Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

So when you start eating Snickers, that locks your stomach into not accepting Mr. Goodbar until a long "upgrade"?

I think there's a big difference from standard vendor lock-in, in that many different companies provide similar junk food.




The analogy is a very loose one: I mean more the general incentive to maximize profit to the detriment of customers, going right up to the line, but not over, where they stop paying you.


Sure, but it breaks in that customers don't have to buy from the company that got them hooked -- it drives them to buy from everyone who sells that, not just the initial "pusher".[1]

It's similar to the implausibility of group selection -- doing things for (unrelated) group members doesn't give a differential advantage for the doer's genes, so it tends not to happen. Likewise, techniques that hook you on "sugar-fat foods" ("superstimuli") in general benefit all companies in the market, not just yours.

So I don't think the vendor lock-in model has the same dynamic or is representative of the incentive set that food companies have.

[1] Pushers of illegal drugs have yet another dynamic at play, in which case finding a steady source of the drug is hard, so hooking one user will likely mean they buy from that pusher, not from dealers in general, due to the difficulties of navigating an illegal market.


You're right, the analogy doesn't entirely hold. But then, I used to have a hell of a Taco Bell/Mountain Dew addiction, and obviously couldn't get my fix anywhere else. :)

Food and willpower have a tricky relationship, because willpower is literally fueled by food (glucose). When you're well-fed, your willpower is high, but when your glucose is depleted, suppressing the instinct to reach for that donut is a non-trivial proposition.

I think it's absurd to hold super-stimuli providers legally or morally responsible for poor nutrition habits; they're giving people what they want. But I do think it's helpful for consumers to view Doritos and Coke in the same category as other risky behaviors with high addiction potential: cigarettes, gambling, etc.


>You're right, the analogy doesn't entirely hold. But then, I used to have a hell of a Taco Bell/Mountain Dew addiction, and obviously couldn't get my fix anywhere else.

That's a good point, and it would be interesting to learn what keeps consumers from searching for substitutes. I guess that marketing and branding makes people so strongly associate the good feeling with one very specific brand, which makes them not want to seek out all a low-bidder.

Otherwise, I think we're in agreement, and we have to recognize that the effects of the foods make people deviate from the "level-headed decision maker" that justifies leaving people to their own devices.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: