• teslasaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I would wager that the companies that stand to gain or lose money has this data. Or you have the opportunity of a lifetime to start a company that would cater to a black hole of demand. I know what i’m betting on.

    • lilpatchy2eyes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Those companies also make handbags, which are substantially more profitable than pants with pockets as long as those companies keep handbags in fashion

    • Hackworth@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Is the hypothesis that companies have their customers’ best interests in mind? /shrug I’m just going to base my worldview on the only data I could find rather than “I remember reading a comment.” At least until I run across new data.

      • teslasaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        Not at all. They have their own interests in mind. It isn’t in their interest to make shit that wont sell 🤷

        That data would be business critical for them so you can bet your fucking ass they have something like it.

        • Hackworth@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Planned obsolescence, subscription degradation, ad creep, landfills full of cheap crap… It’s in their interests to sell the least useful thing for the highest price. If it costs more to put in pockets, they’ll spend a surprising amount of money trying to convince people they don’t want pockets. Or better yet, just buy up every competitor until there are only a few players and decide amongst yourselves not to make better stuff. I’m not saying that’s what happened, necessarily, it’s just not a foregone conclusion that pockets are scarce because demand is scarce.

          • teslasaur@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            22 hours ago

            If it costs more to put in pockets, they’ll spend a surprising amount of money trying to convince people they don’t want pockets.

            Tin foil engaged.

            • Hackworth@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              21 hours ago

              Public perception can function like any other externality, meaning you can offload costs onto it. This is regularly done, but it’d be foolish to claim that’s the case here without more information. As it would be foolish to assume the hand of the market is gently guiding us to a better world.

              • teslasaur@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                22 hours ago

                I really don’t understand what you are trying to argue here. Who has said that the hand of the market is guiding us to a better world? I believe i said that companies work in their own interests. Their own interests is to sell more to maximize profit. They have, without question, tested products with pockets for women, because they aren’t stupid. If there was a market for it, then they would sell it. Its not like copyright or trademark is stopping them like in other types of industries.