[krisgee]

Oh please. There's nothing legally wrong with it but you'd have to be pretty dense not to see the moral issue with labeling something in a way that would signal it as "high end" to consumers while it's actually just being marked up 100x over cost or more.

Is there anything legally wrong with it? No, caveat emptor but I think you have to be willfully ignoring the moral implication to not see the issue with essentially abusing someone's preconceptions.

[Karunamon]

"High-end-ness" can and does carry connotations of exclusivity, design, price signaling, and so forth, not just product quality. It doesn't stink of scumminess to me at all. There is no requirement, be it moral, legal, or whatever, that there be a tight correlation between manufacture cost and retail price.

Why did you launch into a "oh please" rant instead of directly answering GP's reasonable question? What precisely do you take issue with? You seem to have some mental model here, so let's talk about it.

[just-ok]

Sure, I'll bite. Even though I take issue with all of these as they're more-or-less a form of lying, these two stand out:

> selling goods with a high markup is scummy

> selling cheap goods with a high markup is scummy

The latter one especially takes the cake. When you resell a $2 item for $100, you imply that your contribution as a middle-man is worth $98. The other items on the list (which effectively amount to marketing tactics) essentially act as a way to convince (or, more accurately, take advantage of) consumers that your product is not actually worth $2.

Here's a great way to reformulate the morality of the matter in your mind: if you knew that all you were buying were $2 plastic sunglasses from China trussed up with European brand name to look high-end and high-quality, would you still be happy spending $100?

[labcomputer]

> (or, more accurately, take advantage of) consumers that your product is not actually worth $2.

Do you actually earnestly believe that most consumers think it costs a significant fraction of $100 to make a pair (any pair) of non-prescription sunglasses (manufactured anywhere in the world)? If so, that strikes me as incredibly naive.

What differentiates a pair of Ray-Ban Wayfarers (which I happen to like) from the $3 white label imports on AliExpress? Almost nothing, so far as I can tell, aside from branding and the design of the sunglasses.

And the design is entirely subjective--who are you to tell me that a pair of Wayfarers is not worth $150? For that matter, who are you to say that $100 is too much for a pair of re-branded white label sunglasses from AliExpress. And that's a two-way street: Who am I to tell you that $0 is too much for a pair of aviators?

> you imply that your contribution as a middle-man is worth $98.

Supposing I can connect a consumer with a product he likes and wants, why should it be impossible (or even improbable) for my contribution to be $98? Nothing is stopping him from shopping on Ali directly. Nothing is stopping Ali vendors from setting up a branded website in English. And, yet, there is the unmet desire that I would be fulfilling.

> Here's a great way to reformulate the morality of the matter in your mind: if you knew that all you were buying were $2 plastic sunglasses from China trussed up with European brand name to look high-end and high-quality, would you still be happy spending $100?

Let me answer your hypothetical with a real example: Generic prescription eyeglasses cost $15 on Zenni. I saw someone wearing a particular design I really like (different company, and the design probably costs 2x to make, but they are no longer available). I know they cost less than $30 to make, but I would be delighted to pay $300 for a pair of those glasses, even a pair of look-alikes.

[just-ok]

Sorry, I don't check HN often and it took me a while to formulate a worthwhile response.

It depends what you consider significant; regardless, it's a really good question. I think I'll actually ask people I know when I get the chance to see how much they think Wayfarers cost to make / are intrinsically worth. I hypothesize that few will say something under $10, but I could be wrong!

I get what you're saying in that the consumers dictate what something is worth, but that's a fundamental premise I have can't subscribe to: all you have to do as the seller is convince the consumer that it's worth more and poof! more profit. Is that ethical, or should the seller just take it upon themselves to behave responsibility and not have a 5000% margin? So yes, obviously fulfilling an unmet desire should be rewarded, but by 50x the cost of the actual thing you're selling? I just struggle to reconcile the value gap between the actual labor+physical good and the... virtual marketing.

Your Zenni example again ties into the above: you may be happy to pay that (and I probably would be too, if I liked them enough! thankfully we can afford it), but selling them to you for a 10x markup would be a dick move.

This is probably my fundamental thesis, on which we may have to agree to disagree: just because someone is willing to pay X for Y, doesn't suddenly make it okay to charge X for Y.