SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A new LG 5120 × 2880 monitor is causing electronic suffering:
The spiritual successor to Apple's Thunderbolt Display, the LG UltraFine 5K monitor, which only started shipping out from the Apple online store this week, appears to suffer from a major fault: when placed within two metres (6.5ft) of a wireless router, the display starts to flicker; move it really close, and the monitor goes black and becomes unusable. An LG Electronics support person confirmed the issue, saying it "only happens for the 5K monitors we have, not other LG monitors."
If that wasn't bad enough, 9to5Mac's Zac Hall reports that his LG 5K monitor, under the duress of a nearby Wi-Fi router, can freeze the MacBook Pro that it's plugged into, forcing a reboot to bring it back. When he moved the router (an Apple AirPort Extreme) from beside the monitor to another room, everything went back to normal.
A support rep for LG Electronics confirmed that the 5K monitor can be adversely affected by a nearby wireless router and said that the issue doesn't affect any other LG monitors. Hall was asked to place the router "at least 2 metres away" from the monitor and "to let us know" if the problem still persists after that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday February 01 2017, @07:22PM
He's right. There's no such thing as "actual" value. The only thing that matters is how much you can sucker^Wconvince someone into paying for your product. That's exactly how much your product is worth. If you can convince someone to buy your fresh turd for $1M, then it's worth $1M.
Of course, normal companies need a continual revenue flow, so some exceptional cases of suckers overpaying for something probably won't keep the company afloat long, but if the company can reliably convince people that its product is worth far more than what you think it's worth, and sustain this for years on end, then the company is right: their product really *is* worth that much. Maybe you're not a customer, but that doesn't matter; they don't need you.
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:20PM
Of course there's an objective measure of value apart from the perceived value! I don't have the time to argue the SEVERAL points that reveal this POV as pure sophistry, but I'll choose one.
'Caveat emptor' means it's the buyer's responsibility to find the true value prior to purchase-if he's buying 'hot shit on a plate' for a million bucks, than he's (obviously) being ripped off by the seller. Why is this a "rip-off" if both parties agreed to the transaction? It's, again, obvious that there is some less subjective benchmark being referred to... for instance the going market value of shit.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday February 01 2017, @09:16PM
As I pointed out, there is a difference between a one-time conning and the ability to consistently sell product at a certain price. The only thing that makes the latter "objective" is that more than 1 customer has to agree to that price, but it's still subjective as you're dealing with human psychology: if you can convince millions of people that your crappy product is worth a small fortune, then that price *is* the "value".
It's just like I said: something is worth whatever you can get someone to pay for it. If I have a pile of fresh dog shit on a plate and I can walk down the street and easily and reliably sell it to some random person for $10, then that shit really is worth $10, regardless of what you think it's worth. But this doesn't mean that there's some actual objective benchmark; that seems to assume that there's a real use for fresh dog shit out there. While that may be the case, it's much more likely that this is simply human stupidity. There's countless cases of people paying good money for garbage with little to no utility. Just look at any fad, ridiculous fashion trend, etc. People are like sheep; they'll want and buy stuff just because other people have it. There's a clear herd behavior at work. Just because you can get people to spend a lot of money on jeans with holes ripped in them doesn't mean those jeans have objective value; it just means people are stupid and follow trends. Fast-forward a decade or two and now no one will buy those jeans; does that mean human biology has changed, making them non-sensical to wear? Of course not; they were always dumb, but trends and fashions change.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday February 01 2017, @09:24PM
The practical value of a thing, on the other hand, is what you can do with it (or, more accurately, your net evaluation of the liabilities and advantages it brings you, but for people that do work, the advantages are in 'what can you do with it?')
In "normal" markets these things track each other, you can use one indicator to track the other fairly reliably, because the reason people give normal goods a value is their practical value.
However, not all markets are "normal" in this sense. There are several ways that this relationship can be completely absent. Luxury goods are a more-or-less perennial exception, and Apple in particular have a long history of pitching themselves as part of that luxury space to keep their profit margins higher. And within that market, that logic is valid. A luxury good is a luxury good not because it has some great practical value, but simply because it is expensive and thus exclusive.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday February 01 2017, @09:53PM
but simply because it is expensive and thus exclusive.
It's not quite that simple. I'm not trying to defend Apple products here, but many luxury products are known to be very high-quality, and actually better than their lesser-priced counterparts. This isn't true for all of them, but for some it arguably is. But the problem is that the cost differential is usually far greater than the marginal increase in quality. For instance, if you really want a handbag, you might be able to gather a bunch of handbag/sewing/etc. experts together and have them analyze a Coach handbag and some handbags from Target, and all agree that the Coach bag has superior quality and construction and will likely last longer. However, even with that, it's hard to justify spending $5000 on a Coach handbag instead of $50 on a Target one. Even if it lasts longer, it's not going to last 100 times longer! And even if it did, you're not going to be around long enough for that to be useful.
I don't use handbags myself of course, but I saw the same thing with cellphones: a company named Vertu makes luxury phones. I looked at one years ago right about the time the iPhone was coming out: it had features like buttons with sapphire mechanisms (for better tactile response), sapphire glass for scratch resistance, etc. That's all nice and well, but the things cost something like $20k! Given that electronics have a short useful lifespan because of obsolescence, such a purchase would be foolish if you based it on utility. It makes much more sense to buy a phone for $200 and get a new one in 2-3 years. These things were already nearly obsolete when they were new, thanks to the smartphone revolution. I think this company is still around, making overpriced smartphones now that have lesser capabilities than any decent current-generation flagship phone but costing as much as a car.
But while this shows the extremes, there is a scale here. Some "luxury" towels may actually last significantly longer than some economy towels, purchased from the same retailer. These towels may cost twice as much, or maybe only 50% more, but not hundreds of times more, and they may only be "luxury" in comparison to the bottom-of-the-barrel stuff while not being "luxury" when compared to some $1000 towels bought from some really high-end brand. So many people end up aiming for products which are more expensive than the very cheapest available (which usually have too many cut corners or missing features), while staying away from the true high-end stuff where the price curve goes to ridiculous extremes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:20AM
You might like this: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-suit-that-couldnt-be-copied [newyorker.com]