Ask HN: Are early adopters rich? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Are early adopters rich?

19 pointsphillian32 comments

The Lex Column in this weekend's Financial Time ran a small snippet about US Cable Companies, namely about how the phenomenon of "cord-cutters" is making investors uneasy (Comcast reports to have lost 119,000 in the 3Q alone).

One quote, in particular, struck me - "There are a few problems with the consumer-as-surgeon thesis, though. For a start, it relies on the early adopters of technology, who are generally rich..."

A proud cord-cutter since 2006, I am certainly not rich. And most of the people I know without cable aren't either; they are young, technologically savvy or forced-into-thrift via the recession.

Do you think early adopters are "rich"?

View on HN

I would personally say the opposite is true for me. When I was in college (and poor, living paycheck to paycheck), I would try every new thing. Mp3? What's that? Let me download some. This thing has some kinks? No problem, I'll figure it out and post my findings on a newsgroup.

But now, as my income has gone up and my free time has gone down, I find myself doing less early adopting, and waiting a bit longer till all the college kids work out the kinks for me. Sure, I'm still an early adopter in the grand scheme of things (I dropped cable a few years ago for torrents, for example), but I'm definitely picking things up later in their lifespans than I used to.

Same here, but it may be an age thing rather than a wealth thing. Both correlations exist.

A big part of this is that the value of your time has gone up. The poor college kids have little or no value attached to their time. As you start getting paid more, being an early adopter has a higher opportunity cost.

I don't have anything better than my own anecdotal impressions, but it seems to me that early adopters tend to be smart, rather than rich. That said, most people I've known who were smart and not rich were also young. Most people I've known who were smart and responsible eventually started to accumulate money. So, even if an early adopter isn't rich now, chances are they will get there in time.

That's a great observation. From my own experience I would agree- smart & young sometimes requires thrift; smart & thrifty can be ageless; thrifty and young sometimes requires making smart choices.

And, eventually, the product of smart choices and thrift by someone young can make them rich.

That said, no- I don't know a single early adopter who is independently wealthy (which fits my definition of 'rich').

I haven't had cable since the early 90s. I got frustrated at how annoying it was to set up service with them when I'd be paying $1000+ a year to them. So I gave up trying to make it easy for them to take my money and just never signed up up when I moved. I don't miss it, and I wish all the companies involved doom and gloom.

Same here; I think cable companies’ complacency in customer service issues isn’t receiving due consideration when discussing this “cord-cutting” trend.

When I purchased my house in 2008, I proceeded to call Comcast (intending to sign up for basic cable + Internet), set my iPhone on speakerphone, and paint the walls of my new rooms. After three nights of 30-45 minute waits with no answer, I gave up and purchased AT&T DSL.

Comcast's site mentioned self-installation, so I went out and bought a DOCSIS 3 modem that was on their supported list, plugged it in, and it told me via HTTP that it had a good signal. Then when I tried to sign up they explained to me that self-installation was not permitted for new users, and rather than just light it up, I would have to wait two weeks and stay home from work so some flunky could show up and "install" a simple device which I already knew to be working. Pissed me off so much I went with DSL, which was live via self-install a few days later.

Despite what you might hear if you make more than 60k USD a year you are fairly well off.

For the US take your salary divide by 50k and say "I make X times the average household income in the USA."

That may make you middle class, or even lower upper middle class if you want to stretch it, but i doubt you could be called rich on that salary.

It depends where you live. In San Francisco, 60K is just scarping by. In Topeka, you're doing pretty well.

At the time I was living in Philadelphia. A year prior I had been living in San Fran or a touch under 70k and barely making it.

In general, I would say that "early adopters" are not necessarily rich so much as flush with disposable income.

This is actually a weird case, because usually being an early adopter requires a financial outlay to purchase some product that provides some sort of superior service of some kind. In this case, we see people with the early adopter mindset but trying to save money who are instead giving up some convenient service (at least, cable with DVR is convenient) for a cheaper alternative that is now merely "good enough". Because I've done it, and while I'm slowly putting the pieces back together as the world catches up with me, I have definitely sacrificed some things. I'm not getting superior service here, I'm cobbling together bits and pieces.

Still, we are getting there. Sports was a big hole but I just watched $MY_COLLEGE_TEAM's last game of the year online in HD over the Internet. That's progress vs. even just three months ago. Cord cutting is getting easier and easier.

No. But they have fun!

An acquaintance bought one of the first Compaq computers. He paid $4000 for it. He kept it in his office and would tell people: "When that computer came out, had I instead bought $4000 of stock in Compaq, I would be much wealthier today. Instead I bought the computer, learned to program it and did OK."

Not really, but I would imagine they are generally male, with a college degree and extreme tech proficiency.

For what it's worth, I'm a female former English major.

(Who also happens to be learning how to code.)

Well I was right on one count.

I didn't think the gender divide would be so big (after all, nearly half the tech podcasts I follow are hosted by women), but of the first 12,000 people to take the Firefox Test Pilot survey, 97% identified as male!

I cut cable in 2003, restarted in 2007, cut again in late 2008.. but I fit that profile. Between Hulu and Netflix, I'm covered for everything except live sports. And since I'm not a sports guy and only watch with friends, I meet them at a bar.

Problem solved, $50+/month saved.

And when I cut the cable the last time, I asked them how much it'd cost to deactivate my cable modem. They immediately gave me a 33% discount.

> Problem solved, $50+/month saved.

Now that I think about it I spend a lot more than $50 at bars going out to watch live sports because I don't have cable.

I think there is some correlation between early adopters and how rich they are.

I would definitely buy more early products if I was rich just because I have the financial backing to withstand the risk that an early product has. E.g. I'm waiting to buy the iPad now in hopes of a better iPad version coming out soon. But if money was no issue, I would buy the iPad now and the new version when it comes out.

But of course, there are some people that would be early adopters despite not being rich. It's just that the statistics of how rich early adopters are would be skewed by the newly rich being more willing to take more risk and spend their money on untried products.

I don't think early adopters are necessarily rich. I think they set aside a portion of their income for early technology exploration in the same way some might for vacations or clothes.

I don't think cord-cutters qualify as early adopters anymore. With Hulu's paid offering and Netflix, cable is pretty much useless. At this point people who still have cable are mostly hidebound or sports aficionados.

Well, that and they have too many functional analog TVs. That's the only reason I haven't switched my parents off is that we'd need Boxee boxes or similar, and they haven't quite come down in price to the point where I'd rather not just buy a laptop and pretend it's a TV.

Sorting out the wealthy vs. non-wealthy is difficult. Way too many factors to consider. It's probably safer to say that early adopters are more willing to spend their money on technology/gadgets/service but it's not directly tied to income. If you can put aside maybe $2-3K/year you can be a prolific early adopter these days. It's confusing though in the context of cord-cutters because they're doing it to save money. Cable TV is just way too expensive.

Most college students I know these days who live in their own place (About 65% of the student population around here) don't have cable. This is because most are apt enough at using the Internet, that they can find all shows for free. Some use Hulu and the like, while others torrent, but maybe one in ten actually pay for cable.

You say are not rich, but you even though you like tech. you might not be an early adoptor either.

If you didn't have an iPhone or twitter account by 2007 or don't have accounts on lots of now failed startups from the day they got techcrunched, you're not an early adoptor.

I know I'm not particularly an early adoptor, most of my users are.

1. Early adopters of ideas is not the same as early adopters of gadgets & services

2. That said, some new gadgets & services are stand-ins for others which are more expensive or less accessible

3. Except for #1 and #2, Yes, early adopters are male white privilege

Cable free for the last year or so. I just could not keep paying 100$/mo+ on principal. Now it's just internet and netflix, obviously.

That was my experience. Even though I have the means now, the cost is not proportional to the service benefit for me.

Not really. But they surely want to save some money on their Cable.

I think it largely depends on the value proposition of the service.

you're wrong, they all rich! rich! richer than astronauts!!!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com