The Trouble with Tethering - Features - features.engadget.com This is posting a fairly interesting rant on "tethering"... the process of tying an add-on product to the base product you bought. Of course, way back in the day, this was called the "razor/razor blade" model, but the concept is the same. You buy some underlying piece of technology. Then, when you want to use/refill that technology, you have one place to go. This is endlessly irritating in a number of areas (cell phone batteries, laptop rechargers, Voltron), but from the engineer's perspective, it makes a lot of sense. If someone wants to add something on after the product is released, let her look at the design of the product and design it herself. From the original designer's point of view, it's tough enough getting the product out the door without taking into account the after market. Plus, allowing full design freedom up front offers endless flexibility for the designer to manage the details of her product. If she had to worry about the 0.1 V difference between the "standard" charger and a capacitor she needs to add, her product would ultimately suffer. The benefits tend to break down when it comes to software. The effort required to snap pieces of software together is much lower than creating a product in bulk that uses real materials and getting it working with an existing product. The majority of the work to prevent two pieces of software from working together resides with the producer of the original software rather than the follower. Some people build entire businesses out of getting things software to work together (Windows is basically a small program with a very large amount of work in getting other things to work on it) while some people and businesses spend an enormous amount of time making sure nothing can work with their products (as in the article, Apple and Real... those copy protected music CDs are another example). <o:p> </o:p>
The logic for the business is very sound (they would prefer that people buy their products rather than after market add-ons) but, unfortunately, the customer can suffer higher prices and reduced choice as well as tying herself to the fortunes of the company. However, if the company continues chugging along, providing all the services that customer requires at a reasonable price, she is unaffected by the lock-in. At that point, the customer only suffers if she changes technology. I am not sure how frequently the former scenario happens.<o:p></o:p>
As for the latter, I believe people switch MUCH less than they think. I've always gotten the impression that people have no idea how frequently they change anything (houses, brands, coffee makers, spouses, etc), either on the low or the high side! Very frequently people look at the openness of a product (especially in the computer world) with the expectation that they’ll be doing a thousand different things and may need to change brands at any moment. Yet it rarely happens. And because people are constantly afraid of getting locked in in that way, they frequently will pay a premium for the services which free them from that lock in. This premium is usually a complete waste of money. <o:p></o:p>
First, even if you buy something that supposes to offer portability, the products rarely work without some degree of work. This usually negates the "savings" the consumer paid for upfront. Second, people never really look at how much of a product they actually use. To the linked example of the coffee maker, I’d be willing to bet that in two year’s time, the thing is in the corner gathering dust because the purchaser either a) has a new one, b) it broke c) he does not use it any more or d) all of the above. For those of you driving around in SUVs that have all that extra room because you never know when you want to pick up a credenza at a garage sale, I invite you to do the following math: <o:p> </o:p>
$20,000 car + 1000 gallons of gas (for 30,000 miles traveled) @ $2.00/gallon + $49/day for a rented pickup truck * 3 days + $49/day for rented SUV for off-roading * 3 days
<o:p></o:p>
vs.
$35,000 SUV + 2000 gallons of gas (for 30,000 miles traveled) @ $2.00/gallon<o:p></o:p>
I’m not against big vehicles; I am just for people buying what they need based on actually what they need rather than what they think they need (since they are very rarely accurate about predicting what they need).<o:p></o:p>
