Hacker News Reader

Comment by D13Fd | Hacker News Reader

His post relies on a false assumption that the new products are equivalent to the previous comparison products.

This falls apart quickly. On mattresses, for example, it's uncommon for queen-size mattresses with higher-end features (pocket springs, etc.) and quality to be in the price range he suggests. He makes no effort to find actual comparable products.

The post might as well say "Why do iPhones exist? I can buy a Boost Mobile Android phone for $116 from Walmart! Apple wants 5-10x as much!! This product will never succeed..."

View on HN

He picked bad examples by going with the dirt cheap Walmart-grade brands, but the general idea is valid. Closer comparisons would be what you find at Target.

Bombas are fine, but you're paying Darn Tough prices for Target quality.

I haven't tried Tommy John, but a similar player in that space is MeUndies. They're fine too, but you're paying Ex Officio prices for, you guessed it, Target quality.

MVMT watches? Literally $15 AliExpress watches for Seiko prices.

Made In cookware? On par with Costco's Kirkland stuff, but closer to the price of All-Clad.

Could spend half the day doing this. Ritual vitamins, Greats sneakers, Jack Erwin dress shoes, Burrow furniture, Native deodorant, Quip toothbrushes, Bevel razors, et al. Not even sex toys are immune thanks to Maude.

What separates these from legacy brands is just that: they're not legacy. They've got slick, responsive websites that used bold colors and geometric sans-serif fonts until around 2019 when they switched to soft pastels and didone fonts. They donate to a charitable cause with every purchase. They accept Apple Pay.

The market segment that this appeals to is the middle of the Venn diagram of millennial yuppies who: 1) consider themselves appreciative of premium, well-designed goods (i.e. not Hanes socks) 2) consider themselves too savvy to waste money on overpriced luxury goods (i.e. Pantherella socks) 3) aren't inclined to figure out which products actually have good price-to-quality ratios (e.g. Darn Tough socks)

So they default to the ones that have been marketed to them where they are, like via ads on tech podcasts and NYC subways (e.g. Bombas).

It reminds me of Premium Mediocre, as discussed here: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/08/17/the-premium-mediocre-l...

Ok I agree with this assessment.

These were bad examples as there are brands where there's true bang-for-buck improvement.

counterpoint "dirt cheap brand": I have Fruit of the Loom hoodies that hold up after 15 years, it's one of my favorite brands. But then again I have not bought them at Walmart or in the USA...

Seriously, what a bad post. It would be way more interesting if the author went out and bought all of these items and compared them side-by-side.

Yeah, no shit the Fruit of the Loom underwear is gonna be significantly cheaper. 170 year old company that makes low-quality, basic design, extremely mass-produced product is cheap. Wow, no way. Guess everyone should just only shop at Walmart from now on.

"But Tommy John offers a “quick draw” fly opening, which I guess is worth paying 10 times the price?"

Does this person compare everything he buys based on listed "specs"? Buy both underwear and compare how they feel on your body. It's not even a contest and it's not a secret that people are willing to pay significantly more money for things that are comfortable.

It’s a good idea to try things and make up your own mind, sure.

But a lot of folks who buy high-end stuff think they are being value-conscious when in reality they are just parroting the features and benefits copy the manufacturer or retailer gave them. I’ve worked specialty retail and did this for years.

Here’s a great example: a rain jacket for kids had a tag advertising that the special high-end fabric was “wind proof up to 60 mph.” At first you’re like, wow that is really wind proof. But if you think about it, who the hell is going to take their little kid out in 60mph wind?? It is pointless marketing copy.

Most higher-end-features are pointless, or overkill. My mattress does not have “pocket springs” and I sleep just fine. And how great does underwear need to be? For most people, not that great.

It comes down to perspective and how you value your money and your time.

For some consumers, for example, a 2x difference in price is a huge deal, and the time spent figuring out the best product at the best price is very well worth it.

For others, they'd rather pay 2x (or 5x, or 10x) the price to get a higher-grade product without having to spend time and effort shopping around and comparing things. They want a good product but their time is worth far more than their money, and buying the more expensive product is actually a way to buy back the time they would otherwise have spent in comparison shopping, doing a return of a bad product, etc.

For yet other people, they buy higher-end goods (especially clothing, cars, etc) because they want to show off. I don't really understand this compulsion but it's definitely a factor for some. In that case the more expensive brand is better in part because of the fact that it is more expensive.

It really depends on which market segment you are talking about.

There are high-end products like Gucci or Saint Laurent where you really aren't paying for much other than the brand. Sure, some of their products might have great quality, but it's so far down the spectrum of quality where returns have all but diminished.

You bring up rain jackets. I think that's a great example.

Any rain jacket that even mentions windspeed is gonna be some knockoff garbage. No self-respecting company would ever talk about that.

https://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-torrentshell-3l-rain-...

This is a good option for a rain jacket. Notice how none of the copy tries to sell you on any gimmicky features? The only "marketing" BS is their 3-layer H2No® tech. But that's just Patagonia's name for one of their waterproofing techs. It just makes it easier to differentiate which product of theirs uses which tech.

While that Patagonia jacket is a good option for most people, it has some drawbacks. The material is very stiff and heavy, the material feels terrible against your skin, it doesn't have much stretch so it limits mobility, and it has virtually no breathability.

https://www.rei.com/product/894312/patagonia-stretch-rainsha...

Whereas this jacket (retails for $200, so about $50 more) is better in that the material is much lighter, softer, and stretchy. It has about the same performance in regards to waterproofing and breathability, but the improvements in the comfort make it worth that extra $50 _for me_ every time.

Of course, if you spend even more, you can get almost everything you want out of a rain jacket. That's not to say that more expensive jackets are always better, that's definitely not the case. The question is what do I need out of a rain jacket? Once I determine that, I find the product for the lowest price that satisfies those needs. That second jacket fit my needs and I bought it after trying many other jackets.

If I'm embarking on a month-long hike in the mountains during a rainy season, I will probably spring for the best option since I'll be wearing it all day, every day and it can literally make or break your trip.

So you might think some of these features are pointless, or overkill. But that all depends on what your use is. Obviously buying a $600 Arc'teryx jacket for your kid to walk to school is overkill, but that's not even the price-point that the author is talking about. He's complaining about $16 socks.

Can you go to a mall and try on Tommy John underwear or bombas socks? Tommy John is selling on specs. $36 is a big price to just try out a pair of underwear to see if you like them.

You can go to rei and try on excellent socks from smart wool or darn tough that are equivalent

I don't think you can, but if you're uneasy about spending that much money on underwear, you don't have to. There are options that are 90% as good at half the price. It's like with most other products, there is a point of diminishing returns. If you really want the most comfy underwear, they are worth checking out.

Did the post make you so angry because you've invested a lot of your identity into the things you own?

The post made me irritated because of the smug sneer that seemed to be behind the words. It was as if this "phenomenon" is built solely on the ignorance of consumers who buy anything other than that cheapest option. No open-mindedness at all, and certainly no curiosity.

I would have loved this article to dig into the details about how these products compare, you know, the author actually putting in the work figuring out what differences there are of these products at different price-points.

If they went into detail about the financials of these companies and how they compare to the companies selling their cheap products in Walmart, that would be interesting.

Instead, it boils down to "I haven't tried these products, but I don't think they're worth it, they're probably all just sales and marketing" What a waste of server space.

I feel like the mindset the author has is how they perceive the world. Things are purely utilitarian. They only serve a basic purpose so why spend more for "underwear"

I had this mindset for a longtime, shirts are shirts, bacon is bacon. Why pay more when I can get the same thing at Walmart/Safeway on sale for hella cheap. Partly this came from growning up poor and also neurodivergent.

Getting older and having enough money to try the "expensive stuff" I realized that food and products have differences. The differences are subjective, so everyones experience will be different.

But the different experiences made me appreciate the care that some companies put into their products. (granted there are repacked huckster bullshit, but you find out real quick)

Later life motto: "Just try it and be objective about how it makes you feel"

The worst feeling for me is having to buy something twice, where the first time I buy something cheaper that I feel is going to be ok or good enough, and no it falls apart.

Yea I notice this a lot in software engineers, they seem to really struggle understanding and discerning the quality difference in commodities and often seem to jump to lowest cheapest grade. Then are baffled why anyone would buy anything else.

Why is this so common with engineers? Is it an optimization mindset? I would have thought engineers would be very aware of quality and discerning of it. But it turns out that’s mostly design.

Engineers like to spend time tinkering with things and some of them consequently devalue convenience.

For example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29043420

Very solid point.

Isn't the stereotype that every tech bro in silicon valley only wears lululemon? $50 t-shirts and $130 pants don't exactly scream lowest cheapest grade to me.

I guess my problem with lululemon is that it’s too low quality not so much price

Probably because we buy the expensive thing to compare and can't figure out what makes it different from the cheap thing.

Yes, I can stuff a sack with straw for $2 and call it a mattress, but it's not going to be as comfortable. Making a better product—for some measurement of better—often makes it more expensive.

Exactly. Let's say the Tommy John underwear last 3x longer and are 3x more comfortable than Fruit of the Loom. Suddenly, the 10x price difference makes perfect sense. Unlike this post, which is pure nonsense.

It’s probably exponential 3x quality might be 9x or 27x price but still it’s not like you can wear 3 pairs of underwear for extreme comfort

Reply on news.ycombinator.com