It'll be interesting to see where this goes. If VR becomes a big thing and we get to the point where an appreciable chunk of social interactions start to take place over it (huge if), the device would at least be as significant as your phone.
People in the US are willing to spend extra on the Apple phone. There's already drama over the stupid blue text/green text thing, imagine a world where you know that your social interactions with a Facebook user are snooped on. I think it could lead to some significant ostracization. Private party -- no Facebookers.
There’s a Philip K Dick line that goes - “reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”.
Reality shaping is like that - but coercive and in reverse. How much do I need to nudge your perceptual world with ubiquitous, desirable lizard-brain augmentations before you stop believing in reality?
I mean, we already have religion, advertising, and "influencers" so I guess this is a current problem. With VR, at least it will be obvious when headset is on.
Isn't part of the reason people are spending on iPhone that they can signal wealth to friends? From what I remember Apple always sells more when then introduce new golden colors so people can show they have the new device.
I have never seen a gold iPhone in real life, even though more than half of my friends/family have iPhones. IIRC they did better overseas(?). Not sure.
I don't think iPhones signal much (in the US at least) -- they have like 50% market share here.
You're probably right, though I don't think it all comes down to disposable income.
Laziness, apathy and network effects are perhaps equally powerful forces. After all, I continue to use Google and Instagram despite my knowing how the sausage is made there.
>But there is zero money to be made out of people who have zero money.
That's not true. That's why credit exists. Selling poor people shit they can't afford with terrible terms is a long-standing American tradition.
When a debtor is unable to pay (often times through no fault of their own), the creditor eats the cost because their margins are good enough to allow for it. That effectively represents a wealth transfer between corporations providing the services and the corporations providing the credit.
The creditor doesn't put a lien on the debtor's house, repossess their goods, or take them to court?
Obviously this happens with mortgages, cars, and other extremely high value things. IRS debts, student loan debts...
But what about credit cards? Don't they have mechanisms other than tanking your credit report? And if not, why don't poor indebted people simply default all the time to remove debt?
Sure, but you also can't squeeze blood from a stone.
That said, I was mostly talking credit cards, since that's what most tech services would fall under in a zero-money consumer situation.
>And if not, why don't poor indebted people simply default all the time to remove debt?
Some do, but having your credit ruined for seven years sucks for most people. Likewise the courts don't exactly smile upon those who run up huge debts with the intention of defaulting.
I would argue there is money to be made out of people with zero money. Student loans are an example. Instead of zero money, they now have negative money. This is terrible ofc.
I think you're discounting (ha) the allure of free/cheap to people who don't have disposable income. Which is to say, most people.