTX-30xxx - price gouging in the UK - I thought it was illegal?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have seen those exact comments recently on another forum. Makes you think...

That is the point and sadly people are repeating many of those kinds of talking points on tech forums. The marketing has worked over the last decade. So I honestly think people actually believe it now. Nvidia like Apple has brilliant marketing.

In the end unless you are financially involved with such companies,why do you even want to excuse for large price increases each generation,or below par improvements,etc?? Its like an addict trying to justify stuff because they can't step back from it. Then people pointing out the problems are considered the ones at fault now. The whole "I am not buying yet" argument is pointless because price increases anywhere in the stack increase ALL prices in tech apparently,it increases prices on the previous generation and makes the secondhand market pricier too. This is where car analogies fall down - a Ferrari is hardly going to affect the tiering and pricing of a Fiat.

This is what people don't appreciate,and I saw it years ago when people made the same arguments when Nvidia tried pushing pricing up. Years later I saw some of these same people bemoan the state of the market,despite many of us saying this was going to happen.

Yet over 20 years ago,overclocking and modding was a way for people to save money,and not spend more money. It made companies less money,as it genuinely brought better value - now is it the case?? Some people on forums didn't seem to think Intel locking down overclocking 10 years ago,was a big deal - now see how that panned out?

By trying to "counter" people who see the problems,all they want is a narrower and narrower echo chamber,where newer entrants are less and less aware of the immediate past. Hence,it self reinforces itself. These companies don't care about you,so you need to do the same as a consumer.

The best thing to do,is to vote with your wallet always,and also to say why you are doing it. Companies not only don't like lower sales,but also don't like negativity. If anything they want all negativity stamped out,which is why stuff such as the NV FG were a thing even 15 years ago. Its about managing customers expectations to align with that of the company. So the impetus is moved away from the consumer,to what the company wants. They want apathy and people to just accept stuff without any question,or even to use seeded marketing points to defend it.

[badass]

No I am not going to stop as you almost sound like a marketeer,just pushing out weak arguments almost justifying price increases. You are trying to compare a CPU which is a commodity product,and some of these products have increased by 20% in ONE generation in price. Almost the entire Intel CPU lineup are laptop CPUs,rejigged to desktop with the same dies. They sell more of those in laptops,than desktops. People for years justified Intel pricing whilst they deep discounted them for OEMs.

Yet,you are making some absurd argument about 25 years ago when you know very well people are not making that argument. Using your argument maybe aluminium is too cheap,because it was worth more than gold 200 years ago

How shall I put this.

You suggested that GPU's were more like Ford focuses (or whatever the plural of focus is) and therefore complaining about GPU price increases is somehow different to complaining about Ferrari price increases. Because, you know, complaining about price increases on a completely unnecessary luxury item that most cannot afford any way sounds a bit spoilt and ridiculous.

The essence of your argument is that the analogy breaks down because Ferraris are made in small numbers by specialists. You suggested that comparing to a Ford focus was a better analogy.

I then demonstrated that new Ford focuses (or focii or whatever) have also gone up in price by way more than inflation as well. Thus making the argument that my analogy holds just as well.

That is the logic of the argument.

Oddly enough there's not so much whining about that. Even on Ford forums. People just buy second hand or go for a model lower down in the range than they otherwise would have.


You then responded with "No I am not going to stop as you almost sound like a marketeer,just pushing out weak arguments almost justifying price increases."
That is an ad hominem attack. I.e. not a valid argument. Just petty.

"You are trying to compare a CPU which is a commodity product"
Yes to a Ford Focus which you yourself suggested is a commodity product. Which has gone up in price. Now just imagine if the previous model generation started at around £18k or about 20% less than the current model. Wouldn't that be interesting

"Yet,you are making some absurd argument about 25 years ago when you know very well people are not making that argument. Using your argument maybe aluminium is too cheap,because it was worth more than gold 200 years ago"
OK so now we have the first proper counter argument here. Your original statement was essentially saying that your argument is that high end Graphics cards have gone up in price too fast and they should be cheaper. This argument here is that I have taken the timeline too far back as you are not comparing to 25 years ago. Essentially if we want to play the game of taking things back too far it gets absurd.

So I'll ask you this: Over what time period have Graphics card prices increased too fast for you? Secondly, who should set graphics card prices is they are too expensive?

[SilentSnake]

With mining becoming a thing, causing an increase in GPU prices, and the pricing trend I would say GPUs are a little too expensive atm, but I would say, in all honesty, not by a very large margin (maybe apart from 3090, but who would buy that unless they don't really care about the money).

I don't know how valid this point is going to be compared to other countries, but, in Poland, I vividly remember the following:

year 1998 - Diamond Monster 3D II (3Dfx Voodoo 2) gets released. PRICE = ~ 2x minimal monthly wage at the time. The strongest GPU at the time.

year 2011 - Radeon HD 7970 gets released. PRICE = ~ 2 x minimal monthly wage at the time. Radeon flagship card - can't remember NVIDIA prices at this time.

2020 - RTX 3080. PRICE = ~1.4 x minimal monthly wage, 3090 = ~3.

With the above in mind, I'm not surprised RTX 3080 is so hard to get.

Also please do note that the performance jump between cards slowed down. Imagine paying double the monthly minimum wage every 2-3 years for cards that are VASTLY more advanced and powerful.

The same goes for CPUs - between 1997 and 2014 I bought a new pc 5 times, so that's a PC every 3,4 years.

In comparison, my i7 4790k serves me for almost 6 years now and it's still pretty good. The jump between 4790k and Ryzen 5900x is a large one, but image going from pentium mmx 166 (166Mhz, 1997 release) to a Sempron 2800+ (2000 MHz, 2004) without getting a new PC along the way (I had a Celeron 333Mhz and an Athlon 1200Mhz along the way).

What is more, the best performance PCs are not something needed to survive, therefore we could say a "luxury tax" is applied here. It's not bread, it's not water, you don't need it to live.

Nowadays, you can build a perfectly fine PC using cheap, used parts, which is going to be at least decent for whatever a person needs to function normally in a covid society, or a buy a new, cheap pre-built one that's going to be just fine, too.

I'm not defending companies who obviously take advantage of the market, but it is difficult to blame them for wanting to make money when the products released stay relevant/usable for years and aren't bought as often as, say, 20 years ago.

[Saracen999]

....

So are people so scared of offending companies because of this?? Do they think if they shut up,those companies will reward with loyalty points??

Consumers need to realise the ultimate power is in their hands. Too many forums(and social media) seem to be trying to spin the power is in the hands of companies trying to sell us products. Seriously,WTF??

I hesitate to ascribe motivation to what "people" are saying on this or other forums, and especially so if I haven't even seen the specific examples you refer to. I have no idea why they said what they said.

As for the rest, I entirely agree power is in consumers hands provided they choose to exercise it. But that's really just another way of making my initial point - these prices are set by demand v. supply, which is why companies are entitled to charge what they want, and why we, as consumers, shouldn't pay it if we consider it too high.

That's also precisely the point of disputing "gouging". Nobody is being forced to buy at gunpoint. If a new product comes out that you (general "you", not you, Cat) want, the question really is "how much do you want it?", with a secondary question of how much instant gratification is worth to 'you'.

One of three general situations will exist :-

a) You want it, want it now, and can afford it. So buy it.

b) You want it but not enough to pay the 'now premium'. So wait a while.

c) You want it, but can't or aren't prepared to pay the price, now or in the future. Well, sorry, but tough.

I rather fancy a certain watch, but at £20k, the only way I'm buying it is if some kind of windfall drops unexpectedly into my lap of sufficient scale that £20k is chump change. That means absolutely securing utter financial security, then satisfying all the other things that I want more than that watch. Then, we'll see. Chances of it happening? Extremely close to zero. Chances of me spending that same £20k (or more) on a new kitchen in the immediate future? Extremely close to 100%.

We all prioritise what to spend disposable income on, and current top of my list is a kitchen, near the bottom of it is a watch but, even lower than that is very High end graphics cards. If that humungous windfall drops into my lap, no doubt the most powerful PC I can specify would get bought.

The point? My priorities for spending money on a graphics card, at least right now, tail off at about £200 and fall off a cliff at about £300. But other people value a top-end graphics card highly, and some value it highly enough to be prepared to pay that "now" premium. I have done that, many times in the past, on CPU's, graphics cards (including North of £1200 on 9ne, some years back) and on a host of other computer bits too. And don't even get me started on cameras, lenses, etc.


The "gouging" assertion seems to arrive from those in group b). They want it, want it now, but either can't or won't pay the "now" premium. But that's the way of the world. What it isn't is a Good reason for companies that can maximise revenues by releasing products for which they believe demand will be high, in quantities designed to satisfy category a) demand before dropping it to category b) levels. Those in b) simply have to exercise their consumer power and wait. If those in category a) were prepared to do likewise, there would be no category a). But they aren't. Maybe they just have more money than the b)'s. Like it or not, it's how the world is. In some cases, the b)'s have the money to be an a) but their 'want' is not high enough to pay the premium.

None of this is defending companies "gouging", though that is a loaded term. What it is is simply how things work. It's all very well wishing we all lived in some kind of consumerist paradise where we could all gratify our desires in full, instantly, but it's a recipe for personal frustration because it isn't coming any time soon.

It's also worth bearing in mind that companies "maximising revenue" are obliged to act in the best interests of shareholders, and for almost all companies, that in large part refers to institutional investors like those that hold all our pension fund assets. They aren't charities, selling at the lowest price they could. It's easy to ascribe that as greed to millionaire or billionaire individuals, and yes there are some, but the truth is, without companies maximising their benefits (which can be defined in a multitude of ways, and is certainly broader than immediate profit), we'd all lose out both in funding of future developments, and in our pensions.

That's why I see these "gouging" remarks are mere whining. If people simply can't afford the "now" premium, then wait. It's naive not to accept (not to like it, but to accept) that others either have more money or are prepared to pay more) and moaning about it isn't going to change how the world works, any more than it's going to negate gravity or reverse the tides. It just .... is.



Oh, and while many examples used are 'whole', the same principle has been in use in the technology field at least as far back as consumers starting to buy technology products, and that definitely includes there being a reasonably active build-it-yourself contingent. On occasion, I've even paid a premium to buy things like processors from system integrators, or even on rare occasions from manufacturers, while they're in the channel but before public release. Believe me, it can be an expensive way to stay on the leading edge.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I hesitate to ascribe motivation to what "people" are saying on this or other forums, and especially so if I haven't even seen the specific examples you refer to. I have no idea why they said what they said.

As for the rest, I entirely agree power is in consumers hands provided they choose to exercise it. But that's really just another way of making my initial point - these prices are set by demand v. supply, which is why companies are entitled to charge what they want, and why we, as consumers, shouldn't pay it if we consider it too high.

That's also precisely the point of disputing "gouging". Nobody is being forced to buy at gunpoint. If a new product comes out that you (general "you", not you, Cat) want, the question really is "how much do you want it?", with a secondary question of how much instant gratification is worth to 'you'.

One of three general situations will exist :-

a) You want it, want it now, and can afford it. So buy it.

b) You want it but not enough to pay the 'now premium'. So wait a while.

c) You want it, but can't or aren't prepared to pay the price, now or in the future. Well, sorry, but tough.

I rather fancy a certain watch, but at £20k, the only way I'm buying it is if some kind of windfall drops unexpectedly into my lap of sufficient scale that £20k is chump change. That means absolutely securing utter financial security, then satisfying all the other things that I want more than that watch. Then, we'll see. Chances of it happening? Extremely close to zero. Chances of me spending that same £20k (or more) on a new kitchen in the immediate future? Extremely close to 100%.

We all prioritise what to spend disposable income on, and current top of my list is a kitchen, near the bottom of it is a watch but, even lower than that is very High end graphics cards. If that humungous windfall drops into my lap, no doubt the most powerful PC I can specify would get bought.

The point? My priorities for spending money on a graphics card, at least right now, tail off at about £200 and fall off a cliff at about £300. But other people value a top-end graphics card highly, and some value it highly enough to be prepared to pay that "now" premium. I have done that, many times in the past, on CPU's, graphics cards (including North of £1200 on 9ne, some years back) and on a host of other computer bits too. And don't even get me started on cameras, lenses, etc.


The "gouging" assertion seems to arrive from those in group b). They want it, want it now, but either can't or won't pay the "now" premium. But that's the way of the world. What it isn't is a Good reason for companies that can maximise revenues by releasing products for which they believe demand will be high, in quantities designed to satisfy category a) demand before dropping it to category b) levels. Those in b) simply have to exercise their consumer power and wait. If those in category a) were prepared to do likewise, there would be no category a). But they aren't. Maybe they just have more money than the b)'s. Like it or not, it's how the world is. In some cases, the b)'s have the money to be an a) but their 'want' is not high enough to pay the premium.

None of this is defending companies "gouging", though that is a loaded term. What it is is simply how things work. It's all very well wishing we all lived in some kind of consumerist paradise where we could all gratify our desires in full, instantly, but it's a recipe for personal frustration because it isn't coming any time soon.

It's also worth bearing in mind that companies "maximising revenue" are obliged to act in the best interests of shareholders, and for almost all companies, that in large part refers to institutional investors like those that hold all our pension fund assets. They aren't charities, selling at the lowest price they could. It's easy to ascribe that as greed to millionaire or billionaire individuals, and yes there are some, but the truth is, without companies maximising their benefits (which can be defined in a multitude of ways, and is certainly broader than immediate profit), we'd all lose out both in funding of future developments, and in our pensions.

That's why I see these "gouging" remarks are mere whining. If people simply can't afford the "now" premium, then wait. It's naive not to accept (not to like it, but to accept) that others either have more money or are prepared to pay more) and moaning about it isn't going to change how the world works, any more than it's going to negate gravity or reverse the tides. It just .... is.



Oh, and while many examples used are 'whole', the same principle has been in use in the technology field at least as far back as consumers starting to buy technology products, and that definitely includes there being a reasonably active build-it-yourself contingent. On occasion, I've even paid a premium to buy things like processors from system integrators, or even on rare occasions from manufacturers, while they're in the channel but before public release. Believe me, it can be an expensive way to stay on the leading edge.

The problem is 10 years ago,it was different. If you look at the quotes form Rollo who was a Nvidia marketing account,people just laughed him off this forum and elsewhere. The fact is people even then pointed out,if the pricing was out of whack it was best to say so,and just hold back until companies changed tact. The whole concept of building,modding and overclocking a PC came out of people wanting to save money 20+ years ago. This cost companies money if you think about it - did people care,no they didn't!

As Anand from Anandtech said there was no such thing as a bad GPU,just a badly priced one!

However,nowadays you see social media marketing has warped people view on this. So instead of questioning what companies are doing,you get groups of what I would call the "price defence squad" who justify every price increase and every subpar improvement and attack detractors,just like Rollo did. It comes accross as almost a state of denial about how the market isn't really moving in a great direction,since emotionally they can't stand back AND NOT BUY. Its an addiction - they can't see any wrong in what is happening as they can't stand back and say NO.

Its getting worse and worse over the last decade.

So they need to get into narrower and narrower echo chambers to justify the increasing prices of the hobby and see criticism of any of the companies and their tactics as an attack on what they love. Sadly this is EXACTLY what marketing accounts like Rollo were to do - make people "have" to justify anything these companies do emotionally.

If you look at marketing now it increasingly uses psychological models,especially those which target things which feed addiction(look at what EA was doing with patents on increasing addiction in games). This leads to the following scenarios:
https://www.businessinsider.com/appl...11-5?r=US&IR=T

So what happens when companies do pull moves,instead of objectively seeing it for it is,these people are so addicted they need to attack commentators.


Its especially evident amongst geeks of all people - you have see commentators on Youtube,etc get threats because they criticised games or various companies and had evidence to show this. In many cases what they say has been validated. For example all the people who defended microtransactions in games and addiction mechanics got villified for years by PC gaming fans of certain games,until governments stepped after it was evident it was exploiting children. Now all these defenders are quiet. The same goes with people defending certain other tactics Intel and Nvidia did,until it was quite evident they were rather dodgy and ended up costing consumers money.

This is the whole problem here - tech companies are becoming like a religion. Who do you think started all this financial talk about companies on tech and gaming forums - marketing accounts!

Plus in the end no one apart from hardware enthusiasts cares about margins when they buy stuff. Its about your own personal margin. Companies are selfish,workers are selfish and consumers are selfish. We all need to be,so we can meet in the middle.

Because in the end if people end up excusing price increases way above inflation for one mass market thing it follows it will happen for everything.

So you end dragging everyone down that path and making you have less income to even try and "invest" in the same vein. If anything for a lot of people it took years for pay,etc to get back to how it was before the last crash,and we have another set of even worse problems. Gamers and hardware enthusiasts need to understand this - lots of companies and industries are under severe financial pain - so what makes tech companies some special case?? If they have so much money to throw at stuff,why don't they go and help more of our local businesses and employers who are struggling,because in the end more job losses,means more taxes for those who have work.

Many of these tech companies don't contribute much to the UK economy in terms of taxes or job creation. Many of the price defence squad I have seen on forums,religously defend price increases for their favourite foreign tech companies. Yet when it comes to paying more taxes(to help pay for better services),or pay more to support UK companies,I have seen them complain. Yet at the time same time have no problem enriching Apple,Nvidia,Intel,AMD,etc.

The rate at how ovepriced tech stocks are is going to probably lead to another tech crash a few years down the line. Why?? Because there is only so much you can push the market until the world economy catches up. Things like debt will start to get harder and harder to get for consumers,so one has to question how much of this price escalation is driven by easy credit.

Then you take a risk investing longterm anyway,because its mostly those who make quick investments who benefit. Longterm investors are the ones who get screwed when the market collapses - it always collapses as companies and the financial sector expect more and more until the market collapses in on itself.Boom and bust is an inherent part of the system. Its all about short term gain. What happens,the taxpayer has to bale these people out and we all become even poorer. Yet despite record margins and profits many of these companies seem to never have enough for the rainy day.

Also many of these companies find ways to not pay taxes - even Nvidia in 2018 paid no state taxes despite having record margins and record high prices.What is the term - capitalise the profits,socialise the losses. That sounds about right.

If anything the more we pay for many of these items,the more we deplete our USD currency reserves which we need to actually pay our foreign debts and imports with. Its not like our reserves are massive for an economy of our size!

[Ttaskmaster]

If you look at marketing now it increasingly uses psychological models,especially those which target things which feed addiction

Marketing has ALWAYS done that.
Coercing people to give fizzy drinks to a 2-month old baby, subject them to sun-lamps, forcing laudanum down their throats... and you don't want to know about Iver Johnson's 'child-safe' .38 cal revolvers!!
If that's not to your taste, perhaps you're more into buying some slaves? Bucks and wenches, some of the latter being excellent cooks. Impress your friends!

Psychological profiling in advertising has been around since the 1880s, at least!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Marketing has ALWAYS done that.
Coercing people to give fizzy drinks to a 2-month old baby, subject them to sun-lamps, forcing laudanum down their throats... and you don't want to know about Iver Johnson's 'child-safe' .38 cal revolvers!!
If that's not to your taste, perhaps you're more into buying some slaves? Bucks and wenches, some of the latter being excellent cooks. Impress your friends!

Psychological profiling in advertising has been around since the 1880s, at least!

Yes,because think of the whole concept of people feeling they need to give Diamond engagement rings? It was actually because of a campaign by De Beers during the Great Depression:
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...t-ring/385376/

However,nowadays these are someone more sophisticated,especially as data mining models are much more advanced nowadays. They can be far more subtle,and they can target specific groups of people far better.

Like I said people are now literally are on social media and forums repeating points that a paid Nvidia marketeer was saying on here 10 years ago,and was laughed off the forum for doing so!

As you said earlier:

If you're a PC gamer, you are choosing to be one.
No-one is making you game. No-one is forcing you to pay ridiculous prices.

.........
They aren't to blame, though... you are.
You pay the price they're asking, you enable their high prices, you facilitate their subsequent tactics.

If you're a gamer, you should realise this is just a game - They want your money. You are their little puppy and they're dangling a lovely slab of steak right in front of your nose, knowing full well you'll do any trick they can imagine to earn yourself a bite.
The only way to win is not to play.

I agree. But if you end up on social media,forums,etc where one or two people try to make this point,but 25 others start defending the prices,etc people go with the group mentality. That is the problem here,its the reinforcement and that is what increasingly some of the more social media targetted marketing is doing and it is far more effective than traditional media could attempt to do,because its far more personalised.

This is why people "need" to get stuff now because they fear "missing out" and not being part of the group. They defend the price increases at all costs due to this,as they "have" to be part of the group. Holding back and pointing out a spade is a spade,means you are electing to not be part of it anymore which leads to negativity. But also they don't understand its also warping the market for anyone who has to get new or secondhand products at some point. This is the issue I have and its more and more evident on entry level and mainstream parts over time. In the end worrying about company finances,etc is totally irrelevant to the end consumer,because if people were that concerned you would never buy anything in a sale. Someone is making less money somewhere.

We see this with industry commentators pointing out bad stuff about tech companies and their practices or flaws in their products,who then get overwhelmed with attacks from their fans. Yet in many instances they have been correct and were trying to help consumers. Yet 10~20 years ago it was very common for the press to really give tech companies criticism,which tempered a degree of their marketing. Thomas Pabst from Toms Hardware was renowned for this. Now sadly it seems a lot just toe the official line,apart from a few.

[kalniel]

Luckily, in this generation we've got lots of extra performance for no increase in price over the last (once early adopter supply issues work themselves through).

[Ttaskmaster]

But if you end up on social media,forums,etc where one or two people try to make this point,but 25 others start defending the prices,etc people go with the group mentality. That is the problem here,its the reinforcement and that is what increasingly some of the more social media targetted marketing is doing and it is far more effective than traditional media could attempt to do,because its far more personalised.

Nope.
It works exactly the same as it did 140 years ago. If anything, the internet actually lessens the impact, because people are able to Google things and debunk a lot more today than they could back when the most authoritative information source was the loudest voice in the village.

This is why people "need" to get stuff now because they fear "missing out" and not being part of the group. They defend the price increases at all costs due to this,as they "have" to be part of the group.

Again, people have always been like this.
If you want to talk about being part of the group - "Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?".... Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Nope.
It works exactly the same as it did 140 years ago. If anything, the internet actually lessens the impact, because people are able to Google things and debunk a lot more today than they could back when the most authoritative information source was the loudest voice in the village.


Again, people have always been like this.
If you want to talk about being part of the group - "Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?".... Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

I don't know about that - apparently things like the antivaxer movement and other stuff seem stronger than ever. So at least in the last few years its been going backwards.

Also that is the issue,you need to be aware to "Google it",which won't happen if you are surrounded by people who don't push a different viewpoint.

Places like Reddit,Discord its becoming smaller and smaller echo chambers. Heck you get multiple subreddits for tech companies,because some of them literally ban any negative news about the company in it. Safe spaces for technology companies,thats a new one for me!

Anyway,the fact is lets look at what you said again:

If you're a PC gamer, you are choosing to be one.
No-one is making you game. No-one is forcing you to pay ridiculous prices. Furthermore, your life is not dependent upon owning a 3090Ti iCool Max Extreme Super Overclocking Turbo Power GPU.

........

They aren't to blame, though... you are.
You pay the price they're asking, you enable their high prices, you facilitate their subsequent tactics.

If you're a gamer, you should realise this is just a game - They want your money. You are their little puppy and they're dangling a lovely slab of steak right in front of your nose, knowing full well you'll do any trick they can imagine to earn yourself a bite.
The only way to win is not to play.

That's sound obvious,right?? So why do you need to tell people this if they already knew?? That is because they don't know any better. Its no point argueing with me,as I agree with you.

I have seen gamers complain about the price and how X company "forced" them to buy at "Y" price,etc. Yet when I suggested they could simply reduce some settings down,maybe dial down resolution,etc and using what they have it was almost like suggesting heresy.

Apparently that was almost heretical. So in the end the companies do have enough gamers by the gnads,so they are obviously going to try and extract as much money out of people as they can. Its a captive audience.

Shrugs.

[Saracen999]

The problem is 10 years ago,it was different. If you look at the quotes form Rollo who was a Nvidia marketing account,people just laughed him off this forum and elsewhere. The fact is people even then pointed out,if the pricing was out of whack it was best to say so,and just hold back until companies changed tact. The whole concept of building,modding and overclocking a PC came out of people wanting to save money 20+ years ago. This cost companies money if you think about it - did people care,no they didn't!

As Anand from Anandtech said there was no such thing as a bad GPU,just a badly priced one!

However,nowadays you see social media marketing has warped people view on this. So instead of questioning what companies are doing,you get groups of what I would call the "price defence squad" who justify every price increase and every subpar improvement and attack detractors,just like Rollo did. It comes accross as almost a state of denial about how the market isn't really moving in a great direction,since emotionally they can't stand back AND NOT BUY. Its an addiction - they can't see any wrong in what is happening as they can't stand back and say NO.

Its getting worse and worse over the last decade.

So they need to get into narrower and narrower echo chambers to justify the increasing prices of the hobby and see criticism of any of the companies and their tactics as an attack on what they love. Sadly this is EXACTLY what marketing accounts like Rollo were to do - make people "have" to justify anything these companies do emotionally.

If you look at marketing now it increasingly uses psychological models,especially those which target things which feed addiction(look at what EA was doing with patents on increasing addiction in games). This leads to the following scenarios:
https://www.businessinsider.com/appl...11-5?r=US&IR=T

So what happens when companies do pull moves,instead of objectively seeing it for it is,these people are so addicted they need to attack commentators.


Its especially evident amongst geeks of all people - you have see commentators on Youtube,etc get threats because they criticised games or various companies and had evidence to show this. In many cases what they say has been validated. For example all the people who defended microtransactions in games and addiction mechanics got villified for years by PC gaming fans of certain games,until governments stepped after it was evident it was exploiting children. Now all these defenders are quiet. The same goes with people defending certain other tactics Intel and Nvidia did,until it was quite evident they were rather dodgy and ended up costing consumers money.

This is the whole problem here - tech companies are becoming like a religion. Who do you think started all this financial talk about companies on tech and gaming forums - marketing accounts!

Plus in the end no one apart from hardware enthusiasts cares about margins when they buy stuff. Its about your own personal margin. Companies are selfish,workers are selfish and consumers are selfish. We all need to be,so we can meet in the middle.

Because in the end if people end up excusing price increases way above inflation for one mass market thing it follows it will happen for everything.

So you end dragging everyone down that path and making you have less income to even try and "invest" in the same vein. If anything for a lot of people it took years for pay,etc to get back to how it was before the last crash,and we have another set of even worse problems. Gamers and hardware enthusiasts need to understand this - lots of companies and industries are under severe financial pain - so what makes tech companies some special case?? If they have so much money to throw at stuff,why don't they go and help more of our local businesses and employers who are struggling,because in the end more job losses,means more taxes for those who have work.

Many of these tech companies don't contribute much to the UK economy in terms of taxes or job creation. Many of the price defence squad I have seen on forums,religously defend price increases for their favourite foreign tech companies. Yet when it comes to paying more taxes(to help pay for better services),or pay more to support UK companies,I have seen them complain. Yet at the time same time have no problem enriching Apple,Nvidia,Intel,AMD,etc.

The rate at how ovepriced tech stocks are is going to probably lead to another tech crash a few years down the line. Why?? Because there is only so much you can push the market until the world economy catches up. Things like debt will start to get harder and harder to get for consumers,so one has to question how much of this price escalation is driven by easy credit.

Then you take a risk investing longterm anyway,because its mostly those who make quick investments who benefit. Longterm investors are the ones who get screwed when the market collapses - it always collapses as companies and the financial sector expect more and more until the market collapses in on itself.Boom and bust is an inherent part of the system. Its all about short term gain. What happens,the taxpayer has to bale these people out and we all become even poorer. Yet despite record margins and profits many of these companies seem to never have enough for the rainy day.

Also many of these companies find ways to not pay taxes - even Nvidia in 2018 paid no state taxes despite having record margins and record high prices.What is the term - capitalise the profits,socialise the losses. That sounds about right.

If anything the more we pay for many of these items,the more we deplete our USD currency reserves which we need to actually pay our foreign debts and imports with. Its not like our reserves are massive for an economy of our size!

Well, I'm not really in a position to agree or not with much of that. I give most forms of social media a very wide berth, have not and will not touch FB or Twitter with a bargepole and very rarely indeed even use Youtube.

So I'm not talking about what gets argued, debated, justified or ranted about in that context. I'm in no position to even form an opinion.

My point is really simply that companies long have, and are entitled to, sell their products at what price they want to. Consumers are entitled to buy, or not buy, and do so according to whether each one is willing to part with the price.

Using early adopter willingness to pay high prices is nothing new, and nowhere near limited to tech. Some company's entire ethos essentially amounts to targeting that group that will pay more than most. It might be as an early adopter premium, or just as an "exclusive" product. In the latter case, their strategy is to price most people out of the market in order to keep prices high. All we're seeing is an absolutely standard operation of supply v demand, perhaps tinged by the edges of price-elasticity of demand, and consumer price sensitivity. Whether that is as a result of supply being limited as a matter of policy, cockup or circumstance is not the point. The point is that whining about price is futile. We are each either willing to pay that price, or we aren't, and all it really speaks to is the willingness or ability of each to pay it.

As with just about everything else, the wealthier an individual is, the more they'll pay to gratify their desire to indulge. If you've ever watched a Saudi princess fork over the equivalent of about 10 years of your salary for some handmade jewelry, in cash, you never forget that lesson.

Most of us can't afford everything we want, and those complaining about the price of, say, a graphics card either can't afford it or don't want it badly enough to be prepared to pay early adopter prices. Welcome to the way the whole world works.

It's a bit different, of course, for those that do want it, would gladly pay the price but can't get one even then. But it wouldn't be the first time, by a very large margin, companies have done that as a deliberate strategy either.

We've talked enough, Cat, over the years for me to know you are fully aware of all this. But it seems it puts some people's noses out of joint. It's not personal.

It's utterly standard practice for companies to deal to take maximum benefit. But then, who doesn't? Individuals don't do anything different. How many people whining about prices ever explain to their employer (who, after all, is merely buying their time, expertise and services) that they're paying too much?, so cut my pay? Who, when selling a car, tells the buyer "No, that's more than it's worth, knock some off the offer you just made".

We all look out for our own interests, and companies are doing it too. They're neither charities nor social services departments. They're businesses.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well, I'm not really in a position to agree or not with much of that. I give most forms of social media a very wide berth, have not and will not touch FB or Twitter with a bargepole and very rarely indeed even use Youtube.

So I'm not talking about what gets argued, debated, justified or ranted about in that context. I'm in no position to even form an opinion.

My point is really simply that companies long have, and are entitled to, sell their products at what price they want to. Consumers are entitled to buy, or not buy, and do so according to whether each one is willing to part with the price.

Using early adopter willingness to pay high prices is nothing new, and nowhere near limited to tech. Some company's entire ethos essentially amounts to targeting that group that will pay more than most. It might be as an early adopter premium, or just as an "exclusive" product. In the latter case, their strategy is to price most people out of the market in order to keep prices high. All we're seeing is an absolutely standard operation of supply v demand, perhaps tinged by the edges of price-elasticity of demand, and consumer price sensitivity. Whether that is as a result of supply being limited as a matter of policy, cockup or circumstance is not the point. The point is that whining about price is futile. We are each either willing to pay that price, or we aren't, and all it really speaks to is the willingness or ability of each to pay it.

As with just about everything else, the wealthier an individual is, the more they'll pay to gratify their desire to indulge. If you've ever watched a Saudi princess fork over the equivalent of about 10 years of your salary for some handmade jewelry, in cash, you never forget that lesson.

Most of us can't afford everything we want, and those complaining about the price of, say, a graphics card either can't afford it or don't want it badly enough to be prepared to pay early adopter prices. Welcome to the way the whole world works.

It's a bit different, of course, for those that do want it, would gladly pay the price but can't get one even then. But it wouldn't be the first time, by a very large margin, companies have done that as a deliberate strategy either.

We've talked enough, Cat, over the years for me to know you are fully aware of all this. But it seems it puts some people's noses out of joint. It's not personal.

It's utterly standard practice for companies to deal to take maximum benefit. But then, who doesn't? Individuals don't do anything different. How many people whining about prices ever explain to their employer (who, after all, is merely buying their time, expertise and services) that they're paying too much?, so cut my pay? Who, when selling a car, tells the buyer "No, that's more than it's worth, knock some off the offer you just made".

We all look out for our own interests, and companies are doing it too. They're neither charities nor social services departments. They're businesses.

This is also why as a consumer,I am not a charity or acting as a social service to prop up companies either. Like I said before capitalism is about the individual - be a group of individuals who owns a company,an employee or a consumer. So basically all 3 have to come to some middleground.

Otherwise its a form of socialism to expect me to prop up a company because people have misguided loyalties to them. If people like a company then buy their products. That is all the support they need. If not all these sob stories about "think of the poor company" and "you must pay more"sound like foreign consumers making pity sales to prop up Lada or something like that. This is why I have an issue with the sentiment defending these companies - that's their job to try and make you pay more. Its your job to negotiate down,otherwise you are making marketing's job easier for free.

How many of these companies are British or contribute massively to our economy in job creation or tax revenue?? Are they some Fairtrade business helping people in a poor country? So why do I give two craps about their arguments. So its socialism for a bunch of foreign companies which themselves get massive tax breaks,etc from their countries of origin.Nvidia alone paid no state taxes in 2018,yet had a record year - they don't need our pity money or help due to their size. Let their countries prop them up as they see most of the economic benefits. We should be investing more in doing things here if we truly want to pay more for stuff.

I mean look at the Christmas period - people are waiting for their bargains,right? Guess what is anyone thinking about the company or supplier have to make less money on that reduced product?? I guess not,so why do tech companies get "pity points" when so many industries don't get it? Industries which are probably of more important benefit to all of us.

And for me,I don't really agree with all this stuff on forums,etc where people are trying to say "think of the large multi billion dollar company" - well I honestly don't care. I buy a technical product as it does a job for me. Geeks need to understand loyalty is a mugs game,as the accountants are who run the show. So they don't care and neither should consumers. Think of them as Ferengi and then you get the gist.

If they have problems or not,new companies will come along and fill the niche if there is one. If there isn't then eventually other companies and technologies will come along and replace them. That is the history of the tech industry - so many well known names have gone kaput or fell by the wayside. Too big too fail,is basically that.It also means new companies with new ideas also come forward too.

[Ttaskmaster]

I don't know about that - apparently things like the antivaxer movement and other stuff seem stronger than ever. So at least in the last few years its been going backwards.

Yes, and murder and death and all the bad things are SO much more common in the news these days.... They're not more common in real life, you just hear about them a lot more, because we're so instantly connected compared to years ago.

Also that is the issue,you need to be aware to "Google it",which won't happen if you are surrounded by people who don't push a different viewpoint.

Of course it will happen. In fact, that's exactly how it happens. One person, surrounded by all the Yes Men (for want of a better term) simply wonders... and then goes off to check it out for themself. "Everyone says this, but I wonder if it's true....."
The rest is history.

So why do you need to tell people this if they already knew??

Same reason I tell people how to walk, when I teach them to fight - They already know, but everyone second-guesses themselves and questions their own knowledge when faced with something new or different from someone else.
It's a reminder... in this case not to fall down the holes of false information.

Its no point argueing with me,as I agree with you.

Then perhaps stop bringing my earlier assertions to the fore and then harping on them as if it were me reiterating them, as it's dangerously close to a strawman tactic.
I'm not arguing with you. I'm merely challenging your assertion that tech companies are suddenly doing anything new or different to what marketing and companies have done for well over a century...

I have seen gamers complain about the price and how X company "forced" them to buy at "Y" price,etc. Yet when I suggested they could simply reduce some settings down,maybe dial down resolution,etc and using what they have it was almost like suggesting heresy.

Yes, and they are self-entitled [CENSORED] of the lowest denomination.
But this is not limited to Gamerz or anything. We have entire television programmes centred around how much money people are wasting on unnecessary junk, yet when the experts suggest switching to, say, a slightly less expensive aftershave instead of the £400 a bottle one they buy every month, those people get such murderous looks in their eyes, that anyone would even dare suggest such an outlandish course of action!!

Look at how many people were queueing up for miles just to get a McDonalds meal, recently.
Look at how many people swore they'd never buy petrol if it went over £1 a litre... Those people are still buying it at £1.47.
Look at how many people swore that Nvidia could [CENSORED] off and die in a dark slimy hole, when they saw the prices of the GTX2080 and 2080Ti.... yet still ended up buying one (and sometimes more) of those very cards.

People with diabetes so bad they've already lost one leg, and have just woken up from having the other lopped off, are told by their doctor to make lifestyle changes or they will die, yet they still carry on.... They know all this stuff, just like gamers know all the above bits you cited... Yet they still do it, because they want it, because they feel entitled to it, and because they are more concerned with their own little corner of high-resolution happiness than the effect they could have on the global pricing of overpriced tech.

In summary - Most people are idiots. More powerful people (and companies) take advantage of idiots. You're simply stuck in the middle. This song is centuries old and there's still no simple answer, but blaming the powerful for the lemmings who choose to throw themselves off the cliff doesn't get you anywhere.









And yes, I know actual lemmings aren't suicidal.... nor do they explode!

[atemporal]

And yes, I know actual lemmings aren't suicidal.... nor do they explode!

Sounds like you need a blocker if the problem is them falling off where you don't want them to!

[ik9000]

Sounds like you need a blocker if the problem is them falling off where you don't want them to!

Very good! Here's a bit of nostalgia for you: http://www.crazygames.com/game/html5-lemmings

[Saracen999]

This is also why as a consumer,I am not a charity or acting as a social service to prop up companies either. Like I said before capitalism is about the individual - be a group of individuals who owns a company,an employee or a consumer. So basically all 3 have to come to some middleground.

Otherwise its a form of socialism to expect me to prop up a company because people have misguided loyalties to them. If people like a company then buy their products. That is all the support they need. If not all these sob stories about "think of the poor company" and "you must pay more"sound like foreign consumers making pity sales to prop up Lada or something like that. This is why I have an issue with the sentiment defending these companies - that's their job to try and make you pay more. Its your job to negotiate down,otherwise you are making marketing's job easier for free.

How many of these companies are British or contribute massively to our economy in job creation or tax revenue?? Are they some Fairtrade business helping people in a poor country? So why do I give two craps about their arguments. So its socialism for a bunch of foreign companies which themselves get massive tax breaks,etc from their countries of origin.Nvidia alone paid no state taxes in 2018,yet had a record year - they don't need our pity money or help due to their size. Let their countries prop them up as they see most of the economic benefits. We should be investing more in doing things here if we truly want to pay more for stuff.

I mean look at the Christmas period - people are waiting for their bargains,right? Guess what is anyone thinking about the company or supplier have to make less money on that reduced product?? I guess not,so why do tech companies get "pity points" when so many industries don't get it? Industries which are probably of more important benefit to all of us.

And for me,I don't really agree with all this stuff on forums,etc where people are trying to say "think of the large multi billion dollar company" - well I honestly don't care. I buy a technical product as it does a job for me. Geeks need to understand loyalty is a mugs game,as the accountants are who run the show. So they don't care and neither should consumers. Think of them as Ferengi and then you get the gist.

If they have problems or not,new companies will come along and fill the niche if there is one. If there isn't then eventually other companies and technologies will come along and replace them. That is the history of the tech industry - so many well known names have gone kaput or fell by the wayside. Too big too fail,is basically that.It also means new companies with new ideas also come forward too.

I'm certainly not in the "feel sorry for the poor big corporate" group. Hell, no.

I also utterly agree about finding a middle ground. Or rather, trying to.

But that's the point.

There isn't always a middle ground. Again, basic supply and demand. If the company knows, or even just believes, they can sell current stock at £x, why would they accept £x less y% because some consumers either won't or can't pay £x? Or, can and will, but have the hump about it.

If the seller won't drop the price beyond a certain point, and buyer A won't pay it, buyers B through Z will. Buyer A has to decide if they want it enough to pay the seller's price. Or, go without. Or at least, wait for the initial demand to be satisfied. It is wholly unrealistic to expect the seller to drop the price unless they are wrong about sufficient buyers be NG willing to pay it.

However, the only power each consumer has is to decide that he or she isn't willing. As a group, consumers have the power to force corporates to their knees provided they all agree. If that happens, sellers will have to cut prices or not sell their stuff. The problem, when what limited stock there is is selling out is that enough consumers will and are paying the asking price. Which comes right back to "if demand > supply, price goes up". Not down.

I'm selling something right now. As it happens, a house. Well, bungalow. In that area, they're not common and highly sought. Our price is set towards the top of what's achievable, and because several buyers want one item, it's not likely to come down, certainly not by much, just because several other buyers want it, but not at that price. We only need one, able and willing, and there are. One is very keen.

I have no view on other forums "defending" corporates, but all those corporates are doing is what virtually all of us do, on a smaller scale, day in, day out.