"Starbucks Coffee is a Trustable Experience"
Not true - I've had mixed results depending on time of day and what barista is making my drink.
"Your $1 App is a Total Gamble"
Nope. You have every opportunity to read the reviews, look at screenshots, use Google, etc.
"Starbucks Has No Free Alternative" and "Free Apps Are Often A Great Alternative"
I'm not sure how this matters - if you're cheap, it doesn't matter how good the app is. Do you tip waiters? After all, the alternative to tipping is great - you get to keep your money!
"Starbucks Craftsmanship Is On Full Display"
Not really. I don't think anyone would agree that "craftsmanship" goes into making a Starbucks drink.
"App Craftsmanship Is Hidden Away"
Like I said before, you have ample opportunity to read the app description, check out app store rankings, read user reviews, and look at screenshots.
Screenshots and reviews are very, very limited channels of information.
Reviews can be gamed, even when they're not, the ratings provided are typically highly inflated or simply binary (people give very high, or very low ratings, few in the middle). While descriptions can be useful, in practice most are not ("works great", "does everything I wanted" -- doesn't tell me "... for what" or "... and that was ..."). Negative reviews are often more useful (they're generally specific as to faults), but even then, as apps change over time, it's not clear what reviews relate to the current state of your app (Starbucks generally doesn't radically change its coffee composition from week to week).
The best way for me to judge software is to use it. Often for a prolonged period of time.
Hate to continue the chain, but on the off-chance government organisations know more than they're letting on, we might need to extend that to "most humans". Though, in that case, it might have to be "thought by most humans"? Just speculating for the hell of it. e.g.,
Fixed: Earth is known by most humans as the only planet to have life.
The cost of this is a loss of jobs for sign makers (and their suppliers), marketing agencies, and a loss of income for new businesses (and their suppliers) that want to make their presence known. Basically, the economy in that city is worse off overall as a result, and there are fewer jobs to go around.
The goal is not to create any type of job. You want jobs to be useful and create value for people. Otherwise you end up doing absurd things like hiring window breakers to create more window repair work.
Increasing the amount of advertising redistributes value instead of creating new value. It's a classic example of a prisoner's dilemma. Everyone does better individually by advertising more, but when everyone advertises more they do worse.
From the perspective of society, money spent on advertising is almost entirely wasted. It could be better spent on other things, like making air travel cheaper.
I know advertising does have a useful purpose: a mechanism to inform people about things they didn't know. But the amount of advertising necessary to achieve that purpose is minimal. Creating laws that limit advertising to that minimal amount is a net benefit to society.
Not all government regulations are bad. The worst thing anyone can do in support of free markets is somehow insist that there should be no government regulations.
We have regulations on vehicle drive-by noise limits. Yes, this costs consumers and manufacturers. But overall, it is a net gain as it results in a quieter society, which is better. Visual pollution is just as bad as noise pollution.
It's a sensible move for people to adopt if they choose to do so.
I actually think it would be broadly neutral. A lot of value invested in advertising is actually wasted. So redistributing that back into the economy may turn out to be marginally beneficial. For every signwriter that had to get a new job, perhaps a magazine editor, online ad creator or telephone sales operator got a job. Or perhaps the companies that saved in constructing advertising changed to improving their products instead.
It will always be impossible to know. But don't argue that all government regulation is wrong.
All government regulation is bad because none of us has the moral right to dictate the behavior of strangers.
The aggregate gain in a quieter society that you describe is not an aggregate gain in happiness. It's a society in which we're silenced.
Advertising is a form of speech, and we should all support free speech in all forms, lest we find ourselves silenced.
Hacker News would be free of visual clutter if we all stop posting. If a government mandate forced us to stop, supporters may argue that it makes the world a cleaner place. Clutter-free as it might be, those supporters don't have the moral right to prevent us from speaking. That in essence is why all government regulation is bad.
Government regulation is not necessarily the dictating of behaviour to strangers.
Every collective has it's own rules which are mostly designed to facilitate better running of the collective. This is true from the couple, the family, the business, the church, right on up to the planet as a whole.
It is imperfect to assume that everyone will agree to get along and abide by the same rules. Therefore, you need a level of collective creation and agreeance of rules in order to try and optimise behaviours.
Once you decide that there needs to be rules, you've got to decide on who makes the rules. There are many choices, from outright dictatorship to various levels of democracy.
So in a sense, we surrender ourselves to certain rules in the understanding that we consider the cost to be greater than the benefit. This will always involve compromises - but in a truly free society freedom to stick up massive advertising hoardings conflicts with the freedom to walk down the street without having to see such things.
The middle road, the compromise, is a representative government whereby we agree to rules in the understanding that, if the rules aren't working out in the way we want, we collectively change the rulemakers.
Of course, in practice, there is plenty of evidence that this is problematic. For the most part, there is far too much government regulation over matters which the government has no part in agreeing to.
In the case of the advertising hoardings - well, presumably whomever enacted the ban would be free to be challenged in an election and the decision overturned if people felt the cost exceeded the benefit. In this case, I don't really think it's a case of violating free speech, as the advertisers are still free to speak in many forms, just that there are restrictions in a certain form.
But a dogmatic sticking to an approach where nobody has any say over anybody elses business just invites ridicule, just as communists and socialists of varying stripes invite their own ridicule with ridiculous 'property is theft' comments.
It's ironic that my anti-dogmatic stance (None of us has the right to dictate the behavior of strangers) came across as being dogmatic (Thou shalt not dictate the behavior of strangers).
Of course you're right that this is how the world works, from a Collectivist perspective. The Individualist perspective, which I tend towards, asserts that individual happiness is far more important than any attempt to "optimise behaviours".
There are many choices, from outright dictatorship to various levels of democracy.
Tyranny of the majority is not inherently preferable to the tyranny of a dictator. The other end of the scale is self-ownership, which is not widely practiced today.
At the end of the day, my giant sign isn't harming anyone, and no one's forced to look at it. Restricted speech in the name of "cleanliness" is not acceptable in my book, but from a Collectivist perspective I guess it's alright.
If that stance invites ridicule, I accept -- just as long as we all remain mutually respectful about letting each other voice our opinions -- and that includes businesses and politicians.
Yeah, I do, although I think most people would answer "No". Culturally, in the US at least, there's a distinct tendency toward Individualism in rural areas and Collectivism in urban areas. But the distinction is cultural, not inherent.
Poor aesthetics cause psychological harm through both distraction and pure ugliness. I shouldn't have to combat decades of scientific research on attention-stealing simply to maintain my train of thought as I walk down the street.
Unfortunately MVP is one of those terms like "pivot" that got out of control. An MVP is "the minimum viable product is that version of a new product which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort."
This is a great example of a launch page, not an MVP. It's not 'a version of a new product', it's marketing information about a proposed product.
One reason it's a good example of a launch page is that it tells you before you enter your address that the product isn't available yet. Many launch pages these days talk about the non-existent product, ask for your address, and only then tell you the product isn't available. They try to start a business by lying to their prospective customers. I'm glad to see that this one shows integrity by telling the truth about availability.
This is not "a version of a new product," it is a screenshot of a version of a new product and a call to action. There is no product to evaluate minimally. Since you like definitions:
viable: Capable of working successfully; feasible: "the proposed investment was economically viable".
A minimum viable product is a product that's capable of working successfully; in this case it's one that potential customers can interact with successfully. This is not a product. This is a "coming soon" page.