| > But people keep replying with factually inaccurate information and that's frustrating. What did I say that's factually inaccurate? > I'm reading a lot more emotion in this comment section than seems warranted for a tent. I'm sorry, what? I simply stated how much an elevated platform costs and you are reading a lot of emotion into that? Look at how much you just wrote that could have been summed up as > Do I personally think it's worth $2,975? No. Ok, so then why are you spending so much time and effort trying to sell this and justify the price tag? I agree, the market is irrational and the ultimate proof of this product's worth is if people will buy it. That, however, isn't a question you are I can answer at this time. The best we can do is come up with our best equivalent examples and subjective opinions "is this worth it". Which you and I both agree "no". > But I don't think the discussion is really about the appropriate cost for the Basecamp, which is what I'm really interested in. Does not seem like you care much about cost. Instead, I see a bunch of accusations in your response about the motives of people responding to you. Perhaps some self reflection is in order. |
> "people keep replying with factually inaccurate information"
If I was referring to you, I would have said so and quoted you directly.
> "this comment section"
Again, that's significantly broader than "your comment" - the comment section to this article looks a lot more like a Reddit thread than an HN thread, and that's not a compliment. Nor is it a direct commentary on your post.
I'm not trying to "sell this and justify the price tag." I'm really trying to understand the pricing dynamics and whether -- outside of emotion -- if reactions to the price are really justified.
Let me make a tech example. Someone says "I just got quoted $1m for an Oracle DB, is that fair?" and everyone replies, "that's BS, Postgres is free!"
That's not a nuanced discussion and may not be helpful. So if you really want to understand, you have to "push back" and ask questions. "What do other closed-source vendors charge, to get a direct comparison?" "Is Postgres really functionally equivalent?" "You define equivalency this way, but Oracle says it has these other differentiators. So are they really equivalent?" etc.
So when you compared it to a "bed tent" and I saw what looked like a fundamental difference between this and a bed tent, I pushed back. And my comment about 1st party costs goes back to my original question's premise, which is: is "rip off" justified in the context of 1st party aftermarket products like this?
Your comment wasn't necessarily emotionally charged (and again, I never said it was, I was talking about the dumpster fire of Elon hate the entire comment section turned into), but it didn't really answer the question in the context I was looking for either. Comparing the cost of a component off of Amazon to a custom fully-integrated product from the manufacturer shortly after product launch really doesn't seem like apples-to-apples.
No need to reply to this. I'm not looking for an argument, just trying to better explain the discussion I was looking for. I've already mostly satisfied my curiosity through various searches and a bit of further education.
I do remain a bit frustrated though that the OP didn't link the far better original source review instead of blogspam. I think it might have been a much better discussion. That's not frustration out of some loyalty to Tesla, it's because HN has some of the highest signal:noise ratios of the forums I read, and it's disappointing when it's manipulated into an emotional response. To be clear, that's in no way your fault and also not a reflection on your comment - just me explaining my "response about the motives of people responding to you."